Questions And Answers - 22 February 2006
24 February 2006 Questions And Answers Wednesday, 22 February2006
Questions ToMinisters
Transport, Minister—Confidence
1. DrDON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister:Does she have confidence in the Minister of Transport; ifso, why?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, becausehe is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.
Dr DonBrash: What confidence can New Zealanders have in herMinister and in her Government, when today s announcementfrom Transit shows that we will all be stuck sitting intraffic jams for a very long time to come because ofTransit s need to cancel a number of major roading projectsall over the country?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Clearly, theLeader of the Opposition does not know the differencebetween a draft document and a final outcome, and I knowthat the Leader of the Opposition will be greatlydisappointed at the news reports: "Government rejectsTransit cuts to roading programme".
Dr Don Brash: How onearth can the Prime Minister have any confidence at all inthe Minister when an agency for which he is responsibleproduced an elaborate and expensive report dealing with amultibillion dollar programme over a full decade, only tohave a more senior Minister advise, less than an hour afterits release, that it was fit only for the dustbin?
Rt HonHELEN CLARK: That was like being slapped over the wrist by awet hanky.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just answer thequestion!
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: They do not like it. I amsure the Leader of the Opposition would not want to hold theMinister of Transport responsible for the rise in oilprices, which has had an effect on the programme. I am happyto say that because this Government has not promisedunaffordable tax cuts it has room to move to address theissue.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Prime Minister anyevidence to indicate whether the speed of the Leader of theOpposition in losing his grip on the Transit document wasfaster or slower than his speed in losing grip on theleadership?
Madam SPEAKER: I rule that question out oforder.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, MadamSpeaker. I do not think it is acceptable for you to say justthat the question is out of order. This Minister has beenright at the heart of all the difficulties that we have hadin the House trying to work our way through Standing Ordersin recent days. We have just had a ruling from you about theappropriateness of questions to the Prime Minister and theexpanse of her responsibilities, and here he is—a seniorMinister—standing up and taking your ruling apart. This manshould be required to apologise to the House, if not askedto leave it.
Hon Trevor Mallard: We have had a traditionof Leaders of the Opposition throwing ballpoints and nowTransit reports around the House. If they do that, they canexpect a bit of retribution.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank bothmembers. That was not a point of order. I had ruled thequestion out of order. I say to Mr Brownlee that it did notrelate to my ruling. I had given that ruling, and that wasthe end of the matter. That was on a different point. Thequestion was out of order. It was ruled out oforder.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, MadamSpeaker. I point out to you that Mr Mallard himself was theperson on his feet yesterday calling the attention of theHouse to the use of ironic expressions and other such thingsin questions. That, I think, simply compounds the difficultythat he has got himself into.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank themember. That is why that question was out of order.
PeterBrown: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Rt HonWinston Peters when Treasurer in 1998 transferred 2.1c perlitre of petrol from the Crown account into the landtransport account with a view that it would be an ongoingprocess, and does she recall also that that was stopped bythe previous National Government immediately after the fallof the coalition; noting that, does she accept that had thefunding process continued there would now be billions moredollars in roading investment, the country would be farbetter off economically, and many New Zealanders who havebeen killed would still be alive, and that the currenttemporary Leader of the Opposition would be lauding theMinister of Transport instead of questioning our confidencein him?
Madam SPEAKER: The member is to ask a question,not give a speech. That is a warning to everyone in thisHouse.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am absolutely prepared toaccept the member s word on what happened, and what thatmeant for the roading programme. I am sure that had theformer Treasurer, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, been able tocontinue as he had planned, the roading programme would nothave been allowed to lapse the way it did under the previousGovernment.
Gerry Brownlee: What s happened for 6years?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have been asked by MrBrownlee, who interjects constantly, what has happened inthe last 6 years, I tell him that land transport funding isup 80 percent.
Dr Don Brash: What confidence can NewZealanders have in Labour s so-called commitment to roading,when today s announcement from Transit is so markedlydifferent from its report issued only 6 months ago; and isit not true that over the last 6 years there has been asteady procession of commitments to build major roadprojects—almost none of which have been delivered ontime?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If one were to compare the valueof projects under way or just completed in 2004-05 withthose between 1999-2000, one would find that they are tentimes as great as those under the National Government at thelatter time. That is a good record.
Rt Hon Winston Peters:Is the Prime Minister aware that there was a bill beforeParliament in 1995 to ensure that all money collected forthe purpose of road construction and maintenance, and roadsafety, would be used for those purposes, but it was votedagainst by the National Party and, secondly, does she haveany reports that a party in this country has receivedsignificant funding from those seeking to have roadsprivatised—which would explain the speed at which National sleader dropped the report on fuel-based funding butmaintains in his secret closet privatised funding fromsources outside this country?
Madam SPEAKER: I remindmembers that in supplementary questions the Minister isrequired to answer only one question.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK:It is quite clear that in the last 6 years there has been ahuge increase in funding and activity on our roads and inour public transport system, because this Government hasbeen prepared to invest in that. I know that New ZealandFirst is fully supportive of a greatly speeded-up roadingprogramme, and that is what we have been providing. Wherethe National Party got its largesse from—who knows? But thetruth will come out.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the PrimeMinister assure the House that the commitment to increasedfunding for public passenger transport in the Government spost-election agreements will not be sacrificed to make upthe shortfall for Transit s wish lists for even more newroads?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is certainly not theintention. I think where the member and I would agree isthat there is no roading solution to the problems; there isa multimodal solution that covers alternatives to transport:roading, walking, cycling, and public passenger transport.
Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister recall hermuch-vaunted commitment in December 2003 to radicallyaccelerate the road-building programme in Auckland, and theletter from the head of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce 18months later saying that no acceleration was visible at thatpoint, or the repeated empty promises from Transit to buildState Highway 20, the Mount Roskill extension; and what doesthat say about how seriously we should take this latestTransit programme?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Well, if the memberhad had time even to glance at the programme, he would haveseen there is an absolute commitment to State Highway 20 init. That is the first point. Secondly, I am sure it will bea great concern to him that the head of the Auckland Chamberof Commerce has come out today and said that it is takinggreat comfort from the fact that the Government finds thedocument unacceptable—and will do something about it.
DrDon Brash: Will the Prime Minister now commit to spendingall the revenue generated from the petrol excise tax onroads; if not, why not?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: You didn t,and you wouldn t.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I couldcertainly quote the leader of New Zealand First as sayingthe National Party never did, or made any sign of doing so.I can say that because of the rate at which spending on landtransport has accelerated, that day cannot be too far away.
Rodney Hide: When did her Minister first alert her to the$635 million shortfall, and what action has she or herMinister of Finance taken to overcome the problem since thatalert?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Ministers have been aware sincebefore Christmas that there was likely to be a plan of thiskind produced by Transit, not least because of theripple-through effect of oil price increases on bitumen andother costs in the construction industry, and also becauseof the shortfall in revenue. So before Christmas Ministershave been actively turning their minds to how this would beaddressed, and Mr Hide will recall that this was mentionedin the statement I gave last Tuesday, and Dr Cullen has beengiving interviews about it for some time.
SchoolStudents—High Achievement
2. Hon MARIAN HOBBS(Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Education:What reports has he received about high achievement by NewZealand school students?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister ofEducation): Today the New Zealand Qualifications Authorityreported the provisional results for scholarship 2005. Onethousand eight hundred and five young people achieved 2,533scholarships, and between them they will share $3 millionover the next 3 years. I would like, therefore, tocongratulate the eight young people who achieved three ormore outstanding performances and will receive $10,000 ayear for the next 3 years, the 55 young people receivingeither premier or outstanding scholar awards who willreceive between $5,000 and $10,000 a year for 3 years, andthe 1,544 students who will receive a one-off scholarship of$500. These are the best and brightest of young NewZealanders, and I am sure the House joins me in wishing themevery good fortune for their future studies.
Hon MarianHobbs: How has the scholarship in 2005 recognised andrewarded these students?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In 2004,following problems with scholarship results, two independentadvisory groups were established to ensure that the 2005scholarship results were fair. The Scholarship ReferenceGroup, as it was called, made 26 recommendations to ensureimprovements. I met with the group last week, which includesProfessors John Hattie and Terry Crooks, both assessmentexperts. They advise me they are very pleased with theimprovements that have taken place this year, and besidescongratulating the students, I therefore want tocongratulate all those who have worked so hard to give us anoutstanding scholarship exam season this year.
AllanPeachey: Why are there an estimated 150,000 childrencurrently in the New Zealand schooling system who will movethrough that system and not learn to read, to write, or todo mathematics to a level necessary to function effectivelyas adults in our community?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There arenot that number of young people. There are currently 11,098who are on reading-recovery programmes. This Government iscommitted to all young people being functionally literate innumeracy and in literacy.
Allan Peachey: I seek the leaveof the House to table two documents—first, the EducationReview Office annual report for last year, which states thatup to 20 percent of New Zealand children are not enjoyingsuccess at school, and I take that to mean not learning toread and write.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to tablethat document. Is there any objection? There isobjection.
Allan Peachey: The second document is a reportfrom the New Zealand Herald dated 25 October 2005 in whichthat 20 percent is translated to 153,000 students, and whichhas the Minister acknowledging that.
Madam SPEAKER: Leaveis sought to table that document. Is there any objection?There is objection.
Roading—Funding Shortfall
3. HonMAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister ofTransport: What action does he intend to take to correct thefunding shortfall and ensure that there are no delays ofcommencement dates for any major roading projects?
HonDAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): The Government sroading programme is the largest ever funded in New Zealand,and we are working to ensure projects proceed. As Ministershave already said, the Government has commissioned work onoptions to address both funding and costs, and options willbe considered by Cabinet before the State highway programmeis finalised in June.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Why did theMinister let Transit put out an interim draft plan inFebruary, when that has never been done before, at huge costto the taxpayer, only to find an hour later that theAssociate Minister of Finance said that it was a load ofrubbish and did not count for anything?
Hon DAVID PARKER:The transparent way in which we plan for State highwayfunding and programmes follows the law. The present fundingavailable to Transit New Zealand is that which is projectedin the draft.
Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister confirmthe view expressed in the Transit document that congestionbetween Mana and Plimmerton and on the Ngauranga interchangestretch of State Highway 1 in Wellington is a major problem;if so, will he therefore confirm to the House that theagreement between the Government and United Future regardingfunding for Transmission Gully, if that is the preferredoption to arise from the current consultation process—notingthat 96 percent of the submissions favour it—will, in fact,go ahead?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that the Transitdocument identifies the congestion problems as we leaveWellington to the north. I cannot confirm what the outcomewill be of the process that is currently running.
Rt HonWinston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Idraw your attention to the question asked by MauriceWilliamson, which was a direct request that the Minister ofTransport breach the law of this country. The member may notrecall it, but he was the Minister of Transport, and for aMinister to interfere with the decision-making processes ofTransit is, in fact, a breach of the law. His questionshould have been ruled out.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank themember for raising that matter, but the question was aquestion; it was not seeking any breach of the law. Themember was asking a question for information purposes.
RtHon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.That is not the way he phrased it; he said: "Why did theMinister ", etc. That was a direct invitation for a Ministerof the Crown, the Minister of Transport, to break the law ofthis land—something that no doubt Mr Williamson didcountless times, to no effect.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank themember, but obviously it was a legitimate question and theMinister could, in fact, have answered in those terms. Hechose to answer in the terms he did.
Hon MauriceWilliamson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I askwhether you are going to allow that list member, or whateverhe is—the new Minister of Foreign Affairs—to say that Ibroke the law several times.
Madam SPEAKER: We are nowtrying in this House to do away with as many of thoseflippant comments as we can. I have dealt with that point oforder; I upheld the question as being a legitimate question.I now request that the member asks his supplementaryquestion.
Hon Maurice Williamson: I raise a point oforder, Madam Speaker. He did not deal with the second part.He said that I had broken the law many times while I was theMinister, and I do not accept that. I do not believe that hehas any evidence of that, and I wish to have the protectionof the Chair of this House to stop the member making such aclaim
Madam SPEAKER: If the member is asking the member towithdraw, I will ask the member to withdraw, because of theoffence that was given by that comment.
Rt Hon WinstonPeters: I withdraw and apologise profusely. I raise a pointof order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: That is all thatis required at this stage.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Iwithdraw and apologise profusely. I raise a point of order,Madam Speaker. What is growing up in this House early inthis session is the view that National Party members can doand act as they please, and that they can be so sensitivethat any slight suggestion that they got it intellectuallywrong, as shown by their past behaviour, is taken as anabsolute affront. That is OK for them, but if we carry on inthis House in the way that they are seeking you to judgevarious behaviours in this House, then we will have aturgid, boring House like something out of a Chrysleradvertisement, which is thoroughly antiseptic and of novalue to anyone. The reason why I make that response is thatany former Minister of Transport who invites anotherMinister to intervene surely had a habit of doing sohimself.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to please beseated. That was not a valid point of order. There has beena withdrawal and an apology. Certainly, one tries to conductquestion time and debates in this House in keeping with theStanding Orders and with discretion, because this is adebating chamber. I now ask the member to ask hissupplementary question.
Ron Mark: I raise a point oforder, Madam Speaker. I ask you to assure the House, on theback of the very flippant comment made by the Hon MauriceWilliamson, " that list member, or whatever he is ..", thatall list and constituency members of this House, be it thehonourable Dr Don Brash or the Deputy Prime Minister oryourself, are on equal terms here.
Madam SPEAKER: Wouldthe member please sit down. I have already dealt with thatmatter. I did ask the member, and any other members, not tomake those sorts of flippant comments. That matter has beendealt with; it does not need to be revisited.
Hon MauriceWilliamson: Does the Minister consider it a satisfactory wayto run the transport portfolio, and to give surety to theContractors Federation and others about the long-term plan,when Transit published an enormously big, glossy document inJune 2005 that, before it hit the shelves, had to have anorange sticker stuck on the bottom, stating that thedocument did not include reference to the extra $500 millionjust announced, when Transit then published an update inAugust with the same photo—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raisea point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest ofrespect, this idea, no doubt dreamt up by the research unitand some spin doctor down in the National Party—
MadamSPEAKER: This is not a point of order.
Rt Hon WinstonPeters: No, no, it is a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER:Would the member please come to his point of ordersuccinctly.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order isthat this is the second tossing of documents we have seentoday. It was bad enough the first time, with the posturingand posing that there was, but now, here are those membersagain, someone having been promoted on to the front benchfor 5 minutes, putting on a display. Frankly, it bringsParliament into disrepute, and everyone who watches a TVscreen will know full well what I mean. I ask you, MadamSpeaker, to make them desist.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank themember, and I bless the members for their sense of irony andhumour. Certainly, throwing documents around the House isnot permitted, particularly if it is others. But puttingthem on the floor just requires someone to come and pickthem up. So I suggest that that behaviour be used withdiscretion.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Does the Ministerthink it a suitable way to run the transport portfolio, andto give surety to people like the contractors out there,when Transit published a big, thick, glossy document costingtens of thousands of dollars in June last year that, beforeit even made the bookshelf, had to have a sticker on itstating that it was not valid because of changes, whenTransit put out an update in August, 2 months later, withthe same car and the same road on the cover, stating thatthe plan had all changed and here was the new plan, when byFebruary it had to put out another massive glossy documentand all of these regional documents, and when, within anhour of putting those out, it had the Associate Minister ofFinance saying: "Sorry, that s not right either; forget allthat.", at a cost, I say to the Minister, of tens ofthousands of dollars; is that satisfactory?
Madam SPEAKER:I remind members that this time is for questions and notspeeches.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I would say to the tosser ofdocuments that the $685 million budget difference representsonly 3.4 percent of the total $22 billion that will go intothe National Land Transport Fund over the next 10 years.
Rt Hon Helen Clark: Could the Minister spell out a littlemore clearly to the Hon Maurice Williamson the nature of thestatutory requirement for Transit to consult on its draftplans?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The legislation that thisGovernment passed in the last term provides for atransparent process, so that the wool cannot be pulled overthe eyes of New Zealand taxpayers and road users—as it wasin the 1990s—by giving people a right of participation infunding decisions and the prioritisation of funding.
HonMaurice Williamson: Can the Minister explain why, in thedocuments released today—whether or not they arevalid—Transit put a construction date for most of the majorprojects in appendix D3, but in the actual regional flyersthat came with it the construction dates for nearly everyproject are somewhere between 8 and 10 years longer thanthose dates? For example, the Kôpû bridge construction isscheduled to begin in 2008-09 in this document, but it isscheduled for a 2014-15 start in the flyer. How can anyoneknow what the valid start date for those projects is?
HonDAVID PARKER: By relying upon the draft programme as thedocument of authority.
Hon Paul Swain: Can the Ministerconfirm that considerable extra funds have gone intotransport in the last 5 years compared with the 1990s, andthat that is in stark contrast to a policy of privatisingthe roads, which was put forward by National and MauriceWilliamson, when he was the Minister—one of the reasons whyNational was thrown out in 1999?
Madam SPEAKER: There wasno need for that last comment.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I canconfirm that, and I note that the funding for State highwaynew road construction increased from $248 million in 1999 tosome $580 million this year, and that even under today sprojections on the basis of current assured levels offunding—which may increase—funding will still increase nextyear to over $600 million.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Whichof the published dates should members of this House now beworking to: the dates that appear in the massive documentthat Transit put out today, which shows, for example, thatthe start date of the Kôpû bridge construction is 2008-09,or should members be working from the regional flyerdocument that comes with it, which states that the Kôpûbridge start date is 2014-15; which of those dates iscorrect?
Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said, it is that in theprojected State highway forecast plan, which is the lengthydocument that the member tossed first.
Peter Brown: Willthe Minister tell the House precisely who the Government hascommissioned to work on the range of options to close thefunding gap, which was referred to in his media release, andwhen can we expect detailed announcements?
Hon DAVIDPARKER: Some of those work streams will be carried out byTreasury, underneath the Minister of Finance, to determinewhat other funding streams should be brought into the fund.Some of the work relating to cost control will be carriedout under my ministry.
Peter Brown: I raise a point oforder, Madam Speaker. I did ask whether the Minister couldgive us some sort of accurate date as to when we couldexpect something.
Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said in answer tothe primary question, those options will be considered byCabinet before the State highway programme is finalised inJune.
Hon Maurice Williamson: In light of the Minister sanswer to the previous question I asked, which was that weshould use the dates in the big, thick consolidated Transitbook today and not the ones in the little regional flyer,why did Transit tell me only an hour ago that thedifferences between the two dates, which are considerable inmost cases, are that the dates in the big document are whatTransit could build now if it had the money, but the ones inthe regional flyer are what is planned to be built becausethere is no money to build the original programme—and Ithank him very much for his assurance that he will work offthe first dates, not the second?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, Icannot confirm that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leaveto table a "privatise all roads" speech delivered inQueenstown, which was given by one Maurice Williamson, thethen Minister of Transport, and which had all the levitationof a lead balloon at the time.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave issought to table that document. Is there any objection? Thereis objection.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Does the Ministerregret Labour s having sold Government Print to Graeme Hart,given that the Government is now involved in funding thesuccessor to that business on almost a weekly basis formindless, rubbishy documents that need to be reprinted justabout as quickly as Ministers change their minds?
MadamSPEAKER: I think that is a marginal question, but if theMinister wants to address it, he may.
Hon DAVID PARKER:No, I do not.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave totable the Jim McLay report made to National, advocating thatall roading in this country be owned by six privatecompanies.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table thatdocument. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.It will not be tabled.
Taxation Policy—Finance andRevenue, Ministers
4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH(National—Rodney) to the Minister of Revenue: Is hesatisfied that his working relationship with the Minister ofFinance regarding tax policy is an open and constructiveone?
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): Absolutely.The Minister of Finance and I have had an open, constructiveworking relationship and friendship for well over 20years.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it evidence of a goodworking relationship when the Minister of Finance says thatthe increase in personal tax thresholds may not go aheadbecause: "We have to find answers to the fiscal hole left bythe abolition of the carbon tax", only for the Minister ofRevenue to correct Dr Cullen, saying: "It is not a questionof filling holes actually", and, incidentally, who iscorrect?
Hon PETER DUNNE: We were talking about twoentirely different things. I was talking about the state ofthe Budget as a whole, and I do not think a minor differenceof that description is evidence of a bad workingrelationship. If it were, I would ask the member how hemanages to sit next to Mr McCully, given their differenceson foreign policy.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When thatMinister said recently on the business tax review that: "Thebusiness community should have confidence that the changeswill be substantial.", was he trying to correct animpression given by Dr Cullen s earlier statement: "It maywell be that we end up saying this is just too big andbold and we want something much smaller and moremodest"?
Hon PETER DUNNE: No, I was confirming Dr Cullen sview that the changes would be bold and innovative.
Dr theHon Lockwood Smith: With Dr Cullen telling the Finance andExpenditure Committee, and repeating it on the radio thenext day, that the Budget personal tax changes may not goahead, what guarantee can he give as Minister of Revenuethat those personal tax rate threshold increases will goahead on 1 April 2008?
Hon PETER DUNNE: That will dependon this House passing legislation to give effect to thosechanges. We are still working on that legislation.
Dr theHon Lockwood Smith: Did he voice his support for afree-trade agreement with Taiwan last Thursday—somethingtotally contrary to the Government s one-China policy—tosend a warning shot to his Labour partner that he does notappreciate being publicly usurped on tax policy by DrCullen?
Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, MadamSpeaker. In view of what occurred earlier, I just wonderedwhether that came within the scope of the original question.That was all.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. If the Ministerwishes to address it—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a pointof order, Madam Speaker. Clearly the Minister of Revenuedoes not have responsibility for trade policy, and while hemight even want to comment on it, he is proscribed fromdoing that by the Standing Orders.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I amsorry. Both were actually within the scope of the question,which is why I hesitated. That is why, if the Ministerwishes to address the part of the question that relates totax within his responsibility, that would be in order.
HonPETER DUNNE: The comments that the member raised in thequestion were not made as Minister of Revenue but as leaderof my party. But I can assure the member that they were madeout of heartfelt conviction, not out of any attempt to tryto exert some pressure on issues of taxpolicy.
Police—Destruction of Rifles
5. RON MARK (NZFirst) to the Minister of Police: Are the police to proceedwith plans to destroy more than 800 Remington bolt-actionrifles; if so, why?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister ofPolice): Yes, for the reasons given to the member in July2005 and again in December 2005.
Ron Mark: How can thepolice legitimately justify the destruction of thesesporting rifles, therefore denying taxpayers the opportunityto recover approximately $300,000, by their "obligationsunder an international convention to prevent and eradicatethe illicit trade in small arms." when New Zealand has notsigned the protocol of which they speak; further, NewZealand has not ratified that protocol and will not do sounless the House completely supports the Arms Amendment Bill(No 3), which is still before the House?
Hon PHIL GOFF: Ishould advise the member that the police routinely destroyhundreds of seized weapons every year—some of them quitevaluable weapons. The principal reason that the police haveindependently made that decision is they believe thatdumping 800 high-powered weapons on to the market wouldcreate risks that it does not wish to incur. Secondly, itbelieves that that decision is consistent with the UnitedNations recommendations and therefore wants to be in linewith what other responsible countries do.
Ron Mark: If thepolice are so concerned about dumping 800 sporting rifles onthe market into the hands of police-authorised, licensedfirearms dealers and police-authorised, duly accredited, fitand proper firearms owners, what does that now say about thepolice s confidence in their own vetting systems, and whatdoes it say about the taxpayers right to have moneyrecouped back into their coffers, which could so easily bedone?
Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members again thatquestions are for questions, not speeches, and in the caseof supplementary questions, the Minister is only obliged toaddress one of them.
Hon PHIL GOFF: I and, I think, mostmembers of this House would have every confidence in thepolice vetting system. It is very good. But that memberknows as well as I do that weapons that are acquiredlegitimately do not always end up in legitimatehands.
Kyoto Protocol—Auditor-General s Report
6. Hon DrNICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible forClimate Change Issues: What action does he intend to take inresponse to the Auditor-General s report to the LocalGovernment and Environment Committee that the Public FinanceAct 1989 was breached last year for not including the then$309,843,000 Kyoto liability in the supplementaryestimates?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible forClimate Change Issues): None. I am advised that the KyotoProtocol liability was not included in the 2004-05supplementary estimates because the value of the liabilityhad not been ascertained by the date of those estimates. Theliability was included in the books as soon as it wasreliably quantified in consultation with Treasury and AuditNew Zealand, and validating legislation is now before theHouse.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why would the Auditor-General soffice tell the select committee that the Government hadbroken the law, broken the Public Finance Act, in notdisclosing the liability, if the figures were not available,and why should anybody in this country believe that Ministerand that Government over the Auditor-General after the PrimeMinister s record over the pledge card fiasco?
Hon DAVIDPARKER: Because the Auditor-General did not express himselfin those words. It is a moot point as to what particular daythe liability was quantified to the standard expected forinclusion in the Crown books, but it is absolutely clearthat neither the Minister nor the ministry failed todisclose the projected deficit in volume terms—in terms ofthe number of tonnes of carbon dioxide—and accounting for itwas duly made by Treasury.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can theMinister say that the Auditor-General did not express inclear language that the Government had broken the PublicFinance Act, when, in response to the question "Did theGovernment breach the Finance Act?", Mr Keate from theAuditor-General s office said: "Yes, they did. There was abreach."; and, furthermore, the office, in its writtenadvice to the committee, said that validating legislationwould be required to fix the difficulty, which had beennotified to the Minister of Finance?
Hon DAVID PARKER: AsI tried to explain in one of my earlier answers, at the timewhen the supplementary estimates were being prepared it wasknown that a deficit was projected for the first commitmentperiod, but it was, at that time, projected by the relevantministry in terms of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide,not dollars. Crown accounts express things in dollars. Theconversion of that kilogram figure to the amount thatTreasury thought should be included in the accounts—indollar terms—did not happen until after the closing date forsupplementary estimates.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can theMinister come to the House and expect us to believe thatexplanation when the Auditor-General rejects it and says theGovernment broke the law?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I do notaccept that the Auditor-General was blind to the fact thatthe disclosure had been made in terms of quantity ratherthan dollars. Indeed, the Auditor-General appeared, on myreading of the report, to be quite satisfied that the matterhad been appropriately tidied up as soon as it couldbe.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: To clarify issues, I seek leave totable the Auditor-General s report that says that theGovernment did breach the Public Finance Act, and that itrequired validating legislation, and, furthermore, thetranscript from the select committee—
Madam SPEAKER: Can Itake the first one. Leave is sought to table that report. Isthere any objection? There is objection.
Hon Dr NickSmith: I seek leave to table the select committee transcriptin which Mr Keate from the Auditor-General s office said itwas a breach of the Public Finance Act, because there was noappropriation for that year.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave issought to table that transcript. Is there any objection?There is objection.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Ministerexplain to the House why the Government should not face someconsequence of breaching the Public Finance Act, whenanybody else who breaks the law faces consequences, even ifthe offence is a minor speeding offence under his transportportfolio—or is this $300 million bungle by the Governmentin the same class as the Prime Minister signing paintingsshe did not paint, the Prime Minister speeding in motorcadesand not facing prosecution—
Madam SPEAKER: That is notrelevant to the question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith:—and the sortof standard we have seen from Mr Benson-Pope?
MadamSPEAKER: I am sorry but I am trying here to ensure thatquestions are specific, and answered accordingly.
Hon DrNick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Theissue here is compliance with the law, and this Governmenthas a track record, whether it is paintings, motorcades, orMr Benson-Pope, of ignoring the law. I am asking theMinister—
Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Minister, then, toaddress the question.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I quote from thereport from the Auditor-General in my reply:
"Theunappropriated expenditure during 2004/05 relates to therecognition of New Zealand s Kyoto Protocol liability. Thiswas not included in the supplementary estimates as Treasurydecided to include this liability under Vote Climate Changein late June. Therefore, it is outside the ministry s"—thatis, the ministry for climate change—"control."
JeanetteFitzsimons: Has the Minister been advised of any actionstaken by that member when he was a Minister, or by any othermember of the National Cabinet, to reduce our inevitableliabilities for the high cost of carbon in the future, afterthe National Government had signed the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change in Rio in 1992, whichcommitted us to reducing emissions, and after its MinisterRob Storey had committed to a 20 percent reduction ingreenhouse gases by 2000?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise apoint of order, Madam Speaker. The question—
MadamSPEAKER: Would members please be seated. There is a lot ofmoving around the Chamber today, which is very distractingfor everyone, and members having their backs to everyone isnot a good idea, either. Would members please sitdown.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, MadamSpeaker. Not only were the allegations made by JeanetteFitzsimons untrue but, more important, events that occurreda good 6 to 8 years before the Minister came to office arewell outside his ministerial responsibility.
Hon TrevorMallard: From memory, I think the question was phrased: "Hashe seen any reports of" or: "Has he seen any evidence of".The Minister s having seen reports or evidence of matters,even if they occurred before the time he was responsible forthem, is certainly something that comes within hisresponsibility—if he has seen them as Minister.
MadamSPEAKER: There is no rule about how far back one can refer,as long as the reports are official reports. The questionwas phrased correctly, so I ask the Minister to addressit.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I have seen no such report, becausethere was nothing to report on.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How canthe people of New Zealand have any confidence in theGovernment s approach to Kyoto, when it proposed the "farttax", then dropped it, proposed the carbon tax, then droppedit, and then told us yesterday that it was back indiscussions with the forestry sector, although the forestrysector said last night that that could not be believed,either; is there anything about climate change that thisGovernment has said that can be believed and has been stuckwith?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Climate change policy is in astate of flux worldwide, and New Zealand is not exceptedfrom that. We have 15 comprehensive work programmes due tobe reported back to Parliament within the month.
Hon DrNick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table a newsrelease from Mr Jim Anderton yesterday stating that he hadhad a very positive meeting with the sector, and thatofficials would be talking with it again, and also a releasefrom the forestry sector saying that this was all untrue,and that there would be no further engagement withofficials.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table boththose documents. Is there any objection? There isobjection.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to tablethe Kyoto agreement, with the National Government ssignature on it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to tablethat document. Is there any objection? There isobjection.
Firearms Safety Seminar—PoliceContribution
7. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister ofPolice: How much did the police contribute to the budget ofthe international firearms safety seminar currently takingplace in Christchurch, and what other support did theyprovide?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Police): Thefirearms safety seminar was jointly organised andcoordinated by the Mountain Safety Council, the Council ofLicensed Firearm Owners, and the New Zealand Police. Thepolice contributed $20,000 towards the cost of theseminar.
Keith Locke: Does the funding of keynote speaker,Canadian Gary Mauser, indicate that the Government supportshis view that reducing criminal violence is helped whenGovernments "encourage responsible citizens to carryconcealed handguns"; and is there any connection between theinvitation to Gary Mauser and the fact that he andconference organiser, Inspector Joe Green, who is also incharge of gun registration for the New Zealand Police, wentoff on a hunting trip together last year?
Hon PHIL GOFF:The answer to the first question is no. But let me remindthe member that he risks misleading the House and thecountry by quoting five out of 22 presenters. I wonder whyhe did not mention that other presenters are ProfessorAnnette Beautrais, who supports tougher legislation in NewZealand because it has helped reduce firearms-relatedsuicide; David Capie, who has supported and improvedfirearms laws, secure armouries, and improved weaponcontrols to stop illicit small-arms trade in the Pacific;and Tsutomu Ishiguri, who is the director of the UN RegionalCentre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.Clearly, a wide range of views are being expressed at thisseminar. The Government does not stand behind, or vet, theview of anybody who turns up at a seminar to debate what isbest to make firearms safe. In relation to the second partof the question, I regret the fact that the member isreflecting on the integrity of Inspector Joe Green, simplybecause he did something totally legitimate, which was to gohunting with Mr Mauser. I would no more hold that againsthim than if I saw him having a beer in the pub with ananti-firearms person.
Keith Locke: Does it not undermineand run counter to the main purpose of the seminar as theMinister has just outlined it—that is, firearm safety—tofund keynote speakers such as John Lott, who is the authorof a book called More Guns, Less Crime, American NationalRifle Association lobbyist Mark Barnes, and Colin Greenwood,who describes the British handgun ban as "a patheticirrelevance"; and what does the Minister think it achieveswhen five of the 11 keynote speakers at the conference areextreme pro-gun lobbyists?
Hon PHIL GOFF: The member iscompounding the error that I just drew to his attention. Heis selectively taking some—five out of 22—presenters andfacilitators and saying that he does not agree with theirviews. I do not happen to agree with their views either, buta range of people are invited to the seminar to debate and,as the programme says—if the member had bothered readingit—to "exchange ideas, concepts, strategies and proceduresfor firearm safety". One does not get a debate if one onlychooses like-minded people who all say the samething.
Keith Locke: I seek leave to table photographs fromthe website of Canadian Gary Mauser of him and Inspector JoeGreen on a hunting trip together.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave issought to table that document. Is there any objection? Thereis objection.
Keith Locke: I seek leave to table anarticle from the website of Canadian Gary Mauser in which heexplains how one reduces criminal violence by encouragingcitizens to have concealed handguns.
Madam SPEAKER: Leaveis sought to table that document. Is there any objection?There is objection.
Keith Locke: I seek leave to table thebiographies and abstracts on the Christchurch seminarwebsite that explain the extreme pro-gun views of the fiveout of 11 keynote speakers I have mentioned.
MadamSPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is thereany objection? There is objection.
Hon Phil Goff: I seekleave to table the full programme of the internationalfirearm safety seminar, which sets out the seminar sobjectives—which are purely focused on firearm safety—andgives a balanced account of the wide range of speakers whohave turned up to that seminar.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave issought to table that document. Is there any objection? Thereis objection.
Question No. 8 to Minister
Hon TONY RYALL(National—Bay of Plenty): I raise a point of order, MadamSpeaker. Because the Minister of Health is not in a positionto answer this question, I seek leave to have this questionheld over until tomorrow.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought.Is there any objection? There is objection.
Focus 2000Ltd—Auditing Systems
8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay ofPlenty) to the Minister of Health: When he said that thequality of care at Focus 2000 Ltd was "no better or worsethan the quality of care anywhere else around the country.",did he have confidence in the auditing systems used toassess disability services, and does he still haveconfidence in those systems?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR(Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister ofHealth: Yes and yes. The quality control and auditingsystems used by the Ministry of Health are comprehensive,but no system is perfect.
Hon Tony Ryall: When theMinister of Health told Parliament yesterday that he hadreceived new information from a variety of sources aboutFocus 2000 mainly during the course of Friday with a littlemore over the weekend, why did he not pass that informationon to the Ministry of Health, given that the ministryconfirmed this morning that the Minister has not passed onany new information or allegations already in the publicarena, nor has it received any material from the weekend;and should he not be passing on that information, which theMinister himself called "potentially serious" allegations,to Ministry of Health officials who are meeting with Focus2000 representatives tomorrow?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Iunderstand that information has been passed on. Thoseallegations, and they are allegations, are beinginvestigated.
Ann Hartley: What options exist for peopleto bring forward complaints about disability supportservices?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: If people have complaints,they should express their concerns to service providers. Ifthey are not pleased with the reactions of serviceproviders, they should immediately approach either theMinistry of Health, the Health and Disability Commissioner,or the Minister of Health, so their complaints can beinvestigated.
Hon Tony Ryall: If the Minister did indeedpass on all the information he had to the Ministry ofHealth, why then was he telling Parliament yesterday that hecould not give members any details in order to protect boththe privacy of individuals and the national interest, whenthe Ministry of Health revealed this morning that all thatinformation is already in the public arena and there are nosecretive new allegations, as the Minister has tried tosuggest?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The rights of thecomplainants to privacy must be upheld. The accusations arebeing investigated by the Ministry of Health, and itsofficials will meet with the provider tomorrow.
Hon TonyRyall: Why does the Minister of Health not treat the issuesaround Focus 2000 with the due seriousness that isappropriate, instead of embarking on that campaign of mediaspin about secretive allegations to protect the names ofpeople who have been interviewed on the radio and who havegiven their names; or is all that part of a plan to cover uphis embarrassment at yet again jumping the gun and beingcaught out in endorsing an organisation that he now does notwant to endorse?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Minister ofHealth, and the ministry, are committed to due processwherever complaints are made. They are not undertaking somekind of cheap political campaign at the expense of disabledpeople in this country—as the National Party seemsdetermined to do.
Minimum Wage—Reports
9. DARIEN FENTON(Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What recent reports, ifany, has she received on minimum wage levels?
Hon RUTHDYSON (Minister of Labour): A Department of Labour reportshows that as of next month successive Labour-ledGovernments since 1999 will have lifted the minimum adultwage by 46 percent and the minimum youth wage by 95 percent.
Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any other reportsconcerning minimum wage rates?
Hon RUTH DYSON: As a matterof fact, I have. I have seen a report in which is expresseda strong desire to scrap the minimum wage and increase thenumber of people on welfare. I quote: "If they can t live onthose wages, then find some way of supplementing theirincome." So said Dr Brash.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise apoint of order, Madam Speaker. Nick Smith, at the end ofthat question, said: "That s just untrue." He is not allowedto say that about something that is said quite specificallyby a Minister in this House. It calls into question theveracity of the Minister, and on many occasions members havebeen disciplined for doing that.
Madam SPEAKER: I did nothear the interjection.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: A commontechnique of Ministers to get outside—
Madam SPEAKER:Would the member speak just to the point of order,please?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes. Well, the point of orderis about compliance with the Standing Orders. The Ministerconveniently—and she is not the only Minister to do it—getsaround Standing Order 377, in that it is not her job to talkabout what Don Brash or any member of the National Partysaid. We are quite capable of talking for ourselves. So whatMinisters do is get a long list of terrible things that weresaid—most of which are untrue—and tag on, right at the end,who said them. I interjected, quite properly, that what wassaid by Ruth Dyson was not true. It was a perfectly properinterjection, firstly because she has no responsibility forwhat was said—she was breaching Standing Order 377 in thefirst place—and, secondly, what she said was not true.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Madam Speaker—
Madam SPEAKER: It ismembers day!
Hon Trevor Mallard: I want to make itabsolutely clear to the House that as that reply was beinggiven by the Minister, Don Brash was nodding inconfirmation—pleading guilty, in fact, to making thecomments.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that. Thepoint is whether there is an implication of deliberatemisleading—and I did not take that to be this situation. Itwas just that it was wrong, from the member s point of view;it was not that the Minister was personally misleading theHouse.
Hon RUTH DYSON: I raise a point of order, MadamSpeaker. I understand from the interjection Dr Smith madethat he was accusing me of misrepresenting Dr Brash in aquote. That quote was directly from an interview with DrBrash on Good Morning on Television One on 26 August 2004.Therefore my integrity has been challenged, and I ask you toseek withdrawal of that comment from Dr Smith.
MadamSPEAKER: Dr Smith, the Minister has sought a withdrawal ofthe comment—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: What the Minister said wasnot true, and I stand by that.
Madam SPEAKER: The Ministerhas asked, because offence was taken in respect of theimplication. She has given evidence of where the quote camefrom.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, MadamSpeaker. Might you explain to the House, under StandingOrder 377, where that Minister was in order at all, intalking about what Dr Brash had said, as it occurs all overthe place. It occurs repeatedly. The reason why the Housegets into trouble is that you do not enforce Standing Order377, whereby Ministers have no responsibility for what anymember of the Opposition says. It has nothing to do withtheir ministerial responsibilities. I think I am perfectlyentitled, when members from this side of the House arehalf-quoted, to say "simply not true."
Hon Mark Burton: Iraise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister wasreplying to a specific question as to whether she had seenany reports. The Minister had clearly seen a report, andfurthermore she subsequently quoted the source and date ofthat report. It clearly was in order.
Madam SPEAKER: Ithink the point here, however, is that any member has aright to object to a personal reflection. That has happenedhere, so in that context I would ask the member to pleasewithdraw the comment.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw.
DrWayne Mapp: How will the Government s proposal to boost theminimum adult wage to $12 an hour in 2008 improve NewZealand s already low productivity, given that Britain, theUnited States, and Australia have minimum wages lower as apercentage of incomes than New Zealand, but they are muchwealthier than New Zealand?
Hon RUTH DYSON: The member iscorrect in pointing out that addressing productivity is akey priority for this Government, and it is good that we areable to do it with the lowest unemployment rates recorded inNew Zealand for over two decades. Making workers feel valuedfor the value of the work that they contribute by givingthem a fair wage is an important contributor to thatgoal.
Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister seen any OECDreports where the OECD now believes that minimum wages are avery positive reinforcement of productivity and economicgrowth for economies when previously they held a differentview?
Hon RUTH DYSON: That is absolutely correct, and Iwould recommend that the member who asked the previoussupplementary question read the report.
Social Developmentand Employment, Minister—Allegations
10. JUDITH COLLINS(National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Developmentand Employment: Does he believe his ability to perform hisduties as Minister for Social Development and Employmentcould be impaired, in light of allegations made against himin Investigate magazine; if not, why not?
Hon DAVIDBENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development andEmployment): No, as Minister I have no responsibility forthe views expressed in Investigate magazine.
JudithCollins: Does the Minister believe that his ability toperform his duties as Minister for Social Development andEmployment would benefit from him issuing defamationproceedings against Investigate magazine and Mr Wishart, oris he willing to leave unanswered allegations amounting tomisuse of his ministerial warrant?
Hon Trevor Mallard: Iraise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is veryimportant in this case that it is made clear to the Housethat allegations of a criminal nature were made about aMinister in the past. They were made about him in hispersonal capacity. Mr Wishart has suggested that theMinister used his position in relation to the Ombudsman—thatis what he has said. Of course, any individual who has beendealt with by a Government department has the right toapproach the Ombudsman. That is not something that is aministerial responsibility, it is something that everyindividual has the right to do, and therefore the membercannot mix up personal matters and ministerialresponsibility.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for thecomment, but I listened carefully to the question and it isin the terms of the Standing Orders, and the Minister willanswer the question within the terms of hisresponsibility.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Those matters havebeen fully investigated, and as far as I am concerned thereis nothing further to add.
Judith Collins: Does theMinister believe that his ability to perform his duties asMinister for Social Development and Employment would benefitfrom him issuing defamation proceedings against Investigatemagazine and Mr Wishart, or is he willing to leaveunanswered allegations that he acted improperly towardsyoung women in his charge?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I justanswered that question.
Judith Collins: Does the Ministeraccept that his ministry has overriding policyresponsibility for the well-being of our most vulnerablechildren, and that allegations such as the ones maderecently in Investigate magazine prevent him from doing hisjob?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes and no.
Judith Collins:What assurances has the Minister given to the Prime Ministerthat allegations of him influencing and intimidating thepolice will not affect his ability to perform his job asMinister for Social Development and Employment?
Hon DAVIDBENSON-POPE: I think questions about my performance andcapacity to perform in the role should be addressed to thePrime Minister.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order,Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister what assurances, if any,he had given the Prime Minister. I should not have to askthe Prime Minister what assurances she has received, if I amalready asking him what he has told the PrimeMinister.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed thequestion, and the member is perfectly entitled to lay down aquestion at a future time to do so.
Judith Collins: Iraise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On that basis you aresaying that the Minister does not need to answer anyquestion—from now on, his answer can be just "Ask the PrimeMinister."?
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. I addressedthat point of order. The Minister is entitled to address thequestion. The Minister did address the question. It relatedto the subject matter of the questioner. It may not havebeen to the satisfaction of the questioner.
Hon Dr NickSmith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can itpossibly be an answer addressing the question, when all theMinister did was say "Go ask the Prime Minister."? Thequestion from my colleague was quite specific, about whatassurances he had given, as Minister, to the Prime Minister.That is a question that can be directed only to theMinister. It was directed quite properly, and the answer didnot address the question.
Hon Mark Burton: I raise a pointof order, Madam Speaker. I have been listening for 2 days,and this has been happening repeatedly and we have just seenanother example of it. A member raised a point of order, youmade a ruling, the same member got up and basically engagedin a continuing debate with you about your ruling, and thena second National member got up and continued the sameprocess. That is a blatant abuse of the Standing Orders, andit really is time that the National Party front bench wascalled to account.
Madam SPEAKER: I had ruled on it. Thequestioner asked a question; she received an answer. Whetheror not the member liked the answer is not a matter for theSpeaker to judge.
Stewart Island—Rakiura NationalPark
11. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Ministerof Conservation: What assistance is the Government providingto ensure Stewart Island infrastructure is able to meet thetourism demands expected following the establishment of theRakiura National Park?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister ofConservation): Dr Cullen and I have just signed off on a$2.5 million grant to fund a range of projects on StewartIsland, including extending the sewerage scheme and buildingadditional toilets, providing new footpaths, and providing anew building to house the local museum, council staff, and atourism information centre. Those projects will be deliveredin partnership with Southland District Council.
SteveChadwick: What other initiatives is the Department ofConservation undertaking in the Rakiura National Park?
HonCHRIS CARTER: In the past year alone a number of importantprojects have been undertaken on the island. They includeupgrading the popular Mason Bay huts so that they canaccommodate more people, improving walking tracks, andworking with local iwi to eradicate rats from the nearbyTîtî Islands.
United States Relationship—ForeignPolicy
12. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays)to the Prime Minister: Has she been advised of reports thather Minister of Foreign Affairs is intent on building abetter relationship between New Zealand and the UnitedStates; if so, does that represent the foreign policy of herGovernment?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, andI welcome building on the already very, very goodrelationship that New Zealand has with the UnitedStates.
Hon Murray McCully: Why did the Prime Ministerrespond to Mr Peters stated intention of seeking help fromthe Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, toimprove the relationship with the United States, byrejecting the need for a better relationship or any helpfrom Mr Downer, because New Zealand could "paddle its owncanoe"; and why did her Minister of Foreign Affairs ignoreher and ask Mr Downer for help anyway?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK:Even the very best of relationships can always be improvedon, and I look forward to the Minister s efforts in thatregard.
Hon Murray McCully: Which policy is the policy ofthe Prime Minister s Government: the policy promoted by MrPeters that we need a better relationship with the UnitedStates and that Mr Downer is helping us to get one, or herpolicy that the relationship with the United States needs noimprovement and therefore we do not need any help from MrDowner?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order,Madam Speaker.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: He s sensitive.
Rt HonWinston Peters: I am always very sensitive about things thatare total untruths. My point of order is that that statementmade by Mr McCully is absurdly incorrect. It is not thepolicy of the Government, it has never been a policyarticulated by me, and the member should not be allowed toget up and just make it up on the hoof, as he tried to doyesterday in front of a very august group of people, whowent away horrified at his suggestions.
Madam SPEAKER:That is a debating point.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise apoint of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure of the name ofthe member—it is the new one over there next to the one fromthe West Coast—who interjected twice or three times duringMr Peters point of order. I know that the front-benchmembers are sticking to the rules; maybe the back bencherscould.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear that, but I know weare getting towards the end of question time and there mightbe a slight anxiousness to move to the general debate. Ijust ask members to observe the rules. When points of orderare being made—before they are ruled to be in or out oforder—the members doing them are to be given courtesy.
RtHon HELEN CLARK: I repeat that we have a very, very goodrelationship with the United States, but even the bestrelationships can always be built on. However, unlike theNational Party, this Government would not sell thenuclear-free policy down the drain to do it.
Hon MurrayMcCully: When the Minister of Foreign Affairs said recentlythat he wanted to put the New Zealand - United Statesrelationship "on a much more harmonious and positive level",what was he saying about the current state of therelationship?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: He was saying preciselythat very, very good relationships can still be improved. Imight say it is a great comfort to speak for a party thathas a policy, unlike the National Party—"McCully: Nats needpolicy".
Te Ururoa Flavell: E whakaae ana te Pirimia ki tekôrero o tana Minita o te Manatû Aorere, i a ia e kî ana itçnei Whare i te 13 o Hakihea i te tau kua hipa mô ngâ takewhakawhitiwhiti kôrero ki ngâ tângata whenua o te ao. Aneipea te whakautu pai ki a mâtou ko te kâwanatanga e kôreroana ki te tangata whenua, kua whakaae mai tçtahi, ngâtângata whenua nei hei
Source: scoop
All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.
Related Articles
|
