Questions And Answers - 15 February 2006
18 February 2006 Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 15February 2006
Questions toMinisters
Nuclear-free Policy—Reports
1. DIANNE YATES(Labour) to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control:Has he received any reports on possible changes to NewZealand s nuclear-free policy?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister forDisarmament and Arms Control): I have seen reports on thedebate during the election campaign on whether New Zealand snuclear-free policy should be abandoned, but the latestreport that I have read is dated last Wednesday and wasfiled in Taupô. It suggested that the election policy ofholding a referendum on the entry of nuclear ships to NewZealand promoted by National would be dropped by that party,and that the party would instead adopt Labour s policy. Thereport said that this move was led by Mr McCully and was anadmission by National that its stance in the last electionwas—and I quote from the report—"confused and turned offpotential voters".
Dianne Yates: Subsequent to thatreport, has the Minister received any other reports on theissue; if so, what further information is disclosed by thosereports?
Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, I have received furtherreports. Sadly, they disclose that Mr McCully s views onthis issue were not unanimously supported by his colleaguesand that his benchmate Dr Lockwood Smith, for example, hasapparently threatened to resign from Parliament if thepolicy was changed. It would seem that splits and divisionswithin the National Party on this issue will preventNational ever having a coherent and credible stand on it,and that New Zealand s nuclear-free status would, therefore,still be under threat from any future National Government.[Interruption] Let Dr Smith deny it.
Dianne Yates: If thefirst report referred to by the Minister today is correct,would he not welcome the fact that this would represent nearunanimity in the House in support of New Zealand remainingnuclear-free?
Hon PHIL GOFF: With the exception of the ACTparty, that is right. I very much welcome that, butregrettably there is a credibility problem. At the time whenNational s policy was still actually in favour of anuclear-free New Zealand in public, Dr Brash and Dr LockwoodSmith were promising privately that the policy would be goneby lunchtime. I have to say that there have been so manyreversals and flip-flops in National s policy that nothingthey say on this issue now will actually have any publiccredibility.
Hon Murray McCully: I ask the Ministerwhether he shares the view expressed publicly by hiscolleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs that New Zealandwould benefit from an improved relationship with the UnitedStates; if so, why is he yet again playing cheap politicalgains rather than focusing on the advancement of NewZealand s interests in a bipartisan way in an improvedrelationship with the most powerful country in theworld?
Hon PHIL GOFF: The only thing cheap about thisissue was the cheapness of the National Party, which saidone thing in public and another thing privately to visitingcongressmen. That was cheap, that was deceitful, and theNational Party now recognises the huge damage that it hasdone to itself, leastwise the member does. I give him creditfor that but sadly his benchmate and a number of others onthose benches have a totally different view, but I wish himwell in trying to persuade his colleagues to his point ofview.
Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, MadamSpeaker. I would like you to consider whether theproceedings under this question would have gone morespeedily and with more clarification if we had a morerelaxed dress standard in this House and Dr Brash and MrMcCully had been able to wear the T-shirts I presented tothem in the House yesterday, and possibly Dr Lockwood Smith,too.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. Would he please beseated. The member has made his point. We will now return toquestions.
Hon PHIL GOFF: I seek the leave of the House totable this report, which states that National is consideringtotally aligning its anti-nuclear policy with Labour,admitting that the party stance on the issue was confusedand turned off potential voters.
Leave granted.
KeithLocke: I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of theT-shirt I presented to Dr Brash and Mr McCully. I think Igave them an XL size but this would fit Mr Tisch—it is asmaller size.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table oneor many T-shirts. Is there any objection? There isobjection.
Prime Minister—Accountability
2. Dr DON BRASH(Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does shestand by her statement that "A functioning society whichprovides its citizens with liberty and dignity needs to bebuilt on the values of political accountability,"; if so,does she believe that she has been fully accountable to theNew Zealand public?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister):Yes and yes.
Dr Don Brash: Is she accountable for thepledge card that carries her photo, her signature, and hercommitments; if so, will she now pay back the money she tookfrom the public purse to pay for it?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Iam accountable for every pledge on that card, all of whichwill be fulfilled, just as the last two cards have had allthe pledges fulfilled.
Hon Phil Goff: Is the PrimeMinister familiar with this pamphlet headed What NationalStands For, which has the parliamentary crest on the back,suggesting that it was paid for by the Parliamentary ServiceCommission, and which does exactly what the pledge carddoes—say what National stands for, and indirectly,therefore, encourage people to vote National?
Rt Hon HELENCLARK: I am indeed aware of that leaflet. I am also aware ofa statement made by the Leader of the Opposition thismorning in which he absolutely denied that any brochurespaid for from the public purse were put out by the NationalParty in the election campaign. I would really like him toexplain why that leaflet was in this National Party packagethat was freely handed out throughout the country by theNational Party during the campaign—that very sameleaflet.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does she have any reportssuggesting that we model our society on the values of theNational Party—that is the National Party s idea ofpolitical accountability—values which allow it to rack upover $100,000 in unauthorised election advertising, valueswhich had its leader initially denying any knowledge of thework of the Exclusive Brethren church despite hissubsequently admitting knowledge of its half-million dollarcampaign on behalf of the National Party; if so, what dothose reports say? Sorry, Rodney!
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I amadvised that when a complaint went from the Labour Partyabout the Exclusive Brethren s advertising not beingattributed to the National Party, that party s response tothe Chief Electoral Officer was that because it had notknown anything about them or authorised them, they could notbe attributed. That, of course, runs directly contrary to DrDon Brash s final admission, when he was forced to admitthat he knew about it, that he not only agreed with thebrethren that the leaflets were a good idea but further saidthey were tremendous, and encouraged the church to printthem. I say that is attributable expenditure, and that theExclusive Brethren s expenditure, which is known to havebeen in the region of half a million to a million dollars,should have been attributable to the National Party.
RtHon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.It is early in the year, but we surely do not mean to go onwith that braying series of antics from National Partymembers, which rose to a crescendo during that answer. Theysimply should not be allowed to get away with bellowing outlike that, just because they do not like the informationthey are getting.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member forhis comment. I have noticed there has been a lot ofbellowing in this House in the short time that it has beenin session, and in future there has to be order in thisHouse. Members have a right to be heard, whoever they are.
Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister have the slightestevidence at all that the Exclusive Brethren paid one dime tothe National Party s campaign, and has she seen anypamphlets issued by the Exclusive Brethren that suggest thatvoters should vote for the National Party?
Rt Hon HELENCLARK: Those are coming in from all over the country, but Idraw the member s attention to one I have in my hand, wherethe leaflet—part of a campaign, and agreed to by the leaderof the National Party—states: "It is urgent that the currentLabour Government is changed." That is why it should beattributable.
Dr Don Brash: Why, when the Prime Ministerknew that the Auditor-General had forced the Government toreduce its Working for Families ad campaign, had undertakena major review of spending from the leader s budget, and hadtaken the unusual step of asking the Prime Minister to meetwith him to discuss that report, did she then embark uponspending $440,000 of taxpayers money on Labour s electioncampaign, in flagrant breach of the Auditor-General srecommendations?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is worth pointingout that the Auditor-General took the unusual step ofwanting to discuss a draft report with only twoparties—Labour and National. Labour believed that that wasinappropriate, and that the draft report should come out forall parties. If the member is as pure as driven snow, as helikes to pretend, why was Katherine Rich s spokespersoncirculating letters just before the election on National spolicy on tax and superannuation? I put it to you, MadamSpeaker, that the reason was that the parliamentary rule hasalways stated that that money is to promote policies, andthat is what all parties have done.
Gerry Brownlee: Iraise a point of order, Madam Speaker. While the PrimeMinister is in the mode of pointing fingers, perhaps shemight like to explain where David Benson-Pope managed to getall the addresses of State house tenants in order that theymight receive Labour Party propaganda during the electioncampaign.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point oforder.
National Certificate of EducationalAchievement—2005 Examinations
3. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) tothe Minister of Education: What reports has he receivedconcerning the 2005 NCEA exams?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY(Minister of Education): I have seen and heard many reportsthat show that the 2005 exams have gone very well indeed.The results for all 335 externally assessed standards weremonitored daily, throughout the marking of the nearly 2million papers. More than 144,000 secondary school studentshave now received their National Certificate of EducationalAchievement (NCEA) results. All of those students can haveconfidence that the results accurately reflect theirperformance in their exams.
Moana Mackey: What criticismhas he seen of the 2005 NCEA exams?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Ihave not seen much criticism of the NCEA, but I have heardcriticism from one particular source. That source, ofcourse, is Bill English. Despite the evidence, publicopinion, and support from the sector, he has continued totry to lead the anti-NCEA parade. Believe me, it is a verysmall parade these days. I think people s opinions weresummed up by the Christchurch principal Denis Pyatt ofPapanui High School, who stated in the Press on 18 January:"I am finding Bill English s constant attempts to underminethe NCEA tiresome in the extreme. He needs to get over it."
Hon Bill English: Does the Minister intend to investigateallegations made, in these emails among others, that markerswere told to go back over the Not Achieveds and see whetherthey could push them up to Achieveds, and other allegationsthat led one marker to say: "Professionally, I am appalledat the standard of work I am forced to give an Achievedgrade to."; and if he is not going to investigate them, canhe tell us why he will not investigate allegations frommarkers that turned up spontaneously because of theirprofessional concerns?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I understandthat Karen Sewell has investigated every complaint that hasbeen made. In fact, during a press conference she wentthrough every single one of them with the journalists. Shewas hampered a little, however, by the fact that the twoemails Mr English has been touting about have no names, anddespite repeated requests for those two people to ring KarenSewell with no repercussions—she would just fix theproblem—they have refused to do exactly that.
MoanaMackey: What endorsements has he seen of the 2005 NCEAexams?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have a large number of them,but let me give just four. Debbie Te Whaiti from the PostPrimary Teachers Association said that the New ZealandQualifications Authority should be congratulated. KeeganBartlett, a student from Wellington, said: "In my opinionNCEA is a successful, flexible, and quality system ofassessment." Bali Haque, the principal of Pakuranga College,said: "Fundamentally, it is a superior system, andphilosophically it s in the right place.", and in the lightof Mr English s comments the president of the New ZealandPrincipals Federation, Pat Newman, said that Bill Englishneeded to "step back and think about what he is doing." Itis time to step back, Bill.
Hon Bill English: Does theMinister not understand that he is going down the same trackas the previous two education Ministers, who lost theirjobs, every time he defends the NCEA in principle butrefuses to get to grips with individual issues; and does henot understand that teachers need to be told how and whyscaling was reintroduced this year, and that if he cannotexplain it, that will further undermine public confidence inthe NCEA and himself?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not sharelosing a job with them, as the member who raises thatquestion does. What I can say is that Karen Sewell hasopenly and transparently dealt with every problem, small orbig, that has been raised, and I have encouraged her to dothat every step of the way. This is not scaling, and if themember wants a seminar on that I am sure the New ZealandQualifications Authority will provide him with one.
HonBill English: Would the Minister be happy for me to inviteas many teachers as want to come along to the seminar onscaling in the National Certificate of EducationalAchievement, because many of them would be interested toknow just how it has been applied; and can he confirm thathe has now refused to investigate allegations that scalingwas applied in an informal way to many exams not on hisre-marking list?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I would be delightedto meet with the teachers that the member may like to gettogether. I imagine it will take him a fair while to getthem, and they may not want their names known, etc. But lethim give it a whirl, and I will come along and meet withthem. I say once again that Karen Sewell has openly andtransparently dealt with every single issue. In a pressconference she literally went through the issues one by onewith the journalists who were there. That is what she hasdone, and if the member is not satisfied then that, frankly,is too bad.
Hon Bill English: Why have scholarship resultsbeen delayed until 23 February, when it is well known theywere marked by the middle of December, and when a week or soago they were accidentally put up on the website; and whyare they delayed until all those who are interested in theresults have already enrolled in their tertiary educationcourses?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Cabinet agreed in May lastyear that scholarship results would come out later this yearin order to provide for the checking of all results. Cabinetagreed it was more important to get the results accurate, tomake sure that we are now able to move forward on a firmplatform, and I have just explained why.
Hon Bill English:Does this mean that Cabinet will look at scholarshipresults, in order to ensure they are not controversial,before students get the results; and can he confirm thatstudents will get the results for scholarship in 2005 afterthey have enrolled in their tertiary education courses for2006—and is that not just ridiculous?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY:No, we will not be looking at the results, as the membersuggests. Cabinet agreed that they would be a little laterthis year. That has been known since May of last year, soeverybody knows exactly that. This morning I met with thereference group overseeing scholarship, comprising threepeople whom I think even Mr English would regard asauthorities in the area. They told me this morning thatscholarship has gone outstandingly well this year. Themember should argue with them.
Economy—Productivity
4.Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the PrimeMinister: Does she stand by her statement that "We need astrong economy to deliver the living standards, theservices, and the quality of life which the citizens of ourfirst world country expect,"; if so, does she agree thatincreasing the incomes of New Zealand workers depends in thelong term primarily on increasing productivity?
Rt HonHELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes. And, yes, productivityimprovements are critical to lifting New Zealand s economicperformance. Such improvements are not achieved by slashingworkers and environmental protections, as the memberfavours.
Dr Don Brash: Why, given her acceptance of thecrucial importance of improving productivity, does she seemtotally unconcerned about the fact that productivity perhour worked in New Zealand increased by a miserable 0.8percent per annum in the 5 years to September last, which issubstantially lower than productivity growth in Australiaand other developed countries?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Ishould think it is not uncoincidental that New Zealand hashad a large surge in employment, and sharply fallingunemployment. A lot of people come into employment at thelower end of the wage ladder and skills ladder. Ourobjective, over time, is to lift those skills levels tocontribute to raising productivity.
Dr Don Brash: Can thePrime Minister name one single economist who believes thatwith present policies, productivity growth in New Zealandwill enable New Zealand incomes to overtake those inAustralia within one decade, two decades, or even threedecades; if so, who is that economist?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK:I would advise the member to consider that under a LabourGovernment GDP per capita grew at a rate nearly 40 percenthigher than Australia s. When that member was runningmonetary policy and contributing to failed Governmentpolicies, our GDP per capita under a National Governmentover the relevant 5-year period grew 40 percent more slowlythan Australia s.
Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order,Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister made no attempt at all toanswer that question. I asked whether she could name anyeconomist—any single economist—who thought that, on presenttrends, New Zealand incomes would overtake those inAustralia within one, two, or even three decades. A "yes" or"no" answer was required.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the Ministeris entitled to address the question and that is what theMinister did. She may not have answered it in the way themember wanted, but there was an addressing of the substanceof the question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a factthat there was such an economist who rejected theincremental approach of Australia post-1983, preferring ofcourse the Douglas -- Ruth Richardson approach, which hastaken us to the position that we are now in, and that thateconomist, or so-called economist, was one Don Brash?
RtHon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I believe that what the member said inhis question is absolutely true. I also would not be able toname any economist who agreed with "Dr Doom" opposite thatwe were heading for a prolonged recession.
Madam SPEAKER:The Prime Minister, in answering that question, did not usethe member s correct name. Would she please do so infuture.
Gerry Brownlee: She should withdraw.
MadamSPEAKER: The member wishes the remark to be withdrawn. Wouldthe Prime Minister please withdraw the term "Dr Doom".
RtHon Helen Clark: Cheerfully, Madam Speaker. Iwithdraw.
Sue Bradford: Has the Prime Minister seen aTreasury report dated March 2004 on the increase in incomefor young workers that demonstrated no negative effects onyouth employment from a substantial increase in the youthminimum wage, and is she aware of any reasons why youngpeople should earn lower wages for doing exactly the samework as other workers?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understandthat the first part of the member s question, which is afactual assertion, is, indeed, true. Contrary to the adviceof all those who have advised for years that if the minimumwage went up unemployment would grow, in fact, as I said inmy speech yesterday, 293,000 more Kiwis are working todaythan were 6 years ago before steady increases in the minimumwage began under a Labour-Progressive Government. I want totell the member that I am aware of her member s bill. Labourwill be supporting that to a select committee so that theevidence for and against can come out.
Hon Dr MichaelCullen: Has the Prime Minister received any advice from anyeconomist, including Dr Don Brash, to explain why theAustralian economy has had higher productivity growthdespite a more tightly regulated labour market, 4 weeks annual holiday for all workers, a higher tax rate for highincomes, and tighter regulations of markets such as thetelecommunications market; if not, is that why theGovernment has ignored that continual bleat of advice fromthe Opposition?
Madam SPEAKER: Before the right honourablePrime Minister responds, I remind members that questions areasked in silence, and that question was not.
Rt Hon HELENCLARK: As the Minister of Finance suggested, the Australianexperience is indeed instructive in that paying workers morehighly and having more protections is certainly not runningcounter to having a strong economy and good growthrates.
Dr Don Brash: Is it not true that on the basis ofpresent trends in productivity on both sides of the Tasman,New Zealand workers can never expect to enjoy the incomelevels of Australian workers, and indeed can expect tocontinue declining relative to Australian workers?
Rt HonHELEN CLARK: If anything like the performance of the last 5years was repeated, with New Zealand GDP per capita growingfar higher—40 percent higher—than Australia s, indeed overtime we would catch up. I say that the member s tune on thisissue of comparisons has not changed in close to 30 years,since he wrote to his mother in 1979 that he had a terriblefear that the economic gap would become so vast between NewZealand and Australia that the skill drain would accelerate.He said that if that were to happen, New Zealand society aswe now know it might not survive. I say to Dr Brash, we arehere—and thriving.
Dr Don Brash: Why did the PrimeMinister not haul her Minister of Finance into line when hecondescendingly dismissed Treasury s advice on how toimprove productivity in New Zealand as "an ideologicalburp"; or does she agree with his assessment?
Rt Hon HELENCLARK: I absolutely agree with Dr Cullen that low-tax,low-wage, low-skill, low-value economies deregulated andprivatised do not contribute to a thriving New Zealand. Thatis why we do not follow Dr Brash s policies.
Dr Don Brash:Does the Prime Minister think the transformation of the NewZealand economy is under way, given that ANZ National Bankbelieves that the New Zealand economy may well have gonebackwards in the December quarter, and that the surveyconducted by the Institute of Economic Research showed thatbusiness confidence was at its lowest level in 35 years; ifshe does believe that that is what transformation means, howdoes she explain it?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Indeed, a processof economic transformation sees New Zealand forecast to comethrough this dip in the business cycle at the lowest growthof 1.7 percent. When Dr Brash was helping the National Partyin his capacity as Governor of the Reserve Bank, we bottomedout at under zero, thanks to that combination of policies atthe bottom of the business cycle.
Sue Bradford: I seekleave to table a paper from Treasury dated 2004 dealing withthe impacts of raising the youth minimum wage on the labourmarket.
Leave granted.
Information Technology—BroadbandCapacity
5. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to theMinister of Communications: Does he stand by theGovernment s target to get New Zealand into the top half ofthe OECD for broadband uptake by next year when New Zealandis currently 22nd out of 30 countries for broadband; if so,why?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): Yes,the Government set an ambitious target to be in the topquarter of the OECD by 2010, and an interim stretch goal tomeet the average of the OECD by 2007. Despite progress insome areas, that interim target appears unlikely, on presenttrends, to be met. As outlined in the Prime Minister sspeech yesterday, New Zealand is lagging behind on manybroadband indicators. The Government considers that thoseresults are unsatisfactory. Therefore, we are addressing thepolicy legislative and regulatorysettings—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Would all membersbe seated. Would the Minister please be seated. TheMinister s response is far too long, and we could not hearit anyway, because of the barracking. So would we please nowmove to the supplementary question.
Gordon Copeland: Whenthe Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government willaddress the policy, legislative, and regulatory settingssurrounding broadband as a matter of urgency, does that meanthat broadband will be within the means of ordinary NewZealanders by the end of this year?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE:The objectives of the Government s digital policy areclearly set out in the Digital Strategy, and they are forall New Zealanders to have access to broadband that ischeap, fast, and available.
Maryan Street: What is theGovernment already doing to improve broadband uptake in NewZealand?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: First, the Digital Strategylaunched last year represents a $400 million commitment toboosting demand in the sector. It includes the BroadbandChallenge, the Community Partnership Fund, the AdvancedNetwork for research, and the Government Shared Network.Second, we are upgrading the speed and decisiveness of theregulatory process through the Telecommunications AmendmentBill. Third, we have an urgent regulatory stocktake underway, and we will be announcing further action by the middleof this year.
Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that85 percent of small businesses in Australia reportefficiency gains through broadband use, whereas almost everysmall business in New Zealand is without broadband; if he isaware of that, why did the Government not take action onthat matter years ago?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is obviousthat the Government has taken action over the last 5 years,and that stands in complete contrast to the actions of theOpposition when in Government.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Iseek leave to table two documents. One is dated 6 May 1998and is a report to the Treasurer on these issues, and thesecond is a speech from 4 August 1998 supporting thederegulation of this industry, all of which the NationalParty promptly forgot.
Leave granted.
Taito PhillipField—Conflicts of Interest Report
6. GERRY BROWNLEE(Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: When doesshe expect to receive the final report from Dr Noel Ingraminto allegations of conflicts of interest involving TaitoPhillip Field?
Madam SPEAKER: Who interjected?
Rt HonWinston Peters: I apologise. I was responding unwittingly toa question from over here.
Madam SPEAKER: So two of youwere having a conversation while a member was trying to aska question. That is the last warning to you all.
Rt HonHELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Mr Ingram has not yetidentified a date for the final report, but I am advisedthat he is making progress.
Gerry Brownlee: Why did thePrime Minister decide that the inquiry could "take as longas it needs" after the 4 October 2005 deadline was missed,and why has she not set further deadlines?
Rt Hon HELENCLARK: I do think the inquiry should take as long as itneeds. I am rather surprised at National Party memberscomplaining about the time it has taken, because originallythey complained that Mr Ingram had not been given longenough.
Gerry Brownlee: Is the Prime Minister aware ofany reasons that might be causing Dr Ingram to delay hisreport back regarding this issue; if so, has she doneanything to try to alleviate those reasons?
Rt Hon HELENCLARK: No. I am aware, however, that when we hired Mr Ingramhe had a lot of other work on his hands. That has also hadto be progressed while he has been doing thisinvestigation.
Gerry Brownlee: Is the Prime Minister awarethat Mr Field is continuing to make immigrationrepresentations while he is being investigated; if so, whatchecks are in place to ensure that all of those cases areabove board?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not think anyonewould expect Mr Field to stop acting as an electorate memberof Parliament during the inquiry, but I am sure he will actin the light of knowledge that there is an investigationgoing on, in terms of which cases are forwarded to theMinister. The Minister will be considering them carefully inthat light, as well.
Crown Law Office—Resourcing
7.HONE HARAWIRA (Mâori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to theAttorney-General: Is he satisfied with the resourcingprovided to the Crown Law Office to enable it to respond ina timely and professional manner?
Hon DAVID PARKER(Attorney-General): Generally, yes.
Hone Harawira: He ahatôna whakautu ki a Pita Tashkoff o Tâmaki-makau-rau, kuawhanga nei mô te 8 marama mai i te wâ i tae ake tôna amuamumô te Ture Takutai Moana ki te Tari Ture o te Karauna, â,kua kôrero anô ia, ko te tikanga o te whakautu o teKâwanatanga he mahi whakatô, kia roa, kia kore e tutuki wawetana take?
[An interpretation in English was given to theHouse.]
[What is his response to Peter Tashkoff ofAuckland, who has waited for 8 months since his complaintabout the Foreshore and Seabed Act was lodged with CrownLaw, and who has stated that the ongoing delays in theGovernment s response to his complaint are intended todeliberately stall the process?]
Hon DAVID PARKER: TheCrown Law Office charges Government departments fees for anylegal advice or services the office gives to departments.For example, in the case of foreshore and seabednegotiations, Vote Justice actually administers the cost ofthose negotiations. Having said that, I am not aware of anyCrown Law resourcing constraint causing any delay in any ofthose negotiations.
Christopher Finlayson: If theresourcing of the Crown Law Office is generally adequate,how does the Attorney-General explain the serious decreasein client satisfaction with that office, which is recordedat page 28 of the report of the Crown Law Office dated 30June 2005?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I do not understand there tobe any serious complaint with the quality of the servicethat the Crown Law Office is providing departments.
Tariana Turia: What will Crown Law s response be to thecomplaint that I lodged on 14 April 2005—some 10 monthsago—which referred to the United Nations findings that theForeshore and Seabed Act contained discriminatory aspectsagainst Mâori in particular in its extinguishment of thepossibility of establishing Mâori customary title over theforeshore and seabed; and when will I receive a response, orwill I be told yet again that the response is delayedbecause of competing work priorities?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Ican assure the member that lack of resources is not behindany delay that the member may have suffered—if indeed suchdelay has been suffered.
Gerry Brownlee: With how manyparties is the Government currently involved in negotiationsover seabed and foreshore issues?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Iraise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not see how thatis related to the question of the resourcing of the CrownLaw Office.
Madam SPEAKER: It was raised in asupplementary question.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Thenegotiations that are currently afoot with—
Madam SPEAKER:I am sorry. To assist the Minister, I point out that theAttorney-General is responsible for foreshore and seabednegotiations, so the question is relevant. It was alsoraised in the context of the questions.
Hon DAVID PARKER:Current negotiations involve three iwi: Ngâti Porou, TeWhânau-a-Apanui, and Ngâti Porou ki Hauraki.
TarianaTuria: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I takeoffence at the comment the Minister made when he said "ifsuch a delay indeed happened". Is he questioning myintegrity in relation to the first question, when I saidthat I had written a letter in April last year?
MadamSPEAKER: Ministers, in their responses, do not have toaccept the assertions of members, of whatever nature. TheMinister responded in addressing the question. If the memberhas taken offence at that, the member can raise a point oforder and ask for that comment to be withdrawn.
Hon DAVIDPARKER: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I can clearthe matter up. I did not intend to question her choice ofdates, or cause offence. I was not accepting the propositionthat there was delay, though.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you forthat clarification.
Hone Harawira: E ai ki tôna môhio, heaha te whakautu o te Tari Ture o te Karauna ki te take i taeake i te 17 o Hakihea i te tau 2004, i kî nei mô te TureTakutai Moana he pire tçrâ ,"i takahi i tôna mana tangata,he mea whakahahani, he mea e noho taupatupatu nei ki ngâkôrero o ngâ Ture Whakamana i te Tangata i Aotearoa", kei tewhakaae ia me waiho te take nei mô te 14 marama tuhi retaai?
[An interpretation in English was given to theHouse.]
[What will Crown Law s response be to thecomplaint first lodged on 17 December 2004, in which thecomplainant contends that the foreshore and seabedlegislation "violates his human rights, that it is racist,and that it should be declared as inconsistent with the NewZealand Bill of Rights"; and does he think it is OK to take14 months to write a letter?]
Hon DAVID PARKER: Icertainly do not accept the proposition advanced that thislegislation breached the New Zealand Bill of RightsAct.
Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Audit Reports
8. Hon BILLENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister forTertiary Education: Did Te Wânanga o Aotearoa receiveunqualified audit reports in each of the years 1999 throughto 2003, and did the Government believe those reports were areliable measure of Te Wânanga o Aotearoa financial systems?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education):Yes; and, at the time, to the extent that the lack ofqualification indicated there were no problems affecting thefinancial statements in a material manner, yes.
Hon BillEnglish: How did the Minister and officials manage tooverlook a fundamental conflict of interest that went on for2 years between the role of Deloitte s as the auditor thatsigned off the accounts with an unqualified opinion, andDeloitte s role at the same time as the Government adviseron fixing the wânanga s financial processes?
Hon DrMICHAEL CULLEN: It was not overlooked. There are Instituteof Chartered Accountants of New Zealand ethical standardscovering such situations. Under those standards, two peoplefrom the same firm can perform different work for the sameorganisation if they follow certain rules set down by theinstitute. In the situation at the wânanga there wasconsiderable separation: the auditors were working out ofHamilton, and the management consulting side worked out ofChristchurch—a different section of the firm.
Hon BillEnglish: If it was all fine, why did the Government, when itfinally realised this conflict of interest, tell Deloitte sit had to pick one or the other, and Deloitte s decided todrop its $100,000 consultancy and stay on as the auditors;and how can he get up in the House and describe it as if itwere all OK, when the Government itself forced Deloitte s toaddress the conflict?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: TheGovernment took advice from the Auditor-General. There was aperception issue, and therefore the wânanga—
Hon BillEnglish: He was the auditor.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No,the wânanga development adviser resigned, not theauditor.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell the Housewhether accountability for this real and perceived conflictof interest could be sheeted home to, among others, Mr ShaneJones, who sat on the audit and finance committee of thewânanga, and who worked with Deloitte s both as the auditorand as the consultant to the Government; and if Mr Jones wasinvolved, why is he still the chair of the fisheriescommission, particularly when the Prime Minister said lastyear that he would give up that position?
Hon Dr MICHAELCULLEN: I have no responsibility for the fisheriescommission. On the former matter, I repeat that there arerules governing separation. It is common in largeaccountancy firms for more than one aspect of business to bedealt with within the same firm. That is common both hereand, of course, internationally. On the matter that themember raises, I do not think the issues he raised are atall appropriate, because Mr Jones acts as one of thosetrying to fix up the problems of the wânanga around theaudit, and if the member had cared to check his factssomewhat better, he would have found that Mr Jones withdrewfrom that position when he was dissatisfied with theprogress being made.
Hon Bill English: In the Minister sopinion as an experienced Minister, is it satisfactory,given Mr Jones involvement in a number of aspects of thewânanga s finances that the Auditor-General found to beunsatisfactory, that the Government continues to endorse MrJones position as chair of the fisheries commission, andwhy does it do so, when the Prime Minister told this Houselast year that Mr Jones would be standing down?
MadamSPEAKER: The Minister does not have any responsibility forthe fisheries commission. Would the member like to askanother supplementary question.
Hon Bill English: I raisea point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister, inthe light of his experience of having responsibility for MrJones being involved in the wânanga s finances, totherefore give an opinion on his capacity to carry outanother job.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, and itwould be very interesting to hear Ministers and members opinions on everything, but it does have to be connected tothe matters they are responsible for. So perhaps the memberwould like to ask another supplementary question thatconnects it more directly to the Minister sresponsibilities.
Hon Bill English: Does the Ministerbelieve that it is appropriate for a member of Parliament tocontinue double-dipping into the public purse when hisperformance as a member of the wânanga audit and financecommittee was inadequate?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I rejectthe last assertion. Mr Jones is one of those who was tryingto put to rights the mess being created by the NationalParty s friend Rongo Wçtere at the wânanga—a man who wasendorsing the National Party and supporting it, as theNational Party was supporting him, before the election. MrJones was dissatisfied by the way in which the NationalParty s Tory mates were behaving in managing thewânanga.
Hon Trevor Mallard: When considering matters todo with the wânanga, will the Minister take the advice ofthe Hon Bill English given on Radio Waatea, which was verysupportive of the wânanga, and the advice of Dr Don Brashwhen he was inside the wânanga, which was highly supportiveof it, or will he take the advice given on National Radio byMr Bill English, which was opposed to the wânanga, and theadvice from Dr Don Brash given outside the wânanga, when heattacked it?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am getting far tooold to keep up with the flip-flops within the National Partyto worry too much about its members positions.
Taxation—New Zealand Residents
9. SHANE JONES(Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the basicprinciple that applies to the taxation of income earned byNew Zealand residents?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister ofFinance): New Zealand s system of income taxation is basedon the principle that New Zealand residents are taxed ontheir worldwide income.
Shane Jones: Has he received anyreports suggesting that this principle be altered?
Hon DrMICHAEL CULLEN: I receive many reports, obviously, frompeople who do not want to be taxed at all, but I have seentwo particular reports. The first, dated 8 February 2006,suggested: " there is no rationale for taxing Kiwiinvestments offshore at all." The second, dated 9 February2006, read: "His suggestion that I want to abandon thecurrent regime that taxes dividends on foreign-held sharesis nonsense." Both reports are from John Key, which showsthat changing the leader will merely mean that flip-flopswill be prettier in the future.
John Key: Does theMinister believe that whatever changes are made to the "greylist" countries going forward should include Australia, ordoes he believe that Australia warrants a special statusgoing forward in terms of overseas taxation?
Hon DrMICHAEL CULLEN: I am sure that any changes going forwardwill include Australia. I think it is likely that a specialcase will be made in respect of Australia as part of thesingle economic market project.
Television NewZealand—Former Chief Executive
10. JOHN KEY(National—Helensville) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Ishe concerned by the decision of the Board of Television NewZealand to strip former chief executive Ian Fraser of hisremaining duties because of comments he made to the Financeand Expenditure Committee; if not, why not?
Hon STEVEMAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): I understand that theFinance and Expenditure Committee has met today to discusscorrespondence from both the Television New Zealand chairand Mr Fraser. I also understand that the committee isexpecting to raise the issue with the Speaker as there is noclear answer on the events that took place. I am furtheradvised that Television New Zealand has withdrawn itsallegation of serious misconduct towards Mr Fraser.
JohnKey: What information did he receive as Minister from theboard in advance of the proposal to punish Mr Fraser for thecomments that he made in front of the Finance andExpenditure Committee?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: None. Thechairperson simply advised me that it had been done.
JillPettis: Can the Minister advise the House of any proposedchanges to the board of Television New Zealand?
Hon STEVEMAHAREY: In December I had the pleasure of announcing theappointment of Sir John Anderson, who has now joined theTelevision New Zealand board as the chair designate. It isintended that Sir John will become the chair of TelevisionNew Zealand in April when the current chair, Craig Boyce,finishes his term.
John Key: Why was the Minister notinformed of the board s intention when this is in directcontravention of the "no surprises" policy, where Crowncompany boards are to inform Ministers in advance ofanything contentious; what action will he be taking againstthe board on this account?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: This wasseen by the board as strictly an employment matter;therefore it took legal advice and advised me at the timethat it sent the letter.
John Key: Does he believe thatthe actions taken by Television New Zealand in relation toMr Fraser were appropriate; if he does not, does he stillhave confidence in the board of Television NewZealand?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have confidence in the boardas a hard-working and conscientious group of people. Thematters of employment are in their hands; they are not inmine.
John Key: Does the Minister think it reflects badlyon the governance of Television New Zealand that the Financeand Expenditure Committee this morning voted unanimously tosend this matter to the Speaker for consideration as abreach of privilege; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MichaelCullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has thatbeen announced publicly by the chair of the select committeeor in fact is that still a matter not in the publicarena?
John Key: It has.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: If ithas then there is no difficulty.
Madam SPEAKER: Has therebeen a public announcement of the decision by the chair ofthe select committee?
John Key: I take it that, when ShaneJones is surrounded by cameras coming out of the committeeand the select committee announces that we have put out anannouncement, that would be the case.
Madam SPEAKER: I askthe chairperson to confirm whether it is a matter of publicrecord.
Shane Jones: A formal press statement will bereleased after this session.
Madam SPEAKER: So it has notbeen released yet?
Shane Jones: Not a formal pressstatement, no.
Madam SPEAKER: But the decision of thecommittee has been released into the public arena.
ShaneJones: The decision of the committee has been reached. BothMr Key and I have been interviewed about it by themedia.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, MadamSpeaker. The simple question is whether the chairman hasconfirmed to any media outlet that this course of action isunder way.
Madam SPEAKER: I take it from what the chairsaid that that was, presumably, the subject of the pressconference that Mr Key and Mr Jones gave. Is that correct?
Shane Jones: It is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: It iscorrect. Then we will proceed.
John Key: I made it veryclear to the chairman that he would be interviewed comingout of the select committee in relation to thismatter.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I understand that the matterhas been referred to the Speaker s office, because theClerk s advice was that there were a number of grey areasthat would benefit from that advice being received by thecommittee. That is what I understand is going on.
JeanetteFitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thatraises an issue that I also ran across when chairing aselect committee in the past, in that a committee can make aresolution that a press statement will be issued. It doesnot necessarily get issued even that day. Cameras aresometimes waiting outside, knowing that the matter is on thecommittee s agenda. I wonder what guidance there is forchairs about whether they must remain mum until the pressrelease has formally gone out, which is a matter that theclerk of the committee usually deals with. Sometimes membersare not aware when the press release has been issued andwhen it has still to be issued. I think there is a risk thatmembers may be caught in a breach of privilege, and someclarity would be helpful.
Madam SPEAKER: As I understandit, when the chair is authorised by the committee to make astatement and that statement is made on leaving thecommittee, formally or informally it is made. But I acceptthe point the member raises. It would be a useful one todiscuss at a meeting of the chairs of select committees sothere is clarity about how to proceed in thosecircumstances.
Fisheries, Minister—Bottom Trawling
11.JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister ofFisheries: What advice or reports has he received or askedfor on the ecological values of the areas proposed by thefishing industry to be closed to bottom trawling in NewZealand s exclusive economic zone, and who provided thatadvice?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Thefishing industry, mainly the Fisheries Council with expertadvice, developed a proposal for extension of the areas tobe closed to bottom trawling—that is, in our exclusiveeconomic zone—based on achieving coverage of closuresbroadly representative of the classes identified in themarine classification report prepared by the NationalInstitute of Water and Atmospheric Research and released in2005. After being approached by the industry, I soughtadvice from the Ministry of Fisheries on the proposal, andit provided advice in consultation with scientists from theDepartment of Conservation. As a result of that advice, Iasked the industry to consider adjustment of its proposal,to improve the representativeness of the closures. Theindustry subsequently submitted a revised, enhancedproposal, which I now strongly support.
JeanetteFitzsimons: Is the Minister satisfied that the areasproposed are genuinely the areas of greatest ecologicalimportance, rather than simply areas in which the industryhas no commercial interest?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: I amsatisfied that the areas are genuinely representative, andthat is confirmed by the scientific advice that I havereceived. I am advised also that the areas proposed forclosure are virtually untouched, with only a small amount offishing having occurred previously. We would rather preserverepresentative and undamaged environments than those alreadymodified by bottom trawling. It is untrue for anyone tosuggest that the proposed areas have no value to the fishingindustry. The proposed closures include areas that theindustry could have developed and, in fact, did want todevelop. For example, the entire Kermadec zone is proposedfor closure, and this zone is potentially very productive.It has not been fished yet simply because it is too far fromports.
Sue Moroney: Has the Minister seen any otherreports on the merits of the industry proposal?
Hon JIMANDERTON: Yes, I have. This morning the Christchurch Pressquoted marine biologist Dr Steve O Shea, whom I understandis a consistent adviser to the Royal Forest and BirdProtection Society, and is the director of the earth andoceanic sciences research institute of the AucklandUniversity of Technology. He said: "In my wildest dreams Inever thought they would take something like this as astarting point. This is usually where you end. It is atotally commendable proposal." The Press also stated that DrO Shea was "blown away" by the proposal, the likes of whichhe had never expected to see in his lifetime. According tothe report, Dr O Shea would have to rewrite many of thespeeches and university papers that he had prepared in thepast that were critical of the industry, but he did not minddoing so.
Phil Heatley: Is the proposed benthic protectionarea set aside from bottom trawling a type of marineprotected area, and how does it fit into thatdefinition?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: This is a unique proposal.It is the largest area ever put aside by any nation, in thehistory of this issue of fish conservation alongsideeconomic development. It goes through the exclusive economiczone, and it is side by side, of course, with the marineprotection policy that the Government is developing now andwill announce later in the year. I know that my colleaguesin the environment and fisheries areas are very supportiveof this as a productive, forward-looking, and visionaryproposal, but it sits alongside the marine protected areaproposal, which will be finalised this year.
JeanetteFitzsimons: Will the Government be picking up the costs ofenforcing these closures, or recovering the costs from theindustry, or will industry compliance with the closure areasbe voluntary?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: No area of economicactivity has such stringent user charges as the fishingindustry. The Government, however, has the Project Protectorprogramme in which it is investing $500 million of capital,and part of that will be operational in terms of agencieslike the Customs Service and the Ministry of Fisheries.Fisheries and customs officers will be on those ships, andthey will be monitoring and holding to account anyone who istransgressing these areas. That will, of course, addoperational expenditure for the Government, but the fishingindustry knows that it shares costs with the Government in avariety of ways. The details of that are yet to be workedthrough. I just advise and remind the member that these aredraft proposals. They go out for full consultation, and thenofficials from both the Ministry of Fisheries and theDepartment of Conservation will advise the Governmentfurther.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: What consultation processwill his ministry be undertaking, and with whichstakeholders, before backing the industry proposal, and willall the ecological reports he referred to be madepublic?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: To answer the last point first,the fishing industry prepared very full details of itsproposal, and they were made public yesterday. Theconsultation will include all stakeholders—non-governmentalorganisations as well as fishing partners. All thatmaterial, and the official advice that comes to theGovernment as a result, will of course be made public.
Prisons—Overcrowding
12. SIMON POWER(National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Doeshe stand by his statement that "almost 30 percent of theinmates" currently in jail are "no risk to society"; if so,why?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Istand by my statement that almost 30 percent of inmatesreceived into prison are sentenced to less than 6 months,and some of those inmates are no risk to society.
SimonPower: Can he confirm to the House that his proposals torelease almost 30 percent of inmates—people who are "no riskto society"—will not compromise the Department ofCorrections primary goal of safer communities; if not, whynot?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have no proposals. I was askedby the media what ideas had I learnt while on a tripoverseas. I have qualified any of those ideas with anabsolute commitment by myself, and by every Minister andmember of this Government, that we will continue to catch,convict, and lock up serious and violent offenders. Therecord shows that we have been successful in doing that, andwe will continue to protect society from violent anddangerous offenders.
Simon Power: Who is right: Phil Goff,who changed the sentencing, bail, and parole laws after the1999 referendum on wanting tougher sentences, or theMinister, who now says that 30 percent of inmates are norisk to society, at all?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I did notsay that 30 percent—
Simon Power: Yes, the Minister did.Here is the transcript from National Radio.
Hon DAMIENO'CONNOR: I welcome the opportunity to read the transcriptof the interview, and I will do that.
Madam SPEAKER: Aslong as it is short; otherwise table it.
Hon DAMIENO'CONNOR: "Those low-risk offenders, the people who arespending less than 6 months in jail—that is, almost 30percent of inmates—and people who are no risk to society butwho have a debt to repay, and perhaps there is a better wayof their repaying that debt."
Ron Mark: Has the Ministerread the Department of Corrections annual report 2004-05and particularly the table headed "Recidivism Index 12 MonthFollow-up Percentages for 2003-04", which shows clearly thatthose people who are imprisoned for short periods of 6months to 2 years have a far higher reimprisonment rate andreconviction rate than those sentenced to prison for over 5years—the figures are 30.4 percent reimprisonment for them,as compared with 18.9 percent reimprisonment for those withsentences of over 5 years—and does that not say that peoplewho are sentenced to prison for longer learn faster and donot reoffend?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The one sad reality,with all prison systems throughout the world, is that therecidivism rate is far too high for people who go to prison.That is why it is far better if there are other options,rather than sending them to prison. The other reality isthat we have to work better on rehabilitation andreintegration programmes, so that people who leave jail stayout of jail.
Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by hisstatements on National Radio yesterday, where he said: "thepeople who are spending less than 6 months in jail—that is,almost 30 percent of inmates—and people who are no risk tosociety", or does he consider that to be part of what thePrime Minister has referred to as "sentencing creep"?
HonDAMIEN O'CONNOR: As I have tried to explain—and I am happyto table the full transcript after this question, and themember may choose to take a part of it—I was clearlyimplying, and have done in many interviews over the lastcouple of days, that 30 percent of the inmates in jail arethere for fewer than 6 months. By inference, that wouldimply that judges have deemed them not to have seriouslyoffended. There are also in excess of 39 percent of inmateswho are deemed to be of low risk to society. I think we havea moral obligation to look at better ways of dealing withoffenders than simply locking them up and throwing away thekey. I would like to remind the House that the member SimonPower is very enthusiastic about US policy, and that in theUS they lock up people at three times the rate we do in thiscountry. I do not want that member ever to become theMinister of Corrections.
Hon Phil Goff: Is the Minister ofCorrections talking about that category of offenders whoserve fewer than 6 months, which the previous NationalGovernment passed legislation on, through the CriminalJustice Amendment Act, that reduced the minimum sentencethey had to serve from half of the sentence to a third ofthe sentence, or is it a different category of inmate, suchas addressed by the sentencing and parole Acts, where thesentences have become much tougher and much longer, andinmates have to spend a much greater percentage of theirsentence in jail, rather than being released early?
HonDAMIEN O'CONNOR: It is not the second category. It is thefirst category that I am looking to try to help. I applaudthe efforts of that Minister in making sure that we catchcriminals and lock up serious and dangerous offenders.Indeed, that is exactly what we have done inGovernment.
Simon Power: Has the Minister just decidedthat it has all become a bit too hard for him, with budgetblowouts, the increasing prison numbers, prisoners helpingthemselves to tea and coffee and showering at rugbyclubrooms, and criminals applying for jobs as prison guards,and has he now decided to adopt a new policy of "if indoubt, let them out"?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am proud ofthis Government s record around corrections. We havecommitted almost a billion dollars to build four newprisons. We now have in place facilities to cater for theincreasing number of criminals whom we catch, convict, andpenalise in this country. But we have a moral obligation tolook at ways of better rehabilitating and reintegratinglow-risk offenders into society.
( Uncorrectedtranscript—subject to correction and further editing. Forcorrected transcripts, please visit: http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/hansard)
ENDS
THIS ISSUE Lead NZ News NZ Politics World News FeaturesNew Zealand Politics
POLITICAL NEWSLETTERS: Molesworth & Featherston Weekend: Dec 16 2005 Transtasman Political Letter -- 2nd February 2006 Digest
Legislation: Labour Backs Bradford's Youth Pay Bill - The Green Party has welcomed the announcement today of Labour's support for Sue Bradford's Private Member's Bill which aims to dump youth pay rates. Labour Minister Ruth Dyson announced this afternoon that the Government would support Ms Bradford's Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill to the select committee stage when it comes up for its first reading on Wednesday next week, (February 22). See... Bradford pleased at Govt support for youth pay Bill ALSO: Government to Support Youth Bill - Dyson and CTU - Higher Wages Crucial To Transforming The Economy Scoop Video: Unite Mobilises Youth In Minimum Wage PushDistribution Union - Labour s support for Youth Wage Bill Good NewsCTU - Public to have say on youth rates bill
Politics: Prime Minister Delivers Agenda Speech To Parliament - "Three months ago the government s agenda for this three year parliamentary term was set out in the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor-General. That speech and that agenda were optimistic and realistic, and visionary and practical. Labour and the Progressive Party are not in government to manage the status quo -- it s never good enough. We are in government to make a difference for the better. We want our country to be more affluent and dynamic." See... Prime Minister s Statement to Parliament 2006 ALSO:Brash: Notes for debate on PM's statementTuria: State of the Nation AddressEMA - PM's epiphany: business firstFederated Farmers - RMA Message Missing From PM's Speech
Race Relations: Govt Promotes Educative Media Website - A new online resource aimed at helping New Zealanders develop a better understanding of the media was timely given recent debate around the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey said today. "The events of recent weeks have reinforced the huge impact media can have in our society," Steve Maharey said. "If there was ever a time to increase our media literacy as a nation it is now. See... New media savvy website timely
Int. Law: NZ Govt Pushes For Interim Controls On Bottom-Trawling - New Zealand will push for urgent interim measures to address the effects of bottom trawling on the high seas, Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton will tell parties to a future Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) meeting in Wellington today. "We recognise it may take 3 or 4 years for the RFMO to get fully established so we support urgent interim measures. NZ will strongly promote a process to establish a number of these measures this week, including a network of marine protected areas for sensitive environments," Jim Anderton said. See... NZ calls for urgent action on bottom trawling ALSO: World's largest EEZ marine conservation proposalMassive Closures to Protect Bio-diversity ProposedNats applaud proactive bottom trawling measures
ICT: Local, National Politicians United by Web Surfing - More than 700 people and representatives from 90 governments will be 'surfing' in Wellington next month as the city hosts a major international conference on the Internet. Communications Minister David Cunliffe and Wellington's Mayor Kerry Prendergast today announced the ICANN Wellington conference by straddling surfboards. See... Surf's up ' Wellington hosts major Internet conference
MORE POLITICS NEWS:Govt - New fund to help regional councils with environment Govt - Clark: Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect Nats - 'Soft on crims' policy causes rift in Labour Nats - Cullen signals tax threshold change is history Nats - Clark wrong on smacking ban claim NZ First - Public Broadcasting Beats Reality TV Greens - Controls needed on junk food advertising - Greens Maori Party - 'Time to review prison culture in New Zealand' Govt - Resignation of Tongan Prime Minister Govt - World s largest EEZ marine conservation proposal Govt - New deal positive for Industrial Research Limited Nats - Cullen tricky over Napier Hospital Nats - Labour throws open cell doors Greens - Freedom of speech must be protected Greens - "Don't just look to Finland", Greens tell O'Connor
FOR MORE POLITICS NEWS HEADLINES > CLICK HERE
Source: scoop
All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.
Related Articles
|
