(uncorrected
transcript—subject to correction and further editing)
WEDNESDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER
2003
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions
to Ministers:
2. Māori Television Service—Chief Executive
3. Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Environment, Minister
4. Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister
5. Solomon Islands—Regional Assistance Mission
6. Immigration—Third World Diseases
7. Education—Export Initiative Risks
8. Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Contamination Reports
9. Business Law—Coordination with Australia
10. Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Document Disclosure
11. Ministerial Confidence—Health, Minister
12. Ministerial
Confidence—Māori Affairs, Minister
Questions
for Oral AnswerPharmaceuticals—Dispensing
1.
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua)STEVE CHADWICK (NZ
Labour—Rotorua)158CHADWICK, STEVE to the Minister of HealthHealth: What has been the reaction to changes to dispensing
of pharmaceuticals?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health)58KING, Hon
ANNETTE14:01:45Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): The reaction has varied from consumers who are
delighted by the changes, to pharmacists who are concerned about the loss of income,
and to Opposition spokespeople on health, like Lynda Scott, who said on 1 July
this year that 2,000 jobs would be lost if the proposal went ahead.
Steve Chadwick158Steve Chadwick: Has she received any subsequent advice on
changed attitudes towards the dispensing of pharmaceuticals?
Hon ANNETTE KING58Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. I have received a copy of a letter from
Lynda Scott to Pharmac, dated 29 July this year, stating: “I think it is a
sensible decision based on good clinical advice. The modification of your
original proposal has gone down well, and shows the modified result must have
been approved by a large percentage of the population.” I was delighted by the
support from the National Party.
Dr Lynda Scott177Dr Lynda Scott: What does she have to say to the 90 pharmacy
fourth year students who are dejected and distressed because they cannot now
get an intern placement to complete their pharmacy training, because under this
Government’s stat dispensing proposal, pharmacists say it costs them more to
dispense medicines for the Government than they receive, so they can no longer
take on an intern?
Hon ANNETTE KING58Hon ANNETTE KING: Considerable work has been done with the
Pharmaceutical Society to find placements for interns. However, the issue is
not just about a change to stat dispensing, which that member wrote to Pharmac
and supported, it is also about the fact that for the first time we have two
schools graduating pharmacists this year, going from 100 to 170, so it does
mean a lot more work has had to go into finding placements. I met with the
Pharmaceutical Society this week, and I am very pleased with the progress that
has been made.
Pita Paraone214Pita Paraone: Is the Minister aware of any pharmacists,
particularly in the rural areas, who are now struggling to meet salary and
other costs to remain in business because of the drop in income as a
consequence of the new dispensing regime?
Hon ANNETTE KING58Hon ANNETTE KING: No, because stat dispensing does not commence
until 1 October, so they are continuing to receive the same income. However,
the member will be interested to know that district health boards are working
with pharmacists to ensure that we retain rural access, and the money they
receive from the saving of stat dispensing will go back into providing
pharmaceutical services.
Sue Kedgley170Sue Kedgley: What will happen to the many pharmacy interns
who are having great difficulty finding a placement, because pharmacies are
saying they cannot afford to place interns after the introduction of bulk
dispensing, and given that a placement is a requirement for completing their
degree?
Hon ANNETTE KING58Hon ANNETTE KING: I answered that question to Lynda Scott, in
that a considerable amount of work has been done with the Pharmaceutical
Society, including looking at other places to place pharmacists, from district
health boards into Medsafe and Pharmac itself; and I am pleased with the
progress that has been made.
Heather Roy219Heather Roy: Can she guarantee that she stands by her
repeated assurances that the cost of prescription medicines to the poorest
patients in the country, all of those enrolled in Access primary healthcare
organisations, will still drop from $15 to $3 on 1 October this year; if not,
why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING58Hon ANNETTE KING: In the near future I will take to Cabinet a
package of measures that includes the co-payment area and looks at reducing the
cost to those over 65 years of age. It will mean a much better provision for
many more New Zealanders, and I will announce a decision on that in the near
future.
David Benson-Pope153David Benson-Pope: In light of the positive responses following
modification of the original proposal—responses like Lynda Scott’s—has the
Minister received any further reports of changed attitudes towards the
dispensing of pharmaceuticals?
Hon ANNETTE KING58Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I do happen to have another report dated
28 August from Lynda Scott, who said that pharmacists are reeling under what
has happened to them due to Pharmac. I am now dismayed at the change in the
National Party’s approach to stat dispensing. I suggest that the House tunes in
next month for the next episode in shifting National Party policy.
Dr
Lynda ScottDr Lynda Scott177: I seek leave to table the Pharmaceutical
Society magazine that states the society has grave concerns about the ability
for community pharmacists to offer intern placements because of stat
dispensing.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any
objection? There is objection. I want to say that the answer to the last
question went too far. I think the Minister should restrain herself in future.
Pita Paraone214Pita Paraone: How will the reported savings from the new
dispensing regime be spent?
Hon ANNETTE KING58Hon ANNETTE KING: The estimated saving of $132 million over a
full year will go back to the district health boards. It can be spent on
pharmaceutical services, paying for what pharmacists actually do, rather than
paying them because of the amounts they dispense. That money can also go into
projects like diabetes, primary health-care, and a range of other activities
that the district health boards wish to spend it on.
Hon Tony Ryall94Hon Tony Ryall: Does she believe that her inept handling of
the pharmaceutical issue is the reason that in the latest publication of the
medical magazine 8 percent of general practitioners voted for her as the
preferred health Minister, compared to 43 percent for National’s Dr Lynda
Scott, and is that the reason that 83 percent of general practitioners surveyed
rate Labour’s performance as poor?
Hon ANNETTE KING58Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I do not think that is the reason. After
all, we are talking about pharmacists and not general practitioners. However, I
am aware that 86 pharmacists were surveyed for that poll, which is probably
what the National Party would like to happen when opinion polls are done of
those who support it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters86Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would anyone have confidence in her word
that $132 million will go back to the industry as a result of the changes in
respect of Pharmac, when the last two changes that brought significant cuts to
the cost did not go back to the industry, and, in fact, led to people in this
country getting second-class drugs in a claimed First-World health system?
Hon ANNETTE KING58Hon ANNETTE KING: I cannot answer the member’s question, because
I was not responsible for the last two changes to stat dispensing. Stat
dispensing was removed in 1996 under the previous National Government when it
brought in monthly dispensing. It did not happen under this Government.
Rt
Hon Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: Not true.
Hon
ANNETTE KINGHon ANNETTE KING58: That is absolutely true. If the member wants
the information I can give it to him. In fact, I am sure that Lynda Scott will
confirm that stat dispensing was removed in 1996 by a National Government.
Hon
Tony RyallHon Tony Ryall94: I seek leave to table a copy—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: That is the warning today. There will be no
comments during points of order and no comments during the asking of questions.
The next person will leave, and that is a promise.
Hon
Tony RyallHon Tony Ryall94: I seek leave to table the poll from Doctor
magazine headed “Great Scott, Lynda Ahead”.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any
objection? There is.
Questions
for Oral AnswerMāori Television
Service—Chief Executive
2. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ)Dr MURIEL
NEWMAN (ACT NZ)82NEWMAN, Dr MURIEL to the Minister
of Māori AffairsMāori Affairs: Was he correct yesterday in the House when he
answered “yes” to the question, “Was the chairman of the Māori Television
Service factually correct when he said there was no confidentiality agreement
binding Mr Fox?”, and what action has he taken to assure himself that the
Māori Television Service Board properly investigated the truth or
otherwise of the complaint that led to the investigation into the “human
resources issue”?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs)167HOROMIA,
Hon PAREKURA14:11:32Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori
Affairs): As I
later clarified to the House yesterday, Mr Walden did not seek an agreement.
However, I am advised that there was a term in the agreement between the
parties that confidentiality be maintained. Ministers do not have a copy of the
document but they agreed with Mr Walden that he seek Mr Fox’s consent for that
section of the agreement to be released.
Dr Muriel Newman82Dr Muriel Newman: In light of Dr Cullen’s answer to a
supplementary question to question No 8 on Tuesday, 26 August that the matter
“could well be a police matter”, can he assure the House that his Government
has checked that the Māori Television Service Board is not an accessory in
covering up a crime; and, if he has not checked, does that not make him an
accessory as well?
Hon
Trevor MallardHon Trevor Mallard67: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There
has just been a direct accusation of criminal offence on the part of the Minister—a
direct accusation.
Hon
Roger SowryHon Roger Sowry103: It was not.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber. I said that
the next person to interject would leave, so he leaves. That is a warning to everybody.
I am hearing the point of order, and I have heard the comment from the Hon
Trevor Mallard.
Hon Roger Sowry withdrew from the Chamber.Withdrawal from Chamber
Hon
Richard PrebbleHon Richard Prebble88: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard
can make the statement as much as he likes, but that is not what was put to the
Minister. The Minister was asked whether the Government, knowing that the
matter might be criminal, has colluded in covering it up, and whether that does
not also make it an accessory. That is a straightforward question that I would
expect the Opposition to be able to ask. One of the things we want to do is
make sure that our Government is not colluding in covering up crimes.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: I thought that the question—having listened to
it and having sought advice—asked an opinion that is in order.
Rt
Hon Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not
want to challenge your ruling but, with respect, there has been some clear public
information that suggests that the allegation that the Government is aiding and
abetting in this case is serious. Secondly, the so-called and only potential
complainant in this case has said that she is happy with the outcome. Now that
being the case, there cannot be a crime in the way that is being alleged in the
question. That is why I say the question is out of order.
Hon
Richard PrebbleHon Richard Prebble88: Far be it for me to question my learned
colleague in the law, but he will be aware that just because a complainant in a
criminal matter withdraws, it does not mean that no crime has been committed.
Indeed, if she has received a payment to withdraw, there could, in fact, be a
cover-up. If some of the rumours that are circulating regarding this matter are
correct, there has been a crime.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: The only thing that cannot be done is to
accuse any member of this Parliament of a criminal offence. However, the point
is that no charge relating to an offence has yet been laid. There is nothing in
the question as it was originally asked that is out of order.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA167Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It seems to be speculation. My understanding
of criminal collusion is that it is a matter between the parties and the board
for the Government.
Rt Hon Winston Peters86Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why on earth, when the Minister was first
asked this question, did he not give the answer that he just gave—in short,
that the board and other parties were not in a position to inform him of the
nature of it due to the confidentiality clause—and, more important, why has he
left someone to hang out in the public eye, accused of serious misdemeanours
when, if he knew the facts as he surely should have, it was thoroughly improper
that the allegations that I have heard in this House, and that he has heard,
were made in the first place?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA167Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am not as advanced as my learned colleague
over there in the sense of serving time here, but, certainly, it is a matter
for the board—and I stressed that at that time—and not for the Government.
Hon Tony Ryall94Hon Tony Ryall: In respect of his answer to the primary
question today, why did he give the exact opposite answer yesterday?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA167Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I did not.
Marc Alexander196Marc Alexander: Why is it that the Minister is personally able
to interfere in what are actually commercial decisions regarding broadcasting
platforms for the Māori Television Service, for example, yet when we ask
fundamental questions about its leadership and recent personnel departures it
is “an operational matter for the board” for which the Minister conveniently
has no responsibility?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA167Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The matters on platform are policy and
agreement between the Government and the Māori Television Service. Those
other matters are operational matters—the board’s business.
Rodney Hide50Rodney Hide: Can the Minister confirm that it suits him and
this Government to have these allegations swirling around Mr Fox, with his
Associate Minister Dr Cullen talking about the police and fuelling the fire,
because Mr Derek Fox came within 600 votes of beating this Minister in his own
electorate and if it were not for these allegations swirling around, he would
clean him out at the next election?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA167Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No. At least I had the strength to run for the
seat and get voted in. The further matter, that of being scurrilous and
spreading speculation, is a matter for voyeurs, not Ministers.
Dr
Muriel NewmanDr Muriel Newman82: I seek leave to table the question for oral
answer from last Tuesday, in which Dr Cullen says that the issue could well be
a police matter.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any
objection? There is.
Rt
Hon Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know
you have ruled out behaviour that is not becoming of the House, but surely you
do not wish to rule out applause, which rarely is given, when somebody scores a
palpable hit.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not, and if I ever thought I was
going to get to that stage I would be giving up this job.
Questions
for Oral AnswerGenetically Modified
Sweetcorn—Environment, Minister
3. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green)JEANETTE
FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green)34FITZSIMONS,
JEANETTE to the Minister for the EnvironmentEnvironment: When she said in relation to the Environmental
Risk Management Authority yesterday, “if there are issues to do with
genetically modified organisms coming directly into our food chain as a result
of any release … I would consider that probably a serious enough matter to do
it for them.” did she mean that she will use her call in powers under the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 to determine any applications
to release food and feed crops or animals; if not, what did she mean?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment)51HOBBS,
Hon MARIAN14:19:43Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Any decision to call in an application would be
done on a case by case basis.
Jeanette Fitzsimons34Jeanette Fitzsimons: When she said in the New Zealand Herald
on 28 August that if Monsanto “comes down to New Zealand and says ‘we want to
do a full release’ I don’t think they’ve got a hope in hell of being able to
get that”, but that a conditional release of genetically modified pine trees
“might go ahead because it ain’t food”, what clause in the Hazardous Substances
and New Organisms Act does she think that the Environmental Risk Management
Authority might use to treat food differently from other releases?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS51Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The context of those quotes was a seminar to
journalists in which the question asked of me was: “When is call-in likely to
be used?”. I gave examples of when call-in might be used, and also of
considerations that the authority might take when it took economic
circumstances, or health circumstances, or environmental circumstances into its
consideration, as it is required to do under the Hazardous Substances and Other
Organisms Act.
David Parker215David Parker: Are we likely to see applications for release
of a GM crop or a GM herd bred for human consumption in the near future?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS51Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Not for many years, and if such an application
were made, its first-time nature might well provoke a call-in response from the
Minister.
Hon Dr Nick Smith102Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did the Minister receive a memo from Dr Basil
Walker, Chief Executive Officer of the Environmental Risk Management Authority,
on 27 February 2001, marked “Urgent—in confidence”, on GM contaminated grain”,
stating: “The interim protocol is based on a testing standard which, although
very strict, will allow low levels of GM contamination. In essence, inadvertent
releases at very low levels will be tolerated.”; if so, how can she possibly
maintain the pretence that the Government had a zero tolerance approach?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS51Hon MARIAN HOBBS: First of all, I want to say that that is right
outside the line of the original question, but I will—
Rodney
HideRodney Hide50: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister is
objecting to the question, the proper procedure is to take a point of order and
ask you to rule. You have allowed the question. It is her job to answer it.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: I will do this job, Mr Hide, not you. I
listened to the question. The Minister can make the comment she made. It was
perfectly in order to make it. However, I do not want to be ruling out every
single question that comes in. As far as this was concerned, it was wide, but
the Minister can say that it is wide. I think she was going to say that she
might not have that information with her. That is up to her to say.
Hon
MARIAN HOBBSHon MARIAN HOBBS51: Mr Speaker, you are exactly right, as usual. I
was going to add the word “but” at the end of that. Having said that it was
wide of the original question asked, if we are back to the argument of
yesterday—and I am doing this completely from memory—I have not got that
memorandum in front of me but I know exactly what is being referred to. It is
the very old argument, which we have gone over many times in this House, of the
confusion between tolerance of contamination and tolerance of the confidence of
testing.
Hon Ken Shirley98Hon Ken Shirley: Can the Minister further explain to the House
how she and her Government can maintain a zero tolerance claim when that same
briefing paper from Basil Walker, the head of the Environmental Risk Management
Authority, dated 27 February, addressed to the Minister for the Environment and
marked “Urgent—in confidence”, went on to add, after the words: “In essence,
inadvertent releases at very low levels will be tolerated”, the words: “There
is no way that this can be construed as simply a continuation of existing
policy. It represents a shift in policy, which, in my opinion, will probably
require legislative change to formalise.”; how does the Minister explain that?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS51Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Quite easily. I think the answer lies in the
last part of that quote. This Government never made any legislative change to
change any policy, because there was no change in policy. That is ministerial
servants talking to each other, and not to us.
Hon
Ken ShirleyHon Ken Shirley98: I seek leave to table the “Urgent—in
confidence” memo.
Document, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Larry Baldock197Larry Baldock: Returning to the main question, does the
Minister believe that the ministerial call-in power provides a better
precautionary backstop than the continuation of the moratorium and a Luddite
response that would leave us scientifically behind the rest of the world?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS51Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Yes, I do. To continue the moratorium, as some
members in this House would have us do, does not allow New Zealand to access
any of the possible benefits that new technology might offer. It is a blunt
approach. Implementing a case-by-case framework allows benefits to be assessed
against costs and risks, and the inclusion of the ministerial call-in power
allows closer scrutiny of applications with significant effects.
Jeanette Fitzsimons34Jeanette Fitzsimons: If she really believes as she said in answer
to a previous question that there will be no applications for release for
years, then what would be the problem in maintaining a moratorium until there
is more known internationally about the economic, environmental, and health
effects of these organisms?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS51Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Quite simply because the moratorium is a very
blunt instrument. This Government is going ahead with what the royal commission
advised, which was to do things on a case-by-case basis and to proceed with
caution. Case by case is cautious.
Jeanette Fitzsimons34Jeanette Fitzsimons: If she intends to call in applications that
are perhaps politically inconvenient, does that not contradict the assertion
that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is an independent,
quasi-judicial scientific authority and the decision should be left to it?
Hon MARIAN HOBBS51Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I know of no time when I have said that I
would use a call-in power for a politically sensitive decision.
Questions
for Oral AnswerGenetically Modified
Sweetcorn—Prime Minister
4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the
Opposition)Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the
Opposition)32ENGLISH, Hon BILL to the Prime
MinisterPrime Minister: Did any of the Prime Minister’s staff have any
communication with her or with Mary Anne Thompson about which “corngate”
documents would not be publicly released; if so, what was the content of that
communication?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister)19CLARK, Rt
Hon HELEN14:27:39Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I am advised there was not such communication.
Hon Bill English32Hon Bill English: Whether or not the Prime Minister was advised,
can the Prime Minister herself tell us whether any of her staff had any
communication with her about which “corngate” documents would not be publicly
released?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The answer to that is, no they did not.
Hon Bill English32Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister going to take
disciplinary action against Ruth Wilkie, who wrote a memo referring to
discussions she had with Mary Anne Thompson and Mark Prebble that quoted the
Prime Minister’s expressed wish, or did she make that up?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mary Anne Thompson has said that she did not
have such a conversation with me. She did not have such a conversation with my
staff.
Hon Bill English32Hon Bill English: Did her staff advise her that in fact it was
not four documents that were withheld, it was 184 documents that were withheld,
as set out in this schedule—that is, documents that were promised before the
election, but not released before the election?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That has come to my attention only in the last
day. In November I found out that Dr Prebble had not released the four
documents relating to my own department. My understanding is that when Mr
Price’s request came in, then there was a very detailed look around, and more
documents came to light. They were for a great range of departments.
Hon Bill English32Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that that
“detailed look” 12 months after the election uncovered this document from
Michael Wintringham to every Government department chief executive with this
quote from a public servant, and I quote from the email: “The appearance may be
that these public servants who were at the press conference are no more than
political puppets, especially since what they are now saying is different to
what official papers at the time said.”; and can she tell this House that if
that document had got out in the election campaign, it would have been bad, bad
news for her?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My instruction was that all documents were to
be released. As I recall, at the time Mr Wintringham had a concern that civil
servants were being drawn into the campaign. However, that was no reason for anyone
to deliberately hold anything back; nothing should have been held back. I
understand that officials went to very great lengths to assemble as much
information as they could before Mr Carbon and other officials saw media on, I
think, Thursday the 11th.
Hon Bill English32Hon Bill English: Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to total
openness on this issue, is it not remarkable that a politically damaging email
was in the hands of the top 30 civil servants in this country—being the chief
executive of every Government department—on 12 July 2002, and that none of them
thought to include it among the 1,800 pages that were released, and is it not
equally remarkable that it has surfaced only now; and what action will the
Prime Minister take about a civil service indulging in calculated deceit?
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: The first two questions can be answered.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There is no person more frustrated than I am
that all documents were not released instantly, but I will not have it said
that there was calculated deceit by officials.
Hon Bill English32Hon Bill English: Given that this highly incriminating document
was in the hands of every chief executive, and that the Prime Minister had
directed that all documents should be released, how does she describe the
behaviour that meant it was held back if it was not calculated deceit?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is not clear whether the member is accusing
Mr Wintringham of calculated deceit; I most certainly would not accuse him or
other senior civil servants of that. My understanding is that they made their
very best endeavours to get all relevant information out. Clearly, not all
information was released, but eventually it did all come out. For example, the
information that the member has went to the Local Government and Environment
Committee back in April, and I imagine that the Opposition has just got round
to reading the file.
Rt Hon Winston Peters86Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister prepared to admit that,
were it not for the fact that those documents were withheld, she would have
lost the last election, thereby belying the view of certain sycophantic
reporters in this country that she is unbeatable?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not think that for a moment, given the
absence of Opposition.
Hon
Bill EnglishHon Bill English32: I seek leave to table a list of the 184
documents on “corngate” that were withheld prior to the 2002 election.
Document, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon
Bill EnglishHon Bill English32: I seek leave to table an email from Michael
Wintringham, the State Services Commissioner, to every chief of a Government
department setting out the concerns of a civil servant about civil service
behaviour.
Document, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Questions
for Oral AnswerSolomon Islands—Regional Assistance Mission
5. TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch
Central)TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central)7BARNETT,
TIM to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and TradeForeign
Affairs and Trade: What
reports has he received on progress being made by the Regional Assistance
Mission in the Solomon Islands?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade)38GOFF, Hon
PHIL14:35:15Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): Progress has been reported on a number of
fronts. Weapons handed in now number 3,580. The removal of corrupt and criminal
elements from the Solomon Islands police force is currently under way, with
seven officers having been arrested over the last 10 days. Action is also being
taken to remove corrupt personnel from other departments. Finally, financial
advisers in inline positions have begun work with the Solomon Islands
Government to establish a credible budgetary process.
Tim Barnett7Tim Barnett: What role are New Zealand personnel playing in
this process?
Hon PHIL GOFF38Hon PHIL GOFF: The New Zealand Police personnel have been
active in four areas: the special response group, community policing,
intelligence, and investigations. I want to pay particular tribute to two
officers. Acting Superintendent Tony McLeod, who managed the successful arms
amnesty, and acting Commissioner Tony Annandale, who personally arrested the
high-profile, allegedly corrupt Solomon Islands Superintendent of Police, James
Kili. The military personnel continue to provide essential transport, logistic,
and engineering support. The infantry company that arrived last week is
currently settling in and in due course will assist police operations if and
when required.
Hon Peter Dunne27Hon Peter Dunne: Now that Harold Keke has been detained, what
steps has the mission been able to take in terms of breaking up the remnants of
his supporters and also their influence on affairs in the Solomons?
Hon PHIL GOFF38Hon PHIL GOFF: Not only was Harold Keke arrested but also a
number of his lieutenants, some of whom have been charged with murder. There
are now policing stations placed on the Weathercoast. Work is continuing there,
but it is not yet considered sufficiently stable to return the approximately
1,000 refugees who are in camps just outside Honiara.
Questions
for Oral AnswerImmigration—Third World Diseases
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)Rt Hon
WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)86PETERS,
Rt Hon WINSTON to the Prime MinisterPrime
Minister: In her answers to
yesterday’s oral question No 3, why did she say “As I understand it there is a
screening for a disease like tuberculosis.” and “Whether the rules are
different for refugees I do not know.”, in response to the matter raised about
the number of tuberculosis and other Third World diseases within hospitals in
the North Shore and Auckland region and how does she justify her confidence in
her Minister of Health and Minister of Immigration?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister)19CLARK, Rt
Hon HELEN 14:37:38 Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): The member asked a question without notice on
this yesterday and he cannot expect detailed answers. I have confidence in both
Ministers because they are both hard-working and conscientious.
Rt Hon Winston Peters86Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why after 24 hours can we not, in this House, expect
some detailed answers to information already partially released in this House,
and available to her Minister of Health; and how is it that the Minister of
Immigration has let into this country thousands of immigrants each year since
she has been there, without first checking them abroad but having the checks
later done here when it is far too late; why is it that the Minister of Health
does not know about this; and how can she tolerate—
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: That is four questions.
Rt Hon Winston Peters86Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am getting to the finish of it.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Only two will be required to be answered.
Rt Hon Winston Peters86Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, how can she tolerate—without laughing
irresponsibly—a fact that has New Zealand now subject to significant Third
World disease in our hospitals?
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: When members ask questions I allow them to ask
two. But when there are four—and the last one is by far the longest—that is not
really on. I am allowing it this time, Mr Peters, but I just want to say that
those are the rules and members cannot ask questions in that way.
Rt Hon Winston Peters86Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept
that, but when we have Ministers’ responsibilities—
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: No, please be seated. I have made a ruling and
I have been generous to the member, although I need not have been. I just want
to say that any comment about answers and what have you, is not my job. My job
is to make sure that questions are in order and answers are in order. Now, this
question can be asked and the Prime Minister can comment, and I will ask her to
do so.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Screening was introduced for quota refugees
for tuberculosis in the 2002-03 year. It did not exist when the member was
Deputy Prime Minister.
Rt Hon Winston Peters86Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would the Prime Minister make a statement
that is totally refutable and untrue when she knows full well that there are
hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came here with full certification from
their countries of origin, including X-rays and evidence like that there,
having regard for the fact that her own Minister of Immigration admitted during
the last campaign that people during her time were coming in without the
required clearances in respect of disease, and without the correct TB X-rays
and evidence of their state of health; why would she just make it up as she
goes along?
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: The first two questions can be answered.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am advised that offshore screening for quota
refugees was introduced for the first time during 2002-03. There has been
health screening for all other residence applicants for a long time.
Rt
Hon Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not
asking her about refugees alone; I am asking her about immigration, which last
year was 72,500. Why is she seeking sanctuary in a small category, which even
that has expanded by four times?
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: That was a direct answer to one of the
questions the member asked.
Rt
Hon Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: I seek to table a document that shows that a
poor woman—a New Zealander, of course—went to a hospital on the North Shore and
was told that she would have to have her baby and be out of there within 2
hours.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is
there any objection?
Hon
Annette KingHon Annette King58: What has that to do with it?
Rt Hon
Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am
seeking leave to table a document from the North Shore Times Advertiser
and she shouts out: “What has that to do with it?”. She is so dumb she does not
understand why that woman was kicked out of the hospital early.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did interject, and I ask her to
leave the Chamber. Objection has been taken to table that document.
Ron
MarkRon Mark69: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No, it is all right.
Sorry, it is my mistake.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please just concentrate.
Rt
Hon Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If we are
to concentrate on the facts, how about asking the Minister to leave right now.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is—
Rt
Hon Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: She is still here.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. He should
not overdo it or he will leave, too. I am not having that sort of nonsense.
Rt
Hon Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You
asked her to leave.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: She has.
Annette King withdrew from the Chamber.Withdrawal from Chamber
Rt
Hon Winston PetersRt Hon Winston Peters86: She has now, but not when you asked her to.
Usually in this House people leave when you ask them to.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: I judged the Minister was gathering her
papers. She was doing that satisfactorily, and I judged she was doing as she
was asked to.
Questions
for Oral AnswerQuestion No. 7 to Minister
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future)213OGILVY,
BERNIE14:43:21BERNIE OGILVY (United Future): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice
the Minister is not there. [Interruption] He will do.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: There is a Minister. I warn the member, as he
is a new member, that in future that would lead me to carry on with the next
question. He must ask the question if he wants to.
Questions
for Oral AnswerEducation—Export Initiative Risks
7. BERNIE OGILVY (United Future)BERNIE
OGILVY (United Future)213OGILVY, BERNIE to the Minister
of EducationEducation:
Does he stand by his statement that the export education industry is “proving
to have its risky and volatile sides.”; if not, why not?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education
(Tertiary Education))65MAHAREY, Hon STEVE14:44:13Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate
Minister of Education (Tertiary Education), on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes.
Bernie Ogilvy213Bernie Ogilvy: Is he concerned that the impact of the
downturn in the number of foreign fee-paying students will hit schools hard in
the light of the recent study that showed that 40 percent of secondary schools
are already unable to balance their books, and only do so if they rely
excessively on locally raised funds, parental donations, and fee-paying
students; if not, why not?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY65Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Schools are paid adequately through their
operational budgets to run their schools. Many of them have decided to take on
international students, and they need to be very careful about how many they
take on for that reason.
Jill Pettis87Jill Pettis: What has been done to strengthen the quality
of educational provision and pastoral care of those international students?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY65Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In order to continue the success of the export
education industry in New Zealand it is essential that education is provided at
a very high quality and that students leave New Zealand better off than when
they came. The Government is actively working to foster a culture of continual
improvement—something our own domestic students benefit from. We recently
released a strengthened code of practice for the pastoral care of international
students, which reinforces the safeguards in place for the welfare of
international students. We are strengthening the powers of the New Zealand
Qualifications Authority to protect the quality of the educational environment.
Jim Peters217Jim Peters: Does the Minister agree that focusing
predominantly upon the growth of the export industry rather than upon the
quality of the product, including the lack of adequate pastoral care, was
really the issue and is still the issue with regard to the import of students?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY65Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, quality is the only thing that matters
when we are talking about export education. People who put anything else first
will come a cropper, so, as the member knows, we have focused very much on
pastoral care through the code.
Bernie Ogilvy213Bernie Ogilvy: In the light of the current volatility in the
export education industry and the Minister’s concern that international
students have positive experiences, what would he do to assist those students
who may be left without an education, accommodation, or their fees, if the Modern
Age Institute of Learning closes down, since his ministry has already pocketed
a levy of between $600 to $900 per student to promote pastoral care?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY65Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is working
with the owners and others in the sector who are involved with the institute.
They tell me that at the moment the exact shape of the organisation that will
emerge will become clear in the next few days.
Bernie Ogilvy213Bernie Ogilvy: Can the Minister confirm that the current downturn
in the export education industry will make it more difficult for tertiary
institutions to hold to the Government’s fee-maxima policy without cutting
staff or jeopardising quality; if not, why not?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY65Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No I cannot, because it appears that the major
downturn in the number of students is in the English language area rather than
throughout the tertiary education sector. For example, Massey University is
enjoying a lift in the number of overseas students at the present time. I
cannot confirm what the member has just asked.
Bernie Ogilvy213Bernie Ogilvy: Is the Minister concerned that the current
volatility in the export-education industry is also related to the relative
ease of acquiring student visas in other countries, such as Australia and
Malta, where educational institutions can make bulk applications on students’
behalf, and is he working with the Minister of Immigration on this particular
problem?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY65Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is an issue for all countries to properly
smooth the way for students to get visas. I know from my own personal
experience, speaking as the Minister responsible for the tertiary area, that I
have been in China myself talking with officials from immigration and from the
Chinese area to ensure that visas are available and operating smoothly so that
the students can come here.
Questions
for Oral AnswerGenetically Modified
Sweetcorn—Contamination Reports
8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson)Hon Dr
NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson)102SMITH,
Hon Dr NICK to the Prime MinisterPrime
Minister: How does she
reconcile her statement on National Radio on 11 July 2002 that “ERMA was in
with MAF advising Ministers from the outset, and the advice we got was that
there was no GE contamination.” with the statement by Dr Basil Walker, Head of
the Environmental Risk Management Authority, on 12 July 2002 that “I should
make it clear that at no stage have we said, categorically, there was no
contamination.”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister)19CLARK, Rt
Hon HELEN14:49:51Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I was referring to the advice Ministers had
received, which was that there was no reliable evidence of contamination.
Presumably, Dr Walker was making the point that unless one destroys every
single seed one can never be 100 percent sure.
Hon Dr Nick Smith102Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the Minister for the Environment, in
giving evidence to the select committee, said that there was a significant
difference between saying there was no contamination and saying there was no
evidence of contamination, does she now concede that what she said on National
Radio was incorrect, and will she be re-examining her conscience?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do have the transcript from that particular Morning
Report where I said: “Firstly, I can state categorically that the tests
confirmed there was no evidence that there was GE contamination.” I later went
on to leave out the words “no evidence”, but I really think it is neither here
nor there. As the member knows, unless we destroy every seed, we will never
know. I note that on 11 July, and in other places where Dr Walker was
interviewed, he said: “The conclusion we reached”—that is, the Environmental
Risk Management Authority—“was that there was no reasonable case for assuming
that genetically modified contamination had occurred.” There was no evidence.
Hon Ken Shirley98Hon Ken Shirley: In view of her admission to the House today
that her earlier claim that documents were not withheld was incorrect, and in
view of her false claim on National Radio on 11 July: “The advice we got was
that there was no GE contamination”, will the Prime Minister retract her
invitation to the Hon Nick Smith to examine his conscience—as requested by
him—and, instead, look in the mirror and examine her own conscience?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Most certainly not. I have yet to be presented
with any evidence that that corn was contaminated.
Hon Dr Nick Smith102Hon Dr Nick Smith: In that same National Radio interview she
said: “I am sitting here, Sean, looking at the sampling sheet that came back.
There is no positive test revealed. Every inquiry we have made of officials
confirms there were no positive tests”, how does that compare with the fact
that there are 38 documents from different agencies referring to positive
tests, and having gone through 1,800 pages of documents I cannot find the
sampling sheet that she was referring to?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My advice is there was no credible evidence of
positive tests. I well recall the slip of paper I was looking at where there
were two columns, and one had to have presence proved in both to go on to run
another test, as I recall, that there be conclusively a positive. There was
never such conclusive evidence.
Jeanette Fitzsimons34Jeanette Fitzsimons: With the advantage of hindsight, and after
reading again the memos that were written at the time, will she now agree that
the evidence from the corn tests, which included some positive and some
negative indications, was inconclusive, rather than that it proved no
contamination?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is not my understanding. My recollection
is that we had to have a line-up of positives. It was not just enough to have
one indication; one had to have matching indications.
Hon
Dr Nick SmithHon Dr Nick Smith102: I seek leave to table 38 documents that refer
to positive tests. I also seek leave to table the transcript, in which the
Prime Minister said there were no positive tests.
Documents, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Leave is next sought to table the transcript.
Is there any objection? There is.
Hon
Dr Nick SmithHon Dr Nick Smith102: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is
unclear—Mr Mark Peck—I want to be clear as to whether I can table the document.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: I heard an objection, quite clearly, twice. There
was objection taken.
Jeanette Fitzsimons34Jeanette Fitzsimons: In view of the case that this inquiry is
hinging centrally on the nature of the testing that was done in Melbourne and
the nature of those preliminary positive results from tests that were never
quite completed, can the Prime Minister offer us any help at all in getting the
seed company responsible and the testing laboratory to give evidence to the
committee?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think the member asked me a similar question
next week. I do not have the power to make them appear, at all.
Questions
for Oral AnswerBusiness Law—Coordination with Australia
9. MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill)MARK PECK
(NZ Labour—Invercargill)85PECK, MARK to the Minister
of CommerceCommerce:
What is she doing to progress business law coordination with Australia?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce)23DALZIEL,
Hon LIANNE14:55:50Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): Last week I attended the closer economic
relations 20th anniversary joint ministerial forum in Sydney, which
was also attended by Senator the Hon Helen Coonan, the Australian Minister for
Revenue, and Assistant Treasurer. We issued a joint statement on business law
coordination between Australia and New Zealand that highlighted an agreement to
explore ways to improve the coordination of our competition regimes,
preliminary agreement on detailed proposals for mutual recognition of
securities offerings, measures to facilitate the efficient enforcement of
trans-Tasman insolvencies, and an agreement to establish a joint working-group
to develop trans-Tasman accounting standards.
Mark Peck85Mark Peck: How does that trans-Tasman work programme
relate to the report that was issued by the Australia - New Zealand Business
Council at the closer economic relations ministerial forum?
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL23Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The Australia – New Zealand Business Council
report that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research was commissioned to
undertake is entitled “Stepping Towards a Borderless Market”. Given the focus
on competition policy in that report, and its view that in a borderless market
it would anticipate only one competition body and one set of rules, I am sure
that the Australia – New Zealand Business Council will be pleased with the
signal both Governments have given in that regard.
Questions
for Oral AnswerGenetically Modified
Sweetcorn—Document Disclosure
10. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition)Hon BILL
ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition)32ENGLISH,
Hon BILL to the Prime MinisterPrime
Minister: Noting her
statements that she wanted full disclosure of all documents relating to GM-contaminated
corn, will she and her office and department release all such information and
communications, including emails, memoranda, and briefings, received or
prepared by her, her office, and her department since 11 July 2002; if not, why
not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister)19CLARK, Rt
Hon HELEN14:58:05Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I am not aware of any fresh requests for such
information. However, I do not see any reason it would not be complied with.
Hon Bill English32Hon Bill English: Could she reassure the House that all
documents would be released, and why would the House believe that reassurance
when 184 documents were held back prior to the election, even when she said on
the Sky television leaders debate: “People got a full account. Not only a full
account, they are getting the whole bucket load of documents landed. This is a
Government that is accountable, doesn’t cover things up.”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is asking for an assurance that he
obviously does not want to get. The reality is that a lot of the documents in
his list of 184 relate to after 11 July, in any case.
Hon Bill English32Hon Bill English: Can the House take it that the assurance she
has just given that all emails, memoranda, briefings, and communications
received or prepared by her, her office, or her department on “corngate” since
11 July 2002, will be understood by Dr Mark Prebble, and that he will comply
fully with the assurance and not hold back any documents according to phoney
conventions?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would expect so. It is a mystery to me why
the first instruction was not followed.
Hon Ken Shirley98Hon Ken Shirley: In view of her admission today that she now
has new information surrounding the release of documentation, is she prepared
to accept an invitation from the select committee to attend a select committee
to assist it with its inquiry?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have made it clear, if the threshold for
a Prime Minister being summoned to a select committee is that low, there would
not be a policy issued before the Government where I would not be held
accountable.
Jeanette Fitzsimons34Jeanette Fitzsimons: Noting the Prime Minister’s statements about
full disclosure by the Government, and the current lack of full disclosure by
private companies, does she believe it is adequate for the Government to rely,
for its evidence of safety testing of any kind, on documents owned by those
companies and passed on at their discretion?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is a matter for biosecurity officials. It
is not something that I have the technical expertise to answer.
Hon Bill English32Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that among the
184 documents withheld prior to the election, 170 of which are dated 10 July or
earlier, are 32 individual communications from or to her personal adviser in
the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on this matter; and can she
confirm that those 32 communications were withheld precisely to make sure that
no one found out how much she knew about what had been going on?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I cannot confirm any such thing.
Hon Richard Prebble88Hon Richard Prebble: Instead of telephoning news editors in the
gallery yesterday and saying: “The Prime Minister is aggrieved they are telling
lies about the Prime Minister”, would not a popular and competent Prime
Minister have apologised for telling the country that all documents had been
released prior to the election, and would not that popular and competent Prime
Minister now front up to a select committee?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have not said to anyone in the gallery: “I
am aggrieved”, because I am not aggrieved. I am absolutely confident of what my
involvement was, and it was so minimal that it would hardly register on the Richter
scale of involvement in any issue.
Rod Donald25Rod Donald: Can we interpret Marian Hobbs’ earlier
statement that there will not be genetically engineered crops in New Zealand
for years, coupled with her statement that she would call in the first
application for any such release, as a Clayton’s extension of the moratorium?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No.
Questions
for Oral AnswerMinisterial Confidence—Health, Minister
11. RON MARK (NZ First)RON MARK
(NZ First)69MARK, RON to the Prime
MinisterPrime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Health; if
so, why?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister)19CLARK, Rt
Hon HELEN15:03:42Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because she is a hard-working and
conscientious Minister.
Ron Mark69Ron Mark: How can she have confidence in her Minister of
Health, given that in 2002 mentally ill patients drained police of 26,000 hours
of reported time through responding to 6,175 reported incidents, and given the
hundreds of mentally ill patients inappropriately serving prison sentences; and
should not the Minister of Health be responsible for these people instead of
leaving it to the unfortunate victims to find them, and the police, the courts,
and the Department of Corrections to pick up the pieces?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What the Minister of Health can take pride in
is having secured, in the Government’s first Budget, almost one-quarter of a
billion dollars extra over 4 years to implement the mental health blueprint.
She can also cite figures that show that in the years from 1970 right through
to the year 2000, which is the period over which the deinstitutionalisation of
mentally ill people occurred, the proportion of homicides committed by people
with serious mental illness actually decreased. The services are better, but we
can never rule out that a person with mental illness will not commit a crime,
just as we cannot rule out that a person without mental illness will not commit
a crime.
Ron Mark69Ron Mark: If everything is so wonderful, and if all the
plans are working so well, how is it that in the last few weeks we have had a
young woman who is known to have mental health problems throw herself in front
of a train in Porirua, a man wandering the Wellington motorway brandishing a
replica firearm, an incident in Masterton that had the armed offenders hunting
a man in relation to an axe-rage attack, and yet another incident in Northland,
again involving a man who attacked the police with an axe?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: All those incidents are very sad and
regrettable, but unless we detain every person with any diagnosed mental
illness 24 hours a day, we cannot guarantee they will not happen.
Questions
for Oral AnswerMinisterial Confidence—Māori Affairs, Minister
12. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ)Hon
RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ)88PREBBLE,
Hon RICHARD to the Prime MinisterPrime
Minister: Does she have
confidence in the Minister of Māori Affairs; if so, why?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister)19CLARK, Rt
Hon HELEN15:06:30Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I do because he is a hard-working and
conscientious Minister.
Hon Richard Prebble88Hon Richard Prebble: As the Prime Minister is personally
responsible for the Government’s foreshore policy, would not a popular and
competent Prime Minister go herself to the foreshore huis instead of sending an
obviously sick man who we all know had no role in formulating the Government’s
foreshore policy?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK19Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is incorrect. The Minister of
Māori Affairs has participated fully in the formulation of the Government
proposal, and he and the other Ministers who have worked on the proposal with
colleagues in the Māori caucus will be taking it around the country.
Questions
for Oral AnswerQuestion No. 9 to Minister
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce)23DALZIEL,
Hon LIANNE15:07:00Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I apologise for not doing this earlier, but I
seek the leave of the House to table the joint statement on closer economic
relations by the closer economic relations 20th anniversary
ministerial forum and associated communiqués, as well as the Australia – New
Zealand Business Council report Stepping Towards a Borderless Market.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is
there any objection to that course being followed? There is.
Questions
for Oral AnswerQuestion No. 11 to Minister
RON MARK (NZ First)69MARK, RON15:07:55RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table a statement from Mike
Moore, former psychiatric social worker and Prime Minister, who stated: “We
have closed down hospitals, now planning to rebuild similar wards inside
prisons”—
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is
there any objection? There is.
RON MARK (NZ First)69MARK, RON15:08:18RON MARK (NZ First): In respect of my question to the Prime Minister
I seek leave to table a report in which the Prime Minister, Helen Clark,
promises to take a hard line on accountability—all the way, to include the
sacking of incompetent and bungling Ministers.
Mr SPEAKER53Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any
objection? There is.
End of Questions for Oral Answer
(uncorrected
transcript—subject to correction and further editing)