Questions for Oral Answer

4. to the Minister of Corrections: What results are being achieved from the Government’s commitment to reduce the level of drug use in our prisons?

I am very pleased to advise that the number of prisoners testing positive for drugs from random drug-testing has fallen to an all-time low. In 1998, when drug testing was introduced, 34 percent of randomly tested prisoners returned positive results. However, for the financial year to date, only 6 percent of prisoners have returned positive results. This drop is a direct result of legislation passed by this House, and of the vigilance of corrections staff. We have brought in new laws to increase the search powers of corrections officers, and to introduce new offences for contraband. We have also enabled the department to put in cellphone jamming and to monitor prisoners’ phone calls. As a result of all these measures we are now seeing some great results.

💬 Paul Quinn: What else is the Department of Corrections doing to address the drug and alcohol dependencies of prisoners?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: About two-thirds of prisoners enter jail in New Zealand with drug and alcohol problems, so stopping drugs entering prison is only one element of the department’s strategy. The Department of Corrections is also focused on helping prisoners to take ownership of their problems and break their dependency on alcohol and drugs. The department is doubling the number of prisoners who are able to receive drug and alcohol treatment to 1,000 by the end of this year. I have opened two new drug treatment units in Otago and Auckland, and a third unit will open in Whanganui Prison this year. This clearly demonstrates our commitment to rehabilitation.

Schools—Policies and Practices to Address Bullying

5. to the Minister of Education: What response has she had from schools to her letter to them asking that they check they have the appropriate policies and practices in place to deal with bullying?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: Schools have told the Minister that it was a timely reminder both about the support that is available for schools to deal with bullying behaviour and to check that their policies are being effective. One heated response has also been received. Surprisingly enough, this was from Labour’s candidate for Whangarei, who has featured on television, bullying other members of his profession.

💬 Sue Moroney: Is she aware that her ministry is requiring Parklands School in Motueka to re-enrol a student it had excluded for threatening to kill a teacher and physically harming other students, even though that school had used all of the appropriate measures available to it, including school-wide Positive Behaviour for Learning, initiated by her Government?

With the greatest respect, I do not think it is helpful for any of the children involved in this specific case that we talk about it in the House, but I can tell the House that officials have been asked to explore other options for this case.

💬 Sue Moroney: Why did she watch silently while schools like Morrinsville College were attacked by the media for their response to violent bullying, but then joined in when egged on by the Prime Minister by writing a letter that blamed schools, when she knew all along that those schools are at the mercy of her Ministry of Education and can be required to re-enrol students that they have excluded?

I utterly reject that characterisation of the Minister’s behaviour. I have to say that it is a bit rich to be lectured about bullying by Labour members. They should talk to Chris Carter and Judith Tizard. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is enough. Members should resist such provocative tones, but I do accept that the question was somewhat provocative, and therefore a provocative answer is not totally unreasonable.

💬 Jo Goodhew: How is the Government responding to the issue of bullying in schools?

The Government takes bullying extremely seriously. In addition to writing to boards we have also convened a meeting of sector representatives and relevant Government agencies to take a look at what we are doing and whether it has been effective. I have to say that this is in complete contrast to Labour’s approach, which when in Government was to produce, through Chris Carter—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for Labour’s approach.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Does she agree that bullying and homophobia, which have been identified as a major problem in schools, are also a problem in wider society, and that bullying and homophobia also take place in this Parliament?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister can be responsible for any of those things, he can comment on the question.

Yes, I do. I think we all have to work hard to provide leadership. I think here of Mr Damien O’Connor. I think here of the behaviour of the Labour caucus towards Judith Tizard and Chris Carter, and also of the fact that the caucus is ganging up on Phil Goff and bullying him all the time.

💬 Sue Moroney: To the Minister of Education—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. I cannot hear the member. We will have a little decorum, thank you.

💬 Sue Moroney: To the Minister of Education on issues that she is actually responsible for—what will she do to support Parklands School, its students, board of trustees, and the excluded student, given that today is Pink Shirt Day, when the Mental Health Foundation asks all New Zealanders to show they do not tolerate bullying?

I can assure the House that the ministry and the Minister will be providing all the support that is appropriate in this case. May I say that this is a lot more than Labour did, which was to produce this little flimsy pamphlet with a word finder in it all about bullying.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That question did not deserve that kind of conclusion to the answer.

💬 Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a letter dated 11 April from the office of the Hon Anne Tolley written to school principals and telling them to get their house in order around the issue of bullying.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it clear to the House that Labour has a spare supplementary question and if Heather Roy wishes to take it we will be happy—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order. It has had a bit of fun over this question, but it will now come to order. That is not the way supplementary questions can be reallocated. The Speaker should be advised of them, and the time of the House should not be taken up in that manner.

I seek leave of the House to table this Labour Government policy and pamphlet on bullying in our schools with the word finder and the puzzle.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Did I hear objection? No, I heard no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Petroleum Exploration—Permits

6. to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: Has the Government granted any other permits for exploratory oil drilling in waters as deep as the Petrobras permit in the Raukūmara Basin allows; if so, when?

on behalf of the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: It is difficult to give a yes or no answer to that question because the Petrobras permit in the Raukūmara basin covers water depths from a range of 250 to 2,500 metres. However, a number of permits have been granted to similar depths. In 2005-06 two petroleum exploration permits in the Canterbury Basin were granted, parts of which cover water depths of 1,000 to 2,000 metres. In 2006 a permit was granted in deep-water Taranaki Basin covering depths from approximately 500 to 1,700 metres. In 2007 three petroleum exploration permits in the Great South Basin were granted covering depths from 500 metres to 1,700 metres. These were, of course, all granted by the previous Government, which the member’s party supported.

💬 David Clendon: Can the Minister confirm that the depth of the Raukūmara basin is between 2,000 and 3,000 metres, and therefore Petrobras’ exploratory well would be up to 20 times deeper than the average offshore well in the Taranaki Basin?

I can confirm that the Raukūmara basin covers depths up to 3,000 metres but, as I said in the answer to the primary question, the permit covers areas of water depth ranging from 250 to 2,500 metres.

💬 David Clendon: Given that the average well in Taranaki is some 150 metres deep, and the deepest are 330 metres, what additional safety measures does the Minister think appropriate for Petrobras to safely drill at a depth between 2,000 and 3,000 metres?

Although that may be true, I point out again that, as I said in answering the primary question, a number of exploration permits were granted to greater depths by the previous Government. Of course, Maritime New Zealand administers the Maritime Transport Act in respect of safety and marine protection standards and rules, and emergency maritime and marine protection rules apply. Operators must have the appropriate approvals from Maritime New Zealand before they drill exploratory wells.

💬 David Clendon: Does the Minister know that the catastrophic oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico occurred in an exploratory oil well at a depth of around 1,500 metres, roughly half the depth of the Raukūmura basin?

Yes. Of course, just because that happened to one oil well does not mean that it will happen to all. Again I point out that the previous Government also issued permits for depths of those sorts of ranges through the Great South Basin, the deep-water Taranaki Basin, and the Canterbury Basin. That Government was one that was supported by the Green Party.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will permit Petrobras to drill its exploratory well, and will not bow to the demands of a few protesters as it did over schedule 4?

The Government confirms both the rights of the permit-holders to complete the requirements of their permit and of the protesters to protest. Both of those rights are important. I point out that the process requires that the 2-D and 3-D work be done, then Petrobras will have to fulfil the regulatory requirements before drilling an exploratory well.

💬 David Clendon: Will the Government require a substantial bond from Petrobras as insurance against the possibility of a catastrophic oil leak costing taxpayers billions of dollars?

A number of requirements are placed on operators before they can drill exploratory wells under the Maritime Transport Act, and Maritime New Zealand will ensure those are met.

💬 David Clendon: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are entirely aware of the maritime safety requirements on these matters. The question asked whether the Government would require a financial bond.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a fair point. The question was very specific. It asked whether the Government would require a bond prior to Petrobras being able to drill its exploratory well, and the Minister, in so far as he is able to, should answer that.

We would look to consider that option at the time. A number of areas of work are going on currently in terms of what is permitted in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone and expanded continental shelf, and the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources, the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister of Transport will be involved in them.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: When will this Government show a sense of urgency about jobs in the minerals and oil exploration sectors so that we can see the sort of progress that is being enjoyed in Canada, where in Alberta the unemployment rate has tumbled, 70,000 jobs were created last year alone, and oil-sands companies are scrambling to hire increasingly scarce skilled labour?

The member makes a very fair point. Energy exploration is a very strong export earner, not only for Alberta but also here in New Zealand. Here in New Zealand last year it brought in $2.1 billion in revenue, and directly and indirectly employed over 7,000 people. So the member makes a fair point, but the Government will also want to focus all the way through on making sure that the required environmental safeguards are in place, and I am sure that is what New Zealanders will want to see.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: I seek leave of the House to table an extract from yesterday’s Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, discussing the growth in the oil exploration sector in Alberta, where over 70,000 jobs were created last year.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 David Clendon: Will the Government require Petrobras to have readily available an additional deep-water rig capable of drilling a relief well once exploratory drilling starts; if not, why not?

Those matters would be addressed at the time. I point out that the Marine Pollution Response Service consists of a number of internationally respected experts, some of whom were involved in the spill management over in Florida, and they manage a team of around 400 local government and Maritime New Zealand responders. We have equipment in stores strategically located around New Zealand, but probably the key point for the member is that the plan is regularly evaluated and re-evaluated to ensure that it meets changing risk profiles. Should the pattern of oil exploration or production change, Maritime New Zealand would look to ensure that the appropriate equipment is available to respond to that change.

💬 David Clendon: Does the Minister agree with Petrobras’ head of New Zealand operations, Mr Marco Toledo, who said: “Guarantee (of safety) is not a word that exists in our industry.”?

I do not feel that I should respond to a quote as short as that, because I have no idea of the context in which it was given.

💬 David Clendon: Can the Minister name any environmentally or economically catastrophic event that has resulted from accidents involving wind, solar, or geothermal electricity generators?

Not off the top of my head, but I am sure that there have been times when wind generation and solar generation have had their risks.

Children, Protection—Priority and Community Support

7. to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree that the protection of children must remain our greatest priority as a society and the State has a critical role in investing in communities to help them to ensure the health and well-being of their own?

Yes, I agree with the statement that I made to the House in 2007 when I was speaking as the Māori Party co-leader. However, I must also inform the House that the important part of the statement, which the member has inadvertently left out, is “For ultimately it is the whānau, hapū, and iwi; it is āinga; and it is family that hold the key to the successful outcomes …”.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Was she aware that cutting the family violence education fund has led to a total withdrawal of funding for the Girls’ Self Defence Project?

💬 Hon TARIANA TURIA: That is not correct. In fact, $2.8 million has been left for those organisations to apply for under the innovations fund.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Is she aware that her ministry has sent a letter to the Girls’ Self Defence Project telling them that their entire $377,000 budget has been cut, and their project, which over the past 15 years has taught self-defence to 77,000 vulnerable girls and increased the rate of sexual abuse disclosure, will no longer exist?

💬 Hon TARIANA TURIA: As I said in my previous answer, they are able to apply for the $2.8 million that is being put into that pool.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Will she reconsider her funding cut in light of strong protest by school principals, one of whom noted: “Each time it has been delivered, the girls’ self-defence programme has given at least one of the girls the courage to speak out about an inappropriate and, in a number of instances, unlawful act that involves them. I truly believe that if a programme like this is cut, there will be girls who don’t find the confidence to speak out about abuse that they are having to endure.”?

💬 Hon TARIANA TURIA: I repeat that the funding cut is not to the degree that that member is implying in the House. In fact, there is $2.8 million in an innovations fund that they can apply for.

💬 Carol Beaumont: Does she believe that a programme costing $50 per participant that gives girls greater skills to defend themselves from harm and has enabled many girls to speak out about inappropriate and unlawful acts is a cost-effective use of taxpayer money?

💬 Hon TARIANA TURIA: I do agree with that, and they are able to continue to apply under the innovations fund that has been put in place.

💬 Rahui Katene: Does she believe that the announcements she made on 1 April 2011 regarding family violence will strengthen the well-being of communities?

💬 Hon TARIANA TURIA: We have made significant investments over the past 4 years in activities creating social change around attitudes and behaviours towards family violence. This has resulted in people being more willing to report and address family violence issues, which has increased demand for the services. We now know there is a need to make sure that adequate, good-quality service responses are available, particularly in communities of greatest need, to get families safe, restore family well-being, and provide ongoing support to prevent violence from reoccurring.

💬 Carol Beaumont: Does the Minister consider a course where over 30 percent of the participants are Māori, and evaluation results showing over 90 percent of the girls felt stronger, more confident, found new ways to deal with unsafe situations, and felt they can talk to safe people to be a programme that works and is therefore a priority?

💬 Hon TARIANA TURIA: As I said, we have had 4 years of raising awareness in communities amongst all groupings, and now we want to see money going to front-line services where it can make a difference, because there has not been a decrease in family violence, despite all of the awareness-raising.

💬 Carol Beaumont: Does the Minister accept that as 53 percent of women using Rape Crisis services report having been sexually abused under the age of 12, a programme focusing on girls is a useful, preventive measure enabling girls to avoid, or report, such sexual abuse?

💬 Hon TARIANA TURIA: Any family violence of any nature is not acceptable to any member. We have people who are dying each year as a result of family violence, and we want to address that.

💬 Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a simple question and I do not believe that it was answered. I asked the Minister to convey whether she accepted that given the number of women presenting to Rape Crisis as having been sexually abused under the age of 12, was a programme focusing on girls a useful preventive measure in that circumstance. I do not believe that it was answered.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will recollect that in trying to repeat her question she had trouble with the introductory words. The reason why she had trouble with the introductory words is that they sought an opinion. They asked whether the Minister agreed with something. When members ask a Minister whether they agree, there is no particular answer to that. The Minister expressed her view around that issue, and that is the difficulty with that kind of question. Where an opinion is sought, it is very difficult for the Speaker to ask Ministers to be more precise on that.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister tell the House whether she believes that the Girls’ Self Defence Project will be successful in applying for the family-centred services fund, when it explicitly states that that fund will focus on families rather than front-line services delivered through schools?

💬 Hon TARIANA TURIA: The question is hypothetical. I am not responsible for who gets funding from the ministry.

Farms, Biosecurity Management—Launch of FarmsOnLine

8. to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcement has he made on improving New Zealand’s biosecurity protection?

Yesterday I was pleased to launch FarmsOnLine, which is New Zealand’s first comprehensive database of rural properties for use in biosecurity responses. The $8.4 million of funding allocated to develop FarmsOnLine demonstrates the Government’s serious commitment to biosecurity readiness. This initiative will significantly improve the ability of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to rapidly respond to a biosecurity emergency. The Waiheke foot-and-mouth scare clearly demonstrated the need for this type of information to be quickly available. FarmsOnLine now delivers that need. [Interruption]

💬 Shane Ardern: What is the role of FarmsOnLine? Listen up, I say to Mr Jones.

💬 Hon DAVID CARTER: FarmsOnLine for the first time gives the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry a comprehensive online database of rural properties, enabling instant access to information such as farm location, ownership, and land use. I encourage all farmers and lifestyle block owners to go online to see what additional information they can provide to the database. The more information the ministry has, the better it will be able to respond to a biosecurity incursion.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: How can the public or the pork industry have any confidence in the Minister’s management of biosecurity threats when his ministry has decided to allow imports of uncooked pig meat from countries where the pig disease porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome is endemic, even though the industry has produced a rigorous, scientifically based risk assessment that contradicts the ministry’s decision that any risk is low?

💬 Hon DAVID CARTER: The issue referred to by the member is a decision made by the director-general. In making the decision, I understand, it was his opinion that the level of risk was so low that an import ban could not be justified on scientific grounds. My office has informed me that a judicial review is very likely on this matter. I therefore do not think it is appropriate for me to comment further.

Freshwater Management—New Allocations and Water Quality

9. to the Minister for the Environment: What is he doing to stop new water allocations increasing what he acknowledges are already serious issues with water quality in some parts of the country, given that, on receiving the final Land and Water Forum report, which advocates for tougher rules to improve fresh water quality, he said this “will take … realistically several years to implement”?

on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: The Government has been clear that it wished the Land and Water Forum to complete its work before any decisions were made. A report was received from the Land and Water Forum last week, following its extensive public consultation process, and officials are now working through the 53 recommendations. I can confirm that it is the Government’s hope to proceed with a national policy statement on fresh water, which will require local authorities to consider limiting water takes and discharges as appropriate.

💬 Brendon Burns: Is it acceptable that many New Zealanders will face further deterioration in drinking and swimming water quality due to further water allocations made under the currently lax rules, when he sat on the draft national policy statement on fresh water for nearly 2½ years and now says improvements are several years away?

This Government picked up a problem that was not addressed by the previous Labour Government for approximately a decade. The previous Labour Government established the Sustainable Water Programme of Action, which its own, non-political officials came to call the “Sustainable Water Programme of Inaction”. This Government will make progress; the Labour Government did not.

💬 Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the draft national policy statement on water quality that was produced under the governance of the previous Labour Government, and that the National Government has sat on for 2½ years.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Brendon Burns: Does the Minister agree with Graeme Sutton, the chair of Irrigation New Zealand, who commented on the Land and Water Forum’s report, saying that water quality in Canterbury is good, except for Lake Ellesmere?

I admire the work done by Graeme Sutton as a member of the Land and Water Forum. What this Government has established is a collaborative process for sorting out these difficult issues. It is a process that we will give time to, having established goodwill between those stakeholders.

💬 Brendon Burns: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest that the Minister was asked a specific question about comments from a gentleman, and he did not respond to that question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will let the member repeat his question, because, I have to confess, I did not get the gist of it.

💬 Brendon Burns: Does the Minister agree with Graeme Sutton, the chair of Irrigation New Zealand, who commented on the Land and Water Forum’s report, saying that water quality in Canterbury is good, except for Lake Ellesmere?

I would have to see the context in which Mr Sutton made those comments. I do respect the work that Mr Sutton has done as a member of the Land and Water Forum. This Government intends to take a collaborative approach and finally make decisions. That is far more than the previous Labour Government did over 9 years.

💬 Brendon Burns: Will the doubling of production at Synlait’s milk plant at Dunsandel and the building of a new Fonterra plant at Darfield improve the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams in the Canterbury region before new controls on water quality are introduced in several years?

The answer to that will depend on the initiatives and the final decisions made by the Government after considering the 53 recommendations of the Land and Water Forum.

💬 Brendon Burns: Can we expect legislation giving effect to the Land and Water Forum’s recommendations to be before the House before the election, 3 years after the Minister assumed office vowing to improve water quality?

The member will have to wait until Cabinet makes decisions.

Welfare Dependency—Benefits of Work

10. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why does this Government believe it better for people to be in work instead of on welfare?

We know that for many medical conditions, being in work is the best way to get well. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians has found that working is good for health, and being out of work is detrimental to health. The longer someone is off work, the less likely they are to return. Good work can contribute to recovery from accident or illness. Of course, a small group will never be able to work and should be supported, but we believe that it is time to stop assuming people are incapable of work, and look at what they can do, instead.

💬 Todd McClay: How are children better off in working households?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: The research is clear. We know that outcomes for children are greatly improved. When we compare two families on low incomes, the family that gets its income from a benefit has lower living standards and is more likely to be in poverty than a family that gets a similar level of income but from employment. Paid employment is the best way out of poverty. It increases self-esteem, provides financial independence, and positively impacts on children.

💬 Todd McClay: Has the Minister seen any recent public statements on the importance of work?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. I have seen reports from the Labor Prime Minister in Australia, Julia Gillard, who in a speech last night called “The Dignity of Work” said: “every Australian should pull his or her own weight.”, and that “It’s not fair for taxpayers to pay for someone who can support themselves.” It is a shame that her colleagues on this side of the Tasman, and that side of the House, are still trapped in an ideological wasteland and believe that they should just throw people—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I could not hear you, in fairness.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister’s plea for the reason why she did not sit down when I got to my feet was that she could not hear me with all the noise going on. I thought I was sufficiently in front of the Minister’s face to be seen pretty easily. When Ministers are asked questions like that by their own members, I take a dim view of their using them to attack the other side of the House the way the Minister did. To me, that is not on.

Accident Compensation, Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway—Fairness of Treatment

11. to the Minister for ACC: Is he confident that victims and survivors of sexual abuse are getting fair treatment from ACC?

on behalf of the Minister for ACC: I am advised that since introducing the 16 hours of support sessions recommended by the independent review of the clinical pathway, there has been a good uptake of these sessions, and ACC has made positive gains in this area. ACC has also engaged Dr Barbara Disley, who chaired the initial review, to perform a 6-month progress report on ACC’s implementation of the recommendations, and that report is expected shortly. The Minister is confident that this progress review will confirm that ACC has made positive gains.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Does he think fair treatment includes a senior medical adviser at ACC, Dr Peter Jansen, suing an ACC claimant, a victim of sexual abuse, for $250,000 for speaking her mind on a blog about the appalling treatment of sexual abuse victims under his watch?

I would say the Minister for ACC is very concerned about the victims of sexual abuse, and he goes to great lengths to see that ACC handles them sympathetically and fairly at all times. If the member has some information that she would like me to raise with the Minister, I would be more than willing to do that.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Will he investigate how Dr Peter Jansen accessed private information about a victim of sexual abuse and used it to initiate legal action?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If this is a matter where legal action has been initiated, I think we need to be fairly careful about that. I do not believe I should allow that question.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the matter is relatively simple as to whether the matter is before the court. If it is not before the court, it is my understanding that it has been the practice of the House for a question to be allowed on an issue. If it is before the court, I think the practice has been developing, at least, of your being consulted before the matter is brought up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That seems to be a reasonable argument. I will allow the Minister to answer.

I know the Hon Nick Smith is always concerned about the victims of sexual abuse. If the member has information that she would like to bring to me on that case, I am sure the Minister will deal with it. It is completely unacceptable if ACC staff have not been dealing with the victims of sexual abuse in a sympathetic and professional way.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Does he think it is fair treatment for a senior adviser at ACC not to have the resourcing to provide counselling to a victim of sexual abuse, but to have the resources to sue her for a quarter of a million dollars?

I have no information about who is funding any of the suggestions that the member opposite is making in respect of legal action. I do know the Minister is very concerned to make sure that all victims of sexual abuse are dealt with sympathetically and professionally by the ACC.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister think it is fair treatment for ACC claimants to be subjected to that type of legal action by ACC employees, and can other ACC complainants expect the same “fair” treatment if they dare to speak out?

I invite the member to immediately bring the information and concerns that she has to the Minister’s attention. The Minister is always concerned to make sure that the victims of sexual abuse are dealt with sympathetically and professionally by the ACC. If she can show that that is not the case, I am sure the Minister will seek to take action.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table a letter from the legal representation for Dr Peter Jansen to the sexual abuse victim accused by Dr Jansen of defamation, dated 12 April 2011.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Did I hear objection? There is objection.

Rugby World Cup—2011 Festival Lottery Fund Grants

12. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: How many community events have received funding through the New Zealand 2011 Festival Lottery Fund committee?

I am very pleased that 175 public events have won a share of the $9.48 million in funding from the New Zealand 2011 Festival Lottery Fund. This money will help communities and regions get involved in the spirit of the Rugby World Cup tournament, and showcase the best of New Zealand to the world. It includes concerts, festivals, exhibitions, and sports competitions right across the whole country. I am particularly pleased that we have 16 successful applications from Canterbury, and 15 national projects involving that region.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Does that allocation mean less money for other lottery committees?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: No, it does not. New Zealand Lotteries has budgeted to raise $155 million for the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board this year, which will be used for the benefit of the whole New Zealand community. Our advice is that it will still be able to achieve that target. On top of that, I am very pleased that we were able to raise $8.2 million for the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal through a special lotteries draw, again without affecting the allocation to other committees.