(uncorrected
transcript—subject to correction and further editing)
WEDNESDAY, 19 NOVEMBER
2003
1. Education—Teacher Development
2. Rail Network—Government Contribution to
Upgrade
5. District Health Boards—Nurses' Pay
6. Immigration, Minister—Confidence
9. New Zealand Film Commission—Government
Support
10. Project Aqua—Statement of Minister for
the Environment
11. Overseas Investment Commission—Conditions
on Transactions
12. Breast Cancer—Access to Mammography
Services
Education—Teacher Development
1.
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui)
to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to lift student
achievement through improved teacher development?
Hon
TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Best evidence research released earlier this
year found that the quality of teaching was the major factor in improving
student achievement. Today I announced funding of $1 million for 13 research
projects in this area. The projects range from effective teaching in different
cultural contexts through to information technology, numeracy, and
comprehension.
Nanaia
Mahuta: Why is improving
student achievement in areas such as numeracy and comprehension so important?
Hon
TREVOR MALLARD: We want all
New Zealanders to be able to do their numbers and to comprehend what is
happening in the world around them. I have received recent reports that suggest
that at least some New Zealanders appear to be able to do their numbers one
week, but not the next. It is particularly concerning that the ability to
consistently count from one to 14 appears to be beyond the grasp of some
people, but then it is hard to count when someone is stealing your stuffed
dummies. [Interruption]
Mr
SPEAKER: I do not need the
member shouting. I am well aware of that fact. That is all right. It is his
first day in this position. I am prepared to be generous.
Simon
Power: How is teacher
development being improved when the Government’s flagship for ethics and
professionalism, the New Zealand Teachers Council, saw the Minister sack its
first chairperson, Kathy Irwin; its second chairperson, Stan Rodger, left in
June after just a year; its director Margaret Kouvelis resigned on 10 October;
the Minister installed a crisis team earlier this year; and one of its other
core jobs, creating a code of ethics for teachers, has still not been
completed?
Hon
TREVOR MALLARD: It is fair
to say that progress as far as the Teachers Council has been disappointing to
date.
Rail
Network—Government Contribution to Upgrade
2. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister
of Finance: Does he stand by his statements that the Government’s initial
contribution towards the upgrade of the rail track will be $200 million, and
that it will be possible to recover the ongoing investment costs from that
point on; if so, why?
Hon
Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes. The Government’s commitment under the
heads of agreement with Toll Holdings stops at $200 million. Toll Holdings will
pay for any additional investments from which it derives commercial benefits,
including the cost of capital.
Gerry
Brownlee: Is he aware that
Solid Energy New Zealand’s assessment of the midland coal line requires $183
million to be spent over the next 15 years and, considering this is just one
part of the network, but a considerable part of the $200 million available, how
can he be confident that that $200 million plus the access charges will be
enough to renew and maintain the entire network?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: The member’s
question answers itself when he says that is the estimate of our spending over
the next 15 years of $183 million on that particular respect alone. If there is
expenditure above the $200 million required for commercial reasons, then that
is recouped.
Hon
Mark Gosche: What benefits
does the Toll Holdings deal offer New Zealand?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: It undoes
the worst effects of the very soft privatisation deal entered into by the
National Government in 1993. It gives the country the chance to get a decent
infrastructure for rail and a better balance between rail and road freight.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: Does the
Minister remember the view taken by the Labour Party on 20 July 1993, when the
Labour Party announced its support of this deal, except that it said the timing
was wrong?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: Even the
best of us occasionally err.
Jeanette
Fitzsimons: Can the Minister
confirm that the long-term value to New Zealand of having a functional rail
system is considerably more than $200 million, and that this value includes
reducing or avoiding heavy trucks on routes such as the Napier-Gisborne highway
and the road to Port Chalmers through Dunedin City?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: I absolutely
agree with that. I think, indeed, the best example is what would happen if the
road infrastructure collapsed and central North Island logs had to be carted by
road over the Kaimai Range into Tauranga.
Rodney
Hide: Can the Minister
confirm for the House that the contribution is capped at $200 million, and can
he tell the House that this initial contribution will be the final contribution
the taxpayer has to make?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I
certainly cannot confirm the latter, because the Government may have other
reasons for infrastructure improvements beyond the commercial need of the time.
Gerry
Brownlee: What assessment
has the Government done so far of what capital expenditure it may have to
commit over and above the $200 million?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: There is
still a lot of work to do on the long-term infrastructure needs in terms of the
rail system. I think it is fair to say that we knew a good deal more about it
than some other potential players when recent events occurred.
Exports—Security
3. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister
of Customs: Does he stand by his comments on 5 November 2003 regarding the
Government’s proposal to have exporters pay for new national security measures
that “… those who benefit from New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and secure
trading partner should contribute to the cost of meeting these new
requirements”; if so, why?
Hon
Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House), on behalf of the Minister of Customs: Yes, because
both the Government and traders benefit from New Zealand being seen as clean,
green, and safe, so both the Government and those who trade should contribute
towards security costs.
Gordon
Copeland: Noting that
answer, does the Minister agree that all New Zealanders benefit from improved
security at our ports, not just those who import and export goods; if so, why
does the Government not pay for these reforms as part of its core obligation to
protect its citizens, rather than singling out import and export businesses?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: A good part
of these increased costs are a requirement for United States trade—in
particular compliance costs imposed by the United States Government. There is
no particular reason why the New Zealand Government should bear all those
costs. The argument the member puts forward would, of course, apply to a very
large range of Government services for which the Government charges, and should
we choose to do so, substantial increases in tax rates would be required, which
is contrary to the submissions the member has made to me.
Luamanuvao
Winnie Laban: Why has the
Government chosen this approach?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: The
Government pays a good deal already to protect New Zealand’s borders and keep
them safe for all New Zealanders—some $35 million a year for customs services.
The United States and other nations need to be assured of the safety of all
goods on ships and aircraft, and it is appropriate that there is a sharing of
costs in these respects.
Shane
Ardern: Why does the
Minister think it is justifiable to place up to $20 million worth of costs on
industry and exporters, when all other security is paid for by the State?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly a
good part of the reason for that is that these costs are being applied from
elsewhere. This Government, unlike most other Governments in the world, is taking
on the responsibility of trying to ensure that New Zealand exporters can, in
effect, get into the fast lane in terms of access to the United States. To meet
these requirements would cause considerable difficulties on shore in the United
States, and those costs elsewhere are being met directly out of the private
sector.
Peter
Brown: Will the Minister
confirm that these costs, in regard to exporters, are being imposed on
carriers, and does he not recognise that a carrier of a large quantity of cargo
will pass on a relatively small cost to an exporter, as against the carrier of
a small volume of cargo, who will be forced to pass on a heavy cost to an
exporter; and does he think that is fair and equitable?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: My
understanding is that the charge is a per-container charge rather than a
per-ship charge. A question about the flat rate issue has been raised by some
interested in this matter, and obviously we need to make sure that that is the
fairest way of approaching it. Most other approaches would have higher
compliance costs.
Gordon
Copeland: Does the Minister
agree with the Minister of Finance’s statement in the House yesterday regarding
the proposed border security measures, that they are “a response to demands
from the United States. In other countries around the world it has been
basically left to the private sector to meet those conditions.”; if so, why?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: I understand
the Minister of Finance made those statements on the basis of advice from the
Minister of Customs.
Gordon
Copeland: Does the fact that
the Canadian Government has recently announced spending of Can$172.5 million
for port security, therefore treating border security as a national defence
issue, alter his stated view?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: No. In the
case of Canada, of course, some 88 percent of its exports go to the United
States. They are, effectively, a one - exporting nation country, compared with
New Zealand.
Gordon
Copeland: Does the fact that
the United States Government has allocated $2.3 billion in its 2003 Budget for
the customs service to carry out its border security role in any way alter his
stated view?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I have
not, off the top of my head, been able to scale the United States versus New
Zealand in that regard. I would emphasise that the New Zealand Government
already spends a large amount of money on border security, and those costs are
continuing to raise quite rapidly.
Gordon
Copeland: Is the Government
planning to rush its port security proposals through, as an amendment to the
Border Security Bill before Christmas, without proper parliamentary or select
committee scrutiny?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister
of Customs was advised by the Leader of the House that there is no intention to
rush this bill through before Christmas.
Gordon
Copeland: I seek leave,
first, to table a document showing that Ottawa is pumping $172.5 million—
Document, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Gordon
Copeland: Secondly, I seek
leave to table a document showing the United States of America is putting $2.5
billion towards—
Documents, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Legal
Aid—Eligibility
4. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister
of Justice: What are the eligibility criteria for receiving legal aid, and
what powers exist for the Legal Services Agency to recover any or all of the
financial assistance delivered under this scheme?
Hon
PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): Sections 8 and 9 of the Legal Services Act set out the
eligibility criteria for legal aid for criminal and for civil matters. The
criteria for criminal legal aid date back to 1912. Aid is available in criminal
matters where any adult applicant, charged with a serious indictable offence in
New Zealand, does not have sufficient means to obtain legal assistance, and the
interests of justice require that he or she be granted it. The Legal Services
Agency can require an individual to make a contribution towards the cost of a
lawyer.
Hon
Tony Ryall: What will the
Minister do about Yiju Zhang, a Chinese on a student visa, convicted of 39
charges, including kidnapping, threatening to kill, and aggravated robbery, who
was able to use his law to buy a shorter prison sentence by paying $64,000
reparation, yet was able to plead poverty and receive $41,000 legal aid?
Mr
SPEAKER: Before the Minister
answers that question, this is the only warning I am giving. The question will
be heard in silence.
Hon
PHIL GOFF: The first part of
the question asks what I would do. The member will know well that under section
98, which sets out limitation on Ministers’ powers to direct. I cannot direct
the Legal Services Agency to do anything, and I note that every member of this
House voted for that clause. In relation to the agency’s ability to collect
money, my understanding is, in this case, it is investigating whether any of
the legal aid money can be recovered. It is worth noting that more than $12
million was recovered last year from those granted legal aid.
I make the final point that not
to grant legal aid to anybody facing a charge that, in this case, resulted in
10½ years imprisonment, would not only breach our legal obligations, it would
be totally contrary to what the National Party spokesperson on justice says
about people not representing themselves in court. [Interruption]
Mr
SPEAKER: I do not mind a
little bit of interjection, but there was too much during that answer. I will
not be giving a warning again.
Tim
Barnett: How much is spent
on legal aid, and has there been a blowout in legal aid expenditure?
Hon
PHIL GOFF: Last year we
spent about $82 million on legal aid. This year we are tracking towards much
the same level. There has been no blowout in legal aid expenditure over the
last 4 or 5 years, in contrast with the mid to late 1990s when annual increases
in legal aid were running at 17 percent and 19 percent.
Stephen
Franks: Will the Minister
not even consider his usual practice of promising a review for a case where
someone has got what the New Zealand
Herald of 30 October said was a 2½ year discount on his sentence for a
$64,000 reparation payment, yet it appears he was so poor he could not meet his
own legal aid bills?
Hon
PHIL GOFF: I very rarely
respond to calls to review from that member, so I will not be doing so on this
occasion. The money was paid by the family. It was under no legal or moral
obligation to do so. I only wish that the New Zealand families of offenders
were as forthcoming in trying to make amends. Legal aid is determined on the
financial ability of the individual, not the individual’s family. That law
applies to all New Zealanders. In relation to the payment of that money, I
understand that the victims are very pleased in this case to have received
substantial reparation.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: Given
that every political party in this Parliament but one is for wholesale
immigration and soft treatment of these sorts of crooks, when will the Minister
stop wasting—[Interruption] It is true, all right.
Mr
SPEAKER: That is the final
warning. The member interjecting is very, very lucky. I want the Rt Hon Winston
Peters to restate the question.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: Given
the record of every political party in this Parliament but one being in favour
of wholesale immigration and a soft touch when those people rip the New Zealand
taxpayer off, when will the Minister do something for people like Mary Bloggs
who pay their taxes, who look after their families, and who are good citizens,
instead of kowtowing to every group in this country that has no long-term
interest in New Zealand’s financial or social viability?
Hon
PHIL GOFF: The premise of
the member’s question is wrong. That person was not an immigrant, he was an
international student. He was one of 82,000 international students who come to
New Zealand each year, returning this country about $1.7 billion a year.
Inevitably, amongst 82,000 people we will get some ratbags. He was one of them.
Judy
Turner: In light of the
personal and financial sacrifice made by kinship carers such as grandparents,
does the Minister agree that they should not be means tested when applying for
legal aid for the purpose of seeking guardianship of children in their
protective care; if not, why not?
Hon
PHIL GOFF: The rules apply
separately from criminal to civil legal aid, as I am sure the member is aware.
I am also aware of the plight of some of the people in the position she is
talking about. I would like to see something done to help people in that
situation. There is currently a review on eligibility for legal aid, which
should consider that.
Hon
Tony Ryall: How fair is it that
the millionaire family of a foreigner can pay $64,000 to get a 2½ year lesser
prison sentence, but expect the New Zealand taxpayer to foot a $41,000 legal
aid bill?
Hon
PHIL GOFF: I made the point
before that any individual—and the same rule applies to every individual facing
a serious criminal charge in this country—is looked at on the basis of his or
her financial ability. The claim about a “millionaire” sits somewhat strangely
alongside all the newspaper reports I have seen on this family, because they
suggest the family was of modest means. Perhaps the member would like to give
me the information on which that allegation was based.
Stephen
Franks: In view of the
Minister’s refusal to even consider a review of this case, why has the overall
eligibility review—promised in 1999 and referred to again as “due next year, in
2000 on legal aid eligibility overall”—never surfaced, and could it be because
the Minister promised to make it “more generous” and now realises that New
Zealanders actually want to see it as less liberal?
Hon
PHIL GOFF: The member is
wrong on two counts. Firstly, I have no power—in fact, I am expressly forbidden
from reviewing a case by the Legal Services Agency. Secondly, far from the
eligibility review never having surfaced, if the member likes to look on the
website he will find it there. It has been there for quite some time, and the
report back is due next month.
Marc
Alexander: How is it
possible that taxpayers have been handed a $176,385 legal aid bill for four
members of an extortion ring, when one of them, and his family, was able to pay
reparation of $64,000 and pleaded guilty to 39 charges—particularly as the
legal aid was given to offenders on student visas—and is this not just another
example of New Zealand taxpayers subsiding non-resident offenders?
Hon
PHIL GOFF: If I refer the
member to article 14.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which this House has ratified, and every party in this House voted for,
he will see there is an obligation that any person facing serious criminal
charges in this country, who does not have personally sufficient means to have
legal representation, must be provided with it. I also point out that the
actual amount paid in amends—not reparations ordered—was in excess of those
legal costs. The family was under no obligation to pay that. The family did
that itself. The individual must be judged, as all other individuals are
judged, in terms of his eligibility for legal aid. That was done independently
of me and of this House.
Hon
Tony Ryall: Given Mr Goff’s
outraged reaction prior to the 1999 general election, when there were
allegations made about a Chinese millionaire apparently receiving legal aid, of
which Mr Goff said was a “major outrage and needed to be stopped”, what will he
do to recoup the money from people who can obtain cash for shorter prison
sentences but not to pay for their lawyers in New Zealand?
Hon
PHIL GOFF: If any individual
receiving legal aid in this country was a millionaire I would be outraged,
because that is expressly prohibited under the legislation that we have passed.
The legislation sets out the criteria very clearly. The Legal Services Agency
applies those criteria, and, to the best of my understanding, it has done so
accurately.
District
Health Boards—Nurses' Pay
5. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister
of Health: What, if any, provision have district health boards been asked
to make for pay increases for nursing staff in the next financial year, and
will they receive any extra funding from the Government to provide nursing
staff with pay rises?
Hon
ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Most boards have settled nurse pay negotiations
through various multi-employer contracts. One contract has been settled to at
least June 2005, and it has been done within the board’s 3-year funding package
provided by the Government. It is the Government’s expectation that any wage
increases the boards negotiate will be met from within the funding package they
receive.
Sue
Kedgley: Given the statement
made by the Associate Minister of Health to petitioners outside Parliament
today—that the Government is committed to progressing pay equity for nurses—can
the 9,000 nurses from 21 district health boards around the country who signed
that petition presented to Parliament today expect pay equity next year, and if
not next year, when?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: The Government
has established a pay and employment equity task force, and the Nurses
Organisation is represented on this task force. Decisions on pay equity,
including any possible funding for the 2004 Budget, will be made in response to
the task force report, which will set out a 5-year action plan.
Steve
Chadwick: What nurse
recruitment initiatives has the Government put in place?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: We do take the
issue of recruiting and retaining nurses very seriously, and two recent
examples that have been put in place have been scholarships that will reduce
the cost of training for nurses. We have also put in place the reintroduction
of training of enrolled nurses, something that was scrapped in 1991 but brought
back by this Government.
Dr
Lynda Scott: How can New
Zealand’s health service afford to increase pay for our valuable front-line
nursing staff, when in the last financial year the increased bureaucracy and
duplication caused by having 21 district health boards led to a deficit of $184
million?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: I am pleased
to tell that member that we managed not only to increase nurses’ salaries over
the last 3 years, but also to decrease the deficit. In fact, the expected
deficit for this financial is $80. That will be a lot better than the previous
Government ever achieved.
Pita
Paraone: Will she consider
introducing compulsory nurse:patient ratios as a strategy to encourage nurses
back into the profession and to improve patient outcomes in hospitals?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: No, there is
no work on actual patient:nurse ratios, but we have introduced through a
programme called Magnet New Zealand a programme whereby we look at all the
conditions that nurses face within a working environment. The programme is now
being put in place in the Hutt Valley, and it is looking to be put in place
right across the district health boards. It has had wide support from nurses,
and it addresses not only ratios, but also the entire environment in which a
nurse works.
Heather
Roy: Is it Government policy
to provide a pro-rata increase to district health boards to cover the extra
costs that will result from 4 weeks’ leave for nurses; if not, why not?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: No, because
nurses in the district health boards have 20 days’ paid leave plus 2 days’
recreation leave already.
Sue
Kedgley: Given that fair pay
for nurses would cost less than 10 percent of this year’s fiscal surplus, how
does she feel nurse petitioners will feel about her refusal to commit to pay
equity for them, particularly the nurse who said outside Parliament: “Nurses
and midwives are tired and angry. We are understaffed, overworked, and many
suffer burnouts. Our patient loads are frequently too high and we are tired of
being told that there is no money in the kitty every time there is a pay rise.”
Hon
ANNETTE KING: I would say to
nurses that they have finally got a Government that has committed itself to pay
equity. That has not been done by any other Government—[Interruption] I
tell those on the other side who are shouting that they reduced nurses’
salaries, they did not increase them.
Nandor
Tanczos: Is the Minister
aware of comments by the head of Christchurch Polytech School of Nursing, Kathy
Andrew, who said that some years she has watched 90 percent of her graduates
leave the country in search of better pay and conditions and to pay off their
student loans, and what will this Government do to address that situation?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: The member may
not have heard, but I did say in answer to Steve Chadwick that one of the
things that this Government has introduced is scholarships in the health
sector—
Gerry
Brownlee: How many?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: There will be
500 scholarships next year. This is the beginning of decreasing the cost of
training to nurses. There is more being done by my colleague Steve Maharey in
terms of student loans. But I think nurses recognise—[Interruption]
Mr
SPEAKER: I have had enough.
There are too many interjections. The Minister will now conclude her remarks in
silence.
Hon
ANNETTE KING: I know that
nurses recognise that this Government has done a considerable amount in the
time that we have been on the Treasury benches.
Sue
Bradford: What is the
Minister’s response to staff nurse Carol McCord, who, on $38,000 a year, has
been stuck at the top of her salary scale for over 20 years, and will the
Government budget for a nurses’ pay rise next year; yes or no?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: I already
answered in my first answer to Sue Kedgley that pay increases for nurses will
be negotiated by nurses. Every year that we have been in Government they have
negotiated pay rises. Nurses are looking to the future in terms of pay equity,
and that work is being done by the establishment of a task force, of which they
are a part, and it is prepared to work through those issues to ensure we
address them fairly, not only for nurses but also for all those who work within
the health sector.
Immigration,
Minister—Confidence
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime
Minister: In light of emerging evidence concerning the operation of the New
Zealand Immigration Service, does she still have confidence in the Minister of
Immigration?
Rt
Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: In view
of recent bombing attacks against civilians overseas, and now published threats
in Australia, how can the Prime Minister tolerate a Minister and a department
that allow another Algerian, this time found with explosive material, into this
country, deny his existence, and then grant him legal aid for court action
while claiming to be a refugee? What on earth is he doing here?
Rt Hon
HELEN CLARK: The member will
be aware that last week the Immigration Service issued a press statement
stating that it had not had referred to it any evidence that anyone was a
terrorist. If people are found with such substances on them as the member
suggests, then that is a matter for referral to the police.
Keith
Locke: When will the Prime
Minister respond to the public outcry and ask her Minister of Immigration to
lift the security risk certificate on Ahmed Zaoui and release him from prison;
or, if her Government continues to detain Mr Zaoui, when will she recommend
that he be transferred to the most relaxed form of detention for asylum
seekers—that is, the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre?
Rt Hon
HELEN CLARK: As the member
knows, Mr Zaoui is in the middle of a process. The Inspector-General of
Intelligence and Security is reviewing the issuing of the security risk
certificate. A hearing is set down on that for mid-December.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: How can
the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in a Minister of Immigration who
has allowed Salah Eddine Bouta into this country—someone found to have
explosives evidence on him—and why is it that the New Zealand people will again
put up with paying for legal aid and all other sorts of costs, like
imprisonment, in respect of a suspected terrorist? What on earth is this man
doing in New Zealand?
Rt Hon
HELEN CLARK: It is not the
practice of the Minister to discuss individual cases. There is a clear duty of
confidentiality around a number of cases. If the member is putting names in the
public arena, and if he is doing that in defiance of court orders, he should
probably take legal advice.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: I raise
a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is Parliament. If the Prime Minister cared
for the security of this country she would have referred to a name that was
given in this House last week. It therefore does not carry any proscription at
all in respect of what any court might say now. However, more important,
looking at the carnage abroad, to have a Prime Minister fobbing off evidence in
this House when every New Zealander is being asked to be part and parcel of our
security arrangements is downright irresponsible. She should have been stopped
in her tracks for purporting to answer the question when in fact she is saying
that I am proscribed from even asking a question on this man, the evidence on
whom I gave last week.
Mr
SPEAKER: I say quite clearly
to the member that I did not stop him from asking the question. He had a
perfect right to do so. The Prime Minister has a perfect right to reply, if she
wishes. That is her right in this House also. Rulings on suppression of name
orders are in Speaker’s rulings 44/4, 45/1, and 45/2. Speaker’s ruling 45/2
reads: “Whilst the House jealously guards its freedom of speech, it needs to be
mindful of other jurisdictions, particular the courts, where, if a suppression
order is in force, it ought not lightly to be circumvented in the House, except
in the most extraordinary circumstances.” That ruling was made in 1999 by my
predecessor Mr Kidd. It is for members to act responsibly with regard to this
matter. However, I must point out that reports outside the proceedings in the
House are not exempt from liability in respect of a contempt of court. I did
not rule out the member’s question, and he was perfectly entitled to say what
he said.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: Why does
the Prime Minister think that this matter is a joke, and a matter for giggling
and sniggering in this House, when a week ago she received evidence of someone
who arrived in this country being a suspected terrorist, who was found to have
evidence of explosives on him, and who was named in this House, and therefore
no proscription can apply in the way sought by the Prime Minister; when will
she take this country’s security seriously?
Rt Hon
HELEN CLARK: I repeat that
the Immigration Service last week issued a statement saying that it had not had
advice that there was a suspected terrorist among us. I might say that if there
were a case where traces of explosive material were picked up at the border, I
would regard that as a great success of our border security system.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: If it is
such a roaring success, what the hell is he doing here, being paid for by the
New Zealand taxpayer and on legal aid?
Rt Hon
HELEN CLARK: I am prepared
to answer only questions in the abstract, because I will not drag people’s
names through this Parliament and the public arena. However, in the abstract,
where people arrive and claim refugee status, they are subject to treatment
under international conventions. This country upholds the law in respect of
those conventions, just as the Government that he was part of did.
Working
Holidays—Changes
7. JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs and Trade: What changes are being proposed to the
reciprocal working holiday schemes between New Zealand and other countries?
Hon
PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): Demand for places on New Zealand’s very
successful working holiday schemes has been such that this week Cabinet has
made the decision to expand the number of places available from 25,000 at
present to 31,000 next year, with further increases after that possible. That
will allow 1,000 additional young people from the United Kingdom, 700 from
Ireland, 1,200 from Canada, 1,000 from Germany, 500 from France, and an
additional 200 each from the Netherlands, Chile, and Sweden.
Jill
Pettis: What are the
advantages of expanding the working holiday schemes?
Hon
PHIL GOFF: The first
advantage is that it is reciprocal. It means that increased numbers of young
New Zealanders can go to those countries to work and holiday for up to a year.
Secondly, the research that is being done on working holiday schemes,
specifically the Australian research, shows that working holiday schemes have a
positive net effect on the labour market—that is, they create more jobs than
they displace. Thirdly, they expose New Zealand to talented young people from
other countries, a great number of whom apply to live here permanently and
others come back as tourists when they are highly paid and spend a lot of money
here.
Ministers—Confidence
8. DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) to the Prime
Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers; if so, why?
Rt
Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because they are all conscientious and
hard-working.
Deborah
Coddington: Does she stand
by her Minister of Education’s school network reviews that could see up to 300
schools closed; if so, what does she say to Blackball’s angry families who at a
meeting with the Minister slammed Labour’s review of the West Coast as morally
inept and socially naive?
Rt Hon
HELEN CLARK: What I would
say is that it would be irresponsible for the Minister not to be looking at
school networks given the advice he has from his ministry that over the next 15
years there will be a net 63,000 fall in the number of primary school pupils.
It would be irresponsible for the Minister let schools drift to unviability
like little yellow ducks.
Simon
Power: What messages is the
Prime Minister sending to rural New Zealand, which provides this Government
with its surpluses, when, according to reports, Auckland is to get 16 new schools
while the fate of 163 mainly rural schools lies in the balance as part of these
network reviews?
Rt Hon
HELEN CLARK: I understand
from the Minister that 70 percent of the children are in urban areas, and
Auckland, of course, is experiencing quite rapid population growth, which
requires the building of new schools. What this Minister has done is get out
and front up to communities to talk with them and listen to them, from one end
of the country to the other, about the issues—which is not something his predecessors
in the National Government did.
Deborah
Coddington: Joking aside
about schoolchildren, how can the Prime Minister look Blackball mothers in the
eye when they are forced by her Minister of Education to send their children to
a new school, and tell them that the closing of their school is in the best
interests of their families?
Rt Hon
HELEN CLARK: What I can say
to the Blackball parents is that no decisions have been made about their
school, and that under ACT they would lucky to get any free State education at
all.
New
Zealand Film Commission—Government Support
9. DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Associate
Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: How is the Government supporting
the New Zealand Film Commission to help New Zealanders make more New Zealand
films?
Hon
JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Film has an important role in New Zealand’s
cultural and economic development. Last week we were pleased to announce, along
with the Government’s response to the Screen Production Taskforce
recommendations, that the New Zealand Film Commission is to receive an annual
$10 million dollar baseline funding increase in the 2004 Budget. This nearly
doubles the commission’s existing funding and will enable it to support more
films like the multi-award winning film Whale Rider.
Dianne
Yates: How does the New
Zealand Film Commission support the development of New Zealand film makers?
Hon
JUDITH TIZARD: As well as
developing and funding films, the Film Commission runs programmes to help
upskill New Zealand screenwriters, directors, and producers. One of the
commission’s initiatives involves bringing international film makers and
funders to New Zealand, such as the UK delegation last year from which New
Zealand feature films, including My Father’s Den, obtained financing. A
similar Australian delegation is being brought to this weekend’s Screen
Production and Development Association conference, of which the Film Commission
is the principal sponsor.
John
Key: Does the Minister
support the Film Commission administering the Government’s big-budget film
grant scheme; if so, what are the superior skills that the commission has in
the area of tax, business, and company structuring compared to those of the
Inland Revenue Department or the Ministry of Economic Development?
Hon
JUDITH TIZARD: The
big-budget film fund will be administered through the Film Commission, but it
is paid for by the Ministry of Economic Development. The Film Commission has
the best part of 30 years of experience in film projects of all sorts and will
be consulting with and advised by the Inland Revenue Department in terms of
this. I do not believe in setting up more bureaucracies to run New Zealand
businesses and to support business and investment in New Zealand. The Film
Commission has done a very good job in getting New Zealand big-budget films up
and going, and monitoring those recently made in New Zealand.
Project
Aqua—Statement of Minister for the Environment
10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister
for the Environment: Does she stand by her statement that: “When I say all
bets are off [on the Lower Waitaki] I am not saying I am against Project Aqua
or I am for irrigation, or I’m for the status quo on the river”, and what
exactly does that statement mean?
Hon
PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister for the Environment): Yes. What it means is that applicants wanting
to use the Waitaki River water will have to await the development of a water
allocation framework by an independent statutory body, under legislation to be
considered by Parliament shortly.
Hon
Dr Nick Smith: The
Minister’s statement that “all bets are off” came after her statements earlier
in the year that the Resource Management Act was quite adequate as it was for
dealing with Project Aqua; she later said that she would be calling in Project
Aqua under the Resource Management Act, and in September she stated that we
would have special legislation that Parliament has not yet seen, so how many
more different positions will the Government take in respect of Project Aqua?
Hon
PETE HODGSON: A water
allocation plan is proposed by legislation because a regional water plan for
Canterbury does not exist. As far as the issue of different positions is
concerned, I am happy to report that the person who is currently the deputy
leader of the National Party said—when he was not the deputy leader—that he was
in favour of Project Aqua. The person who was the leader of the National Party
said—when he was the leader, although he is not now—that he was cautious about
Project Aqua, whereas the person who was—[Interruption]
Mr
SPEAKER: I will not have
interjections made in the second person because they refer to me. Although I am
a little older than some, I am still younger than many, and I suggest that the
member tells that to senior citizens groups. The member will interject
properly, but from now until the end of the answer to this question he will not
interject at all. Before I call the Hon Pete Hodgson again, I say that while he
was attempting to answer the question, I thought the interjections had reached
an inane number.
Hon
Dr Nick Smith: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. The last four sentences of the Minister’s answer
have been about the positions of various National MPs. Under the Standing
Orders it is not for him to talk about other parties’ positions, but only those
of the Government.
Mr
SPEAKER: No, if that were in
the Standing Orders, then there would be very few questions or answers. A
member can refer briefly to other people, but he cannot go on at excessive
length. I think he had just about finished his answer. [Interruption] If
I find that person’s telephone, it will be confiscated.
Hon
PETE HODGSON: In conclusion,
I point out that this Government has one position, unlike other parties in the
House.
David
Parker: Why is the
completion of a water allocation plan necessary for the Waitaki catchment?
Hon
PETE HODGSON: In the absence
of a water allocation plan, resource consent applications were being considered
in a policy vacuum. Applications need to be considered in a way that will look
at the relative merits of the different uses of water. Under the current
system, there is no certainty that the national, regional, or local benefits of
using Waitaki water will be considered.
Hon
Ken Shirley: Has the
Minister consulted with her colleague the Minister of Energy with regard to
Project Aqua, and has the Minister of Energy conveyed his support for Project
Aqua to the Minister for the Environment?
Hon
PETE HODGSON: The Minister
for the Environment consults with the Minister of Energy on a regular, almost
daily, basis on many matters, and the Minister of Energy is very supportive of
the Government’s approach in respect of the Waitaki allocation, wanting to be
sure that the issues of Project Aqua are treated in a proper, Resource
Management Act - principled basis.
Jeanette
Fitzsimons: Noting that
Meridian Energy chief executive officer, Dr Keith Turner, Otago University
physics professor Gerry Carrington, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Authority all agree that between 20 and 30 percent of electricity is currently
wasted in inefficient use, does the Minister agree that Project Aqua’s $1.2
billion investment in the destruction of the Waitaki River is driven more by
the revenue aspirations of a State-owned enterprise than because it is the best
route to electricity security?
Hon
PETE HODGSON: No, I do not.
Whichever energy efficiency and good use of electricity is cut, no one, no
model, and no reasonable person has ever suggested to me that this country does
not need more generation. It does.
Hon
Dr Nick Smith: Why did the
Government reject National’s substantial 1999 Resource Management Act reform
bill and resist any substantial amendment to the Act for 4 years, but will now
advance special legislation when its own company suddenly wants to advance a
particular project, and why does the Government not adopt National’s policy
instead, which is to fix the Resource Management Act for all projects and not
just Government company projects?
Hon
PETE HODGSON: Among the many
things that the National Party’s 1999 propositions failed to achieve was a
regional water plan for Canterbury. It is a pity that the National Party, on
the passage of the 1991 Resource Management Act, then failed to resource the
implementation of that Act right through the 1990s, which means that, whilst
there are regional water plans in some parts of the country, there are not in
others, even after 12 years—an outrage.
Peter
Brown: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. As worthy as the cause might be, I notice Jeanette
Fitzsimons and, I think, another Green member have logos on their fronts. Is it
appropriate and is it acceptable to come to this House dressed like that? If it
is, can I come down here with the Arsenal Football Club logo on my clothing?
Mr
SPEAKER: Let me just say, as
an Arsenal supporter myself over many years, I would prefer that issue not to
be raised. As long as it is a fashion accessory, it is OK, but I will have a
look at the matter.
Overseas
Investment Commission—Conditions on Transactions
11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister
of Finance: How many transactions since 1999 concerning the sale of
property to overseas buyers had conditions imposed, and how many of these
conditions, if any, has the Overseas Investment Commission failed to ensure
were fulfilled?
Hon
Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): All 892 transactions had conditions imposed.
The answer to the second half of the member’s question is not available.
However, I can report that between 1996, when monitoring began, and August this
year, the commission investigated an estimated 398 cases and currently has 19
investigations under way. Of the 398 cases, 381 related to late reporting only,
rather than any substantive issues.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: Can the
Minister explain whether the American applicants Marc and Ivy Powell misled the
Overseas Investment Commission when they told the commission that they intended
to reside in New Zealand; if not, why are they not currently resident, 4 years
after the application was approved, and what will he do about it?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: There has
been an independent investigation of the Powell case, which concludes that by
and large they are not in breach of their conditions. The main problem is the
consequence of their failure to pay a rather large number of contractors. That,
unfortunately, is not a condition of the sale.
John
Key: Is the Minister
considering imposing a risk-free rate of return methodology for foreigners
investing in projects approved by the Overseas Investment Commission; if not,
why is he proposing that New Zealanders should pay this crazy wealth tax when
they invest abroad?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: This is a
long way from the original question; however, I am prepared to answer it. I am
not—it was imposed by the McLeod tax committee. It is strongly supported by a
lot of people in the New Zealand financial sector, whatever the overseas
interest the member represented may have in this matter, and it is supported
also, to some extent, by views from the Investment Savings and Investment
Association and others. I have considerable reservations around the risk-free
rate of return method, as the member probably knows.
Moana
Mackey: How do land sales
under this Government compare with those under the previous regime?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: Under the
current Government, approved land sales have averaged 3,646 hectares a month.
From the period December 1996 to 14 August 1998, when Mr Peters was the
Treasurer, that rate was 10,010 hectares a month.
Rod
Donald: Why has the Minister
not implemented the 2001 recommendations from the Government and Green members
of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to “examine the feasibility of a code
of corporate responsibility which investors would need to agree to and with
which the Overseas Investment Commission would monitor compliance.”?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not
think that would be as useful as ensuring specific conditions that are
effectively monitored. One of the key elements of the review currently being
undertaken is the monitoring regimes in place, and the capacity of the Overseas
Investment Commission to carry out that monitoring regime.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: Will the
Minister confirm that in the 7 years before I became the Treasurer not one
application was declined, until I became the Treasurer, whereupon all
applications that had any sensitivity came to my office, unlike now, and, last
of all, where are Marc and Ivy Powell—they are not here—and why has that deal
not been revoked by him as Minister?
Hon Dr
MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not
know where they are, but given the member’s earlier questions today, I assume
he is happy that foreigners are not in this country.
Rt
Hon Winston Peters: I seek
leave to table a press statement by Dr Cullen saying how he approved of my way
of handling Overseas Investment Commission matters, and legislation that I
drafted.
Mr
SPEAKER: Leave is sought to
table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Breast
Cancer—Access to Mammography Services
12. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) to the Minister
of Health: How do women in rural areas and remote districts access
mammography services to screen for breast cancer?
Hon
ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): When the programme was established in 1998 it
was decided to provide the service through a mobile unit. The number of units
has since been increased to six to correspond with each lead provider and the
geographic area they cover. The mobile units generally visit on a 2-year cycle.
Dr
Lynda Scott: Why does the
mobile mammography screening unit on the West Coast of the South Island,
otherwise known as the “boob bus”, accept only patients aged 50 to 64 who can
receive free screening; and why will it not accept younger women or older women
who are quite willing to pay for a mammogram to protect themselves against
dying from breast cancer?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: For the same
reason that applied when it was established. It was established for those women
within the screening programme. When it was decided that it would be mobile and
go into the districts, it was decided the bus was for those women the programme
was targeted at. That has not changed.
Dave
Hereora: What improvements
have there been in the provision of rural health services?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: I do not have
all day, but this Government is committed to improvements in access in rural
health. For example, we have had rural nurse training scholarships, a boost to
rural nurse training, a new recruitment scheme for rural health-care, a roster
for rural doctors, remote allowances for doctors—to name but a few. I have to
tell the House they are working.
Peter
Brown: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. I realise we have had our allocation of supplementary
questions. I am appealing to your discretion to allow me one more—this is an
important issue—or I will seek leave of the House.
Mr
SPEAKER: It is not me who
gives the discretion; it is the House. Is there any objection to a further
question from Mr Brown? There is.
Dr
Lynda Scott: In light of the
new evidence that shows we will save lives if screening is extended to women 40
to 50 and above the cut-off age of 65, will West Coast women still have to
travel across the Southern Alps to Christchurch to get a mammogram instead of
being able to use the mobile clinic at Grey Hospital, which is lying idle half
the time?
Hon
ANNETTE KING: The issue of
extension of the breast-screening programme is already being looked at. An
announcement will be made about that in due course. However, I need to tell the
member that the West Coast is probably a little luckier than other areas. The
mobile service goes there once a year.
Peter
Brown: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. This is an issue that causes us in New Zealand First quite
some concern. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify that answer a little
bit. Is the screening likely to be enlarged at both ends?
Mr
SPEAKER: That is a good try.
That is really seeking another supplementary.
End of Questions for Oral Answer
(uncorrected transcript—subject
to correction and further editing)