Press Release – Office of the Clerk
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister : Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)
WEDNESDAY, 4 MAY 2011
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Ministers—Confidence
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Hon Phil Goff: Why does he regard a man described by ACT Party leader, Don Brash, as “toxic” and “tarnished” as a man suitable to be in his ministry?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because he has done an outstanding job of managing local government. To be perfectly honest, from the comments I hear in the gym from Labour Party members, that is a lot kinder than the way they talk about Phil Goff.
Hon Phil Goff: Yeah, right! Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: I have called the honourable Leader of the Opposition and I want to hear his question.
Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister say a week ago that Rodney Hide would keep his ministerial post if rolled as ACT leader, then say on Monday that he would have no problem if ACT withdrew from its ministerial positions, and then say that he was happy for Rodney Hide to continue as a Minister despite his being rolled as leader? Who is actually making these decisions and who is pulling the strings?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure that the first statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is correct.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could offer to table—
Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the documents on which those quotes were based. They are, of course—
Mr SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition must identify the document.
Hon Phil Goff: It is from the daily newspapers—
Mr SPEAKER: We will not carry on like this. Members have let off a bit of steam here, but we do not table things from newspapers. The honourable member is perfectly entitled, though, to ask a further supplementary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday and today have highlighted a problem that we are getting into, because we now have the Prime Minister denying reports—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, he cannot say—
Mr SPEAKER: And there will be no interjection while I am on my feet. The member knows that that is not an issue of order. The Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to deny matters. He can be
questioned further on those denials. He leaves himself open to questioning, but that is absolutely within his rights within the Standing Orders.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that is right when it is a matter of fact, opinion, or misreporting, but when something is printed—
Mr SPEAKER: The member is now starting to argue with the Chair. He cannot do that. [Interruption] There will not be any comment from my right. This is question time. Members ask questions and Ministers answer them. The Prime Minister disputed a supposed fact contained in the question asked. A Minister is entitled to do that, and that is why we have further supplementary questions, to dig further into that specific aspect if the member wishes to do so.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a question for you. Given that the Prime Minister, as you have rightly said—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Excuse me, I have a question.
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. Members do not have questions for the Speaker. Under points of order, they raise issues of order in this House. If the member has an issue of order, I want to hear it very quickly.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will rephrase my language. You have said that the Prime Minister has a right to refute—sure. But how does a member then defend his own honour and his own word when you have denied him the right to produce the evidence, which may be in the form of a press statement? You say that he must chew up his own supplementary questions in order to defend his own honour and his own word.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. We are not getting anywhere here. The whole idea of supplementary questions is to enable members to dig into the answers given. That is the whole idea of supplementary questions. If the Prime Minister has answered incorrectly, it is a wonderful opportunity for the honourable Leader of the Opposition to dig into that, to put more heat on the Prime Minister, and to test him further on the accuracy of his answer. That is what question time is all about.
Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister say from London, as quoted on the New Zealand Herald website, that ACT matters are for the party, but add that Mr Hide would keep his ministerial posts if he were rolled as ACT leader; and, if he did say that, why did he just deny it?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.
Hon Phil Goff: Is it appropriate for decisions on who serves in the ministry that he heads to be made by a man who is not even in Parliament?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Maybe it is important for the education of the Leader of the Opposition to understand the process. If somebody is going to serve in the ministry, then they have to enjoy my confidence, but one of the evolving tests and conventions that we now have for our supply partners is that we also take guidance from them about whom they want. In this case, if there was not a marriage of those two ideas, it would not be acceptable. I have made it clear that in the case of Roger Douglas it would not have been acceptable. In the case of Mr Hide, Mr Boscawen, or Heather Roy it would have been acceptable.
Hon Phil Goff: Was the decision to dump the 2025 Taskforce a decision that should have been announced by him as Prime Minister rather than by Dr Brash, and did he authorise Dr Brash to make that announcement?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not authorise anything that Dr Brash says. That is a matter for him. In terms of the earlier one, I think my comments were reported a few weeks ago that I thought the 2025 Taskforce had run its course, just as Mr Goff’s leadership has run its course.
Hon Phil Goff: If Dr Brash is an extremist, as the Prime Minister has labelled him, why does he not rule him out of occupying any future ministerial position in a Government led by him?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The point I have made is that ACT members hold some extreme views, which is quite within their right and they are entitled to do so. That does not rule them out of being in a potential Government with National.
Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister yesterday hold the signing of his new confidence and supply agreement with Dr Brash in secret, refusing to allow the media to participate in the occasion?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It was not in secret. I told the media at my post-Cabinet press conference, and I confirmed the time on my way to caucus. What is a secret is the list of people who are plotting against Phil Goff, as we know—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Which National backbenchers cannot see that I am on my feet? That is enough of that. The Prime Minister knows he was stretching my patience, and he should not do that. That question did not deserve that unfair final comment. I ask the Prime Minister not to do that further, during this question time.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the Prime Minister advised by Steven Joyce of his role in engaging Simon Lusk for the Brash coup; if so, did he tell Bill English?
Mr SPEAKER: I call the Rt Hon Prime Minister, in so far as he has any responsibility for that.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but can I advise Labour Party members that they need someone like Simon Lusk as they certainly need a coup, the way they are going.
John Boscawen: How can he have any confidence in any of his Ministers, when the Government set the goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025 and he has simply widened it and disbanded the 2025 task force, to avoid further embarrassment?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I enjoy confidence in all my Ministers. I want to thank the member for his contribution as a Minister, and say that I continue to enjoy the confidence of the man sitting behind him. Putting that all to one side, if one were to look at the facts, in real after-tax terms the wage gap with Australia has closed. I think the Government can take quite some congratulations for that.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation—Petroleum Exploration Permit
2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What emergency response, safety, and environmental protection provisions, if any, were included in the permit granted to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation to undertake deep-water oil exploration and drilling in the Canterbury Basin?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Under the permit granted to Anadarko, it may drill one exploratory well. Before it does so, however, it must develop a discharge management plan that must be approved by the director of Maritime New Zealand.
Metiria Turei: Who will have responsibility for containment and clean-up if there is a catastrophic oil leak in the exploratory well that Anadarko plans to drill in waters 1,500 metres deep off the Canterbury coast?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Maritime New Zealand.
Metiria Turei: Will the Government require a substantial bond from Anadarko as an insurance against the possibility of a catastrophic oil leak, which would cost New Zealand taxpayers billions of dollars to clean up?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: If Anadarko is to drill an exploratory well, it must provide a discharge management plan to Maritime New Zealand. That is the process the Government observes.
Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not about a discharge permit; it was specific and clear: will the Government require a substantial bond to cover the financial liability?
Mr SPEAKER: I think the member raises a fair point. It was a straight question, and I think it does deserve an answer as to whether the Government would require a bond. It may not be appropriate to answer the question, but it was a straight question.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Under the process of the stage that Anadarko is at, if Anadarko is to drill an exploratory well, it must prepare a discharge management plan. The plan does not include a bond.
Metiria Turei: What guarantee can the Minister give to New Zealanders that they will not have to foot the bill of a catastrophic leak, given that Anadarko is currently contesting financial liability for the 80-day leak in the Gulf of Mexico?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: A number of containment strategies are overseen by Maritime New Zealand, and I have rehearsed in the House the maritime pollution strategy that applies in this area.
Metiria Turei: What difference is there between the exploratory well in the Gulf of Mexico at 1,500 metres deep and the proposed exploratory well in the Canterbury Basin at 1,500 metres deep that gives the Government confidence that a similar catastrophic leak could be quickly contained?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: The latter has not been drilled yet.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister supportive of the Māori Party’s member’s bill to ensure meaningful and effective consultation and ongoing engagement with whānau, hapū, and iwi from any person or groups seeking a permit under the Crown Minerals Act; if not, what is the nature of the consultation and ongoing engagement that is taking place between the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Ngāi Tahu in the Canterbury Basin?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am absolutely committed to meaningful engagement, and I do not think legislation is required for that. As to the second part of the question, the member would need to ask the parties involved.
Metiria Turei: Given the Minister’s confidence in the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, what is her response to its statement in its 2010 annual report that it may be difficult for it to quickly or effectively execute any contingency plans related to future events similar to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have responsibility for Anadarko’s annual report.
Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about her responsibility as a Minister to provide certainty or assurance to New Zealanders about what might happen, or a contingency plan, if there is an oil spill. I think it is within her responsibility to give a more reasonable response than that one.
Mr SPEAKER: The problem was that the member’s question went on further than that and talked about, I believe, the corporation’s annual report, or a similar document. The Minister focused on that part of the question in her answer. If the member had asked just the first part of the question, then we might have been able to pin down the Minister more.
Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table page 30 of the 2010 annual report of the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, which states that it would be difficult for it to quickly or effectively execute any contingency plans related to events similar to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Savings—Reports
3. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: What signs are there that New Zealanders are saving more?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): There is accumulating evidence that New Zealanders are lifting their savings rate and relying less on debt-funded consumption. For instance, since 2009 household equity has been rising. For the first time in 20 years, household debt-to04 May 2011 Questions for Oral Answer Page 5 of 14 income ratios have been falling. Both Treasury and the Reserve Bank project positive household savings rates for the first time in over a decade, and that the balance of payments, which measures overall national savings, may have a current account surplus for the first time in almost 40 years. This is a huge improvement, although it will be temporarily boosted by insurance payments coming into the country.
Simon Bridges: Why is lifting savings important?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course it is important, if only because debt-fuelled consumption of the sort that we saw in the last decade simply cannot be sustained. It has led to New Zealand having an external debt level that is amongst the highest levels in the world, and the fact that New Zealanders are starting to increase their savings will reduce our vulnerability to very high levels of external debt.
Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the following two commentators is wrong, according to the Minister: the OECD, which says this country is not rebalancing, or the Reserve Bank, which does not project positive household savings rates until at least 2013?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Both of those commentators have points of view that are worth listening to, but they are not always right. The fact is that this economy was so badly out of balance by the time that member’s Government was thrown out that in the face of a recession it is taking some time to begin rebalancing in the right way. I do not think there is any disagreement that we are headed in the right direction, but we would all like it to go faster.
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very clear question on which of those two commentators—
Mr SPEAKER: The member asked for an opinion, and he got an opinion in reply. It was totally an opinion question, and he got an opinion in reply. The Minister is perfectly entitled to answer in that way.
Simon Bridges: How does the current savings performance compare with that of the past decade?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The last 10 years was particularly poor for savings in New Zealand. Household debt ratios rose to about 160 percent of income, and New Zealand’s foreign debt liabilities almost doubled. That is one of the reasons that per capita GDP actually fell during Labour’s third term and has not risen since 2004. It is good to see that a lot of these excesses are being gradually reversed.
Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister consider it to be prudent, in light of the savings gap, to have cut contributions to KiwiSaver and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, or would he like to repeat his earlier advice to the previous Labour Government not to run surpluses and pay down debt, and instead to give unaffordable tax cuts to people who do not need them?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Borrowing is not saving. If the Government goes out and borrows $2.5 billion off foreign lenders and puts it into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund account, that is not saving.
John Boscawen: Are New Zealanders saving an extra $300 million a week to compensate for what his Government is borrowing, or is New Zealand each day becoming a more heavily indebted country?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the first part of the question, no, they are not. Secondly, we would expect that Government deficits will peak actually about now, and part of the focus of the Budget will be on showing a track back to surplus.
Simon Bridges: How will the Budget help to lift national savings?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Now that New Zealand households have begun to save, it is time that the Government pulled its weight, because we can make the biggest difference to national savings by the Government lifting its savings. Up until now we have been willing to borrow in order to cushion New Zealanders from the impact of the recession, but now that economic growth is under way it is time for the Government to tighten its belt, reduce its deficit, and get back to surplus.
Health, Minister—Confidence
4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Health?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Grant Robertson: Why does he have confidence in the Minister when Alma Costall, a 94-yearold Auckland woman with a community services card, was charged $80 to attend an after-hours clinic on Good Friday?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The matter of what is charged in after-hours clinics is in part controlled by district health boards. But I say to the member that that is not a new issue. It is one that the Minister recognises, and he has been funding district health boards considerably more to address that issue.
Grant Robertson: What does he consider is an acceptable charge for a 94-year-old woman with a community services card to be charged at an after-hours clinic?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One that is affordable and within her budget, clearly.
Grant Robertson: Is the Prime Minister saying that $80 is affordable for a 94-year-old woman to be charged at an after-hours clinic?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The answer to that is probably no, but it would depend on the circumstances of the person.
Grant Robertson: Why does he have confidence in a Minister who is reviewing the programme that sees health services delivered in decile 1 and 2 schools when it was the subject of a positive review less than 2 years ago?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have confidence in that Minister because he is the Minister who is committed to protecting and growing the public health service. He is the Minister who has invested $1.2 billion more in health in time. He is the Minister who has ensured that 20,000 more people each year are receiving elective surgery, or 400 more per week. He is the Minister who has ensured that cancer patients in New Zealand are now receiving treatment within 4 weeks. He is the Minister who has made sure that there are 1,000 extra nurses and 500 more doctors. He is the Minister who has made sure that children are now being immunised at greater rates. He is the Minister who has done tremendous work—
Mr SPEAKER: Order.
Grant Robertson: What—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I want to be able to hear the supplementary question.
Grant Robertson: Referring to the Prime Minister’s earlier supplementary answers, is the Prime Minister saying that it was affordable for Alma Costall, a 94-year-old Auckland woman, to pay $80 to attend an after-hours clinic on Good Friday?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot comment, because I simply do not know her circumstances.
Broadband, Rural Initiative—Benefits for Rural Communities
5. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Communications and
Information Technology: What benefit will rural communities receive from the Rural Broadband Initiative signed last month?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): I am pleased to report to the House that the $300 million Rural Broadband Initiative is now under way. Not only have we secured an agreement that exceeds the Government’s Rural Broadband Initiative objectives but also we will have over a quarter of a million customers in rural New Zealand who will finally get access to high-speed broadband that compares well to existing levels of urban services and prices. Vodafone and Telecom will shortly begin work on the construction of 154 new cellphone towers, the upgrading of 380 existing towers, and the provision of over 3,000 kilometres more fibre in rural areas. This is a significant milestone in rural New Zealand becoming a more connected and productive economy.
John Hayes: How will the deal increase competition for telecommunications services in rural areas—for example, in Whangaroa and Porangahau?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The open-access provisions locked into the Rural Broadband Initiative contracts ensure competing companies can provide a variety of services in rural areas. For example, the new cellphone towers will allow for any network provider to install and use their equipment on the towers for mobile or fixed wireless services, and with the new Rural Broadband Initiative fibre any competitor will be able to gain access on set terms to offer their retail products. The Government has used this opportunity to cement in place a competitive model for telecommunications provision in rural areas. Not only have we dramatically expanded broadband coverage but also we now have a pathway to improved services in the future, with the development of new technologies like fourth-generation networks.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with Dr Pita Sharples that Ngā Pū Waea, the working group negotiated by the Minister of Māori Affairs to advise on Māori interests in broadband, will enable marae, kōhanga reo, kura, wānanga, iwi, rūnanga, and Māori health and social services providers to benefit from the roll-out of broadband into rural areas, and how soon does he think positive results from this initiative will be able to be shared?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Absolutely. For example, as broadband services are extended, approximately 480 marae will have access to peak internet speeds of more than 5 megabytes per second, 44 of which will have access to broadband services for the first time. One hundred 100 marae will be able to choose to connect to existing Telecom fibre or to new Rural Broadband Initiative – funded fibre, offering them broadband access comparable to ultra-fast broadband. The initiative may also provide opportunities through training programmes and employment and investment opportunities as coverage rolls out. The benefits for social services provision and potential economic development will begin almost immediately in the first areas that the Rural Broadband Initiative rolls out in.
Education, Minister—Confidence
6. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Education?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Sue Moroney: Is he aware that 750 school principals passed a vote of no confidence in “the education policy and direction of the current Government” in respect of national standards, as led by the Minister, at the New Zealand Principals Federation’s annual conference; if so, does he still retain confidence in that Minister?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and yes.
Sue Moroney: Does he retain confidence in the advice the Minister gave to him that caused him to tell TV3 news on 31 January that a lot of the sector would be totally unaffected by fee increases to early childhood education, given that the largest provider of early childhood education services, ABC, which provides services to 7,000 New Zealand children, increased its fees by $10 to $20 a week on 1 April 2011?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, because it is correct.
Sue Moroney: Does he still have confidence that—[Interruption].
Mr SPEAKER: I want to be able to hear the question.
Sue Moroney: Does he still have confidence that his funding cuts to early childhood education will not be passed on to parents, given that Statistics New Zealand reports that the cost of early childhood education to families has increased by almost 12 percent in the last 12 months?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and it does not matter how many times the member says it, we did not cut early childhood education funding, we increased it.
Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the Statistics New Zealand consumer price index for the March 2011 quarter, which shows—
Mr SPEAKER: We do not table stuff that is available to all members. The Statistics New Zealand CPI data is available to all members.
Sue Moroney: Does his confidence in this Minister stem from the fact that she started the trend to use helicopters for ministerial travel, which he has continued, or does he prefer her most recent suggestion that schoolchildren should ride horses to school? Which transport method does he prefer?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have complete confidence in the Minister of Education, and if the member wants to talk about horses, the person who is flogging a dead horse is her, supporting Phil Goff.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Department of Corrections Support
7. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Corrections: How are Corrections department staff showing support for their Christchurch colleagues following the earthquake?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Corrections staff have been looking for practical ways to support their Christchurch colleagues in the wake of the earthquake. As a result, the Department of Corrections has set up the Give Your Mates a Day Trust, which involves staff voluntarily donating a day of their annual leave. The department then pays out the net dollar value of that leave and places the money in a trust. I am very pleased to say that so far the generosity and goodwill of department staff have resulted in a total of $160,400 being raised. That money will be distributed among Christchurch corrections staff. In addition, 15 corrections officers have been seconded to the Christchurch Central Police Station for 2 months. Those staff are helping police with prisoner escorts and watch-house duties, allowing police to focus on front-line duties in Christchurch.
Melissa Lee: What else is the Department of Corrections doing to help with the rebuilding effort in Christchurch?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The 22 February earthquake has generated a big demand for trade skills as we move to rebuild Christchurch. To help meet that demand, the department is increasing its prisoner employment in trade training in the areas of highest demand. Over the next 12 months the number of prisoners being trained in targeted trades, including welding and construction, will increase by between 130 and 160 at Christchurch Men’s Prison. Three new training workshops will also be established. They will deliver courses in painting, plastering, plumbing, drainlaying, roofing, and gas welding. Existing carpentry and joining skills for housebuilding and refurbishment training will also be expanded. These initiatives will give prisoners the skills they need to contribute positively to the rebuild, both from within prison and following their release.
Foreign Affairs, Minister—Statements
8. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Defence: Does he agree with all of the statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on that Minister’s use of RNZAF aircraft to travel to Vanuatu in February of this year?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): Yes.
David Shearer: Does he agree with his colleague’s remarks that the $75,000 costing is a Labour Party figure and bears no relation to reality, or will he acknowledge to the House that the costing is derived from New Zealand Defence Force figures?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Minister indicated, in fact, that $75,000 was not actually far away from the price. Can I inform the House that the fuel cost for these aircraft was in fact approximately $61,000, and there are, of course, some additional maintenance costs.
David Shearer: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act answer requested by Chris Hipkins and delivered on 14 April 2010, which sets out the costings of all the aircraft of the RNZAF, and which makes that $75,000 very conservative.
Mr SPEAKER: Would the member mind just making clear where this document is from?
David Shearer: From the New Zealand Defence Force.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
David Shearer: Did he ask his colleague Murray McCully to consider an alternative to using the Boeing 757 to fly to Vanuatu; if so, what response did he receive?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: As the Minister has said—on a number of occasions, in fact—he was able to provide services to other Pacific Island leaders. Actually, this is very similar to the use of the 757 by the previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This member has taken quite a lot of advice to draft tight questions, and this was a very tight question. This is not the flick at the end of an answer because the question has not yet been addressed. The member might need to repeat it to make it clear to you what it was. I am not sure that the Minister heard what it was, but he certainly has not started to address it yet.
Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat his question so that the House can be absolutely certain.
David Shearer: Did he ask his colleague Murray McCully to consider an alternative to using the Boeing 757 to fly to Vanuatu; if so, what response did he receive?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: It was very clear that this was the most efficient way to get to Vanuatu, and that was fully understood by me. It was not dissimilar to the situation when the previous Prime Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: The question asked whether the Minister asked his colleague whether he had considered an alternative. The Minister has direct responsibility for the Minister’s own actions, and it is within the capability of the Minister to answer that question. I think it is a reasonable question. So the question was repeated and asked whether the Minister asked his colleague whether he had considered alternative flight possibilities. That is a fair question and the House does deserve an answer.
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: As I indicated, the answer is clearly yes, because it was then explained to me why it was not appropriate. In fact, it was very similar to the previous Prime Minister’s use of the 757. Can I say that the previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, used a 757 to go from Auckland to Apia, where she also took Pacific Island leaders and other Ministers on that Pacific Islands Forum trip. That is extremely similar to the current situation. Of course, Vanuatu does not have the regularity of air services that Samoa and Auckland do have.
David Shearer: From the Minister’s answer, was political blogger Cameron Slater correct yesterday when he wrote that Mr McCully turned up over 2 hours late for his departure—
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has absolutely no responsibility for what the blogger Cameron Slater may or may not say. That is totally irrelevant to the Minister. I will allow the member to reword his question, though, because I do not want to deprive him.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respectfully suggest that if you were to judge the question after you have heard it, instead of hearing only the beginning of it, you might come to a different view.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his advice. I invite the honourable member to reword his question to make it very clearly within the Standing Orders.
David Shearer: Was political blogger Cameron Slater correct when he wrote that Mr McCully turned up over 2 hours late for his departure to Vanuatu—
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for whether the blogger Cameron Slater was correct. The member can ask opinions, but he cannot be that specific about it. He cannot ask whether someone for whom the Minister has no responsibility whatsoever is correct. But I will give
the member another chance, because—[Interruption] It is only reasonable. I am requiring him to come within the Standing Orders, and I do not want to deprive him of the question.
David Shearer: Is the—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. The member will resume his seat. I want to hear this question, because I have to be able to judge whether it is within the Standing Orders.
David Shearer: Has the Minister seen reports that Cameron Slater has stated that Mr McCully was over 2 hours late for his flight to Vanuatu because of a heated exchange he had with the Minister of Defence?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: All I can say in response to that is that Mr Cameron Slater is woefully misinformed—not that I actually normally read his blog, apparently unlike Mr Shearer.
David Shearer: Was the Minister aware when he authorised the flights, including the return flight from Vanuatu, that commercial flights at a fraction of the price were available, including flights that would have enabled Mr McCully to return to New Zealand in less than 6 hours for around $2,000 or $3,000?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: It is my clear understanding that that would have meant that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would not have been able to meet Prime Minister Julia Gillard. That is obviously a pretty important thing.
Border Control, SmartGate System—Reports
9. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Customs: What recent reports has he received on the success of SmartGate?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): I bring very good news to the House. SmartGate has just reached—
Hon Member: Oh, great!
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: —yes, I know that everyone will be so excited; I am sure you will be—a historic milestone with the processing of its 1,000,000th passenger. That is proof that demand for this new technology is clearly on the rise. In November of last year we had reached only the 500,000th passenger after about 18 months. By April we had reached the 1 million passengers mark. New Zealanders and Australian passport holders are loving it. SmartGate is going well. We could not wish for better.
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What does this milestone mean for the future of SmartGate?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Automated passenger processing technology provided by systems such as SmartGate is the key to the Government’s response to try to improve passengers’ experience at the border. The Prime Minister set out by asking us to try to make passengers’ experience at the border as near to that for domestic travel as we can. Lots and lots of passengers are coming through Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, where SmartGate is now operating. In Auckland, where SmartGate is operating for departures, as well, people are saying that what they are now experiencing at the border is like their experience with domestic travel. That is fantastic news.
Communications and Information Technology, Minister—Confidence
10. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Communications and Information Technology?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Clare Curran: Does he support his Minister’s proposal for a 10-year regulatory holiday for the ultra-fast broadband supplier?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.
Clare Curran: Is he aware of any telecommunications organisation that supports his Minister’s proposal, other than Telecom; if so, what is the name of that organisation?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will have to put the specifics down to the Minister. What I can say is that in attempting to put in place a regulatory framework of that nature we are trying to put some certainties so that people will actually invest in the long haul. I think that it is worth it for all consumers who will get ultra-fast broadband. If the member can think of a better way of doing it, she should go ahead and table that.
Clare Curran: Does he know that the Ministry of Economic Development’s chief adviser to the Minister on the ultra-fast broadband project was named by the High Court for his role in Telecom’s anti-competitive actions, which led to a $12 million fine?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.
Clare Curran: Has he been briefed on the likely price increases for those using old broadband services under the new regime; if so, what are they?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.
New Zealand Defence Force—Response to Metro Article
11. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Defence: Did the New Zealand Defence Force, when preparing their response dated 2 May 2011, talk to any of the Afghan civilians interviewed by Jon Stephenson in the Metro article “Eyes Wide Shut” and seen on the subsequent 60 Minutes TV special; if so, who?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): No.
Keith Locke: Did the SAS involved in the raid on 24 December on the Kabul offices of Tiger International Armor ever hold staff in the building at gunpoint, depriving them of their liberty?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: In relation to that particular issue, as is well known and as the video information discloses, the person who was interviewed, Mr Baraily, actually fired on them first. They did return fire, and then they did actually ask everyone to remain down a bit for a few minutes.
Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about whether they ever held staff at gunpoint. I do not think he answered that—
Mr SPEAKER: Let me clarify the situation. Is the member asking whether New Zealand personnel ever held staff at gunpoint—personnel for whom the Minister is responsible?
Keith Locke: Yes, personnel—
Mr SPEAKER: For whom the Minister is responsible?
Keith Locke: Yes. I will read the question again.
Mr SPEAKER: I struggled to understand the question, and I think the Minister did, too. The Minister cannot be responsible for people who are not New Zealand defence personnel. If the question relates to defence personnel, I will invite him to repeat his question.
Keith Locke: Did the SAS involved in the raid on 24 December on the Kabul offices of Tiger International Armor ever hold staff in the building at gunpoint, depriving them of their liberty?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I did actually answer that question. Mr Speaker, can I explain to Mr Locke what actually happened there?
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Minister that all he needs to do is to answer the question. Did they ever hold people at gunpoint and deprive them of their liberty for a period of time? That, as finally asked, was a pretty straight question.
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: They were fired upon and they returned fire. They then went into the rooms and asked the people to stay down, and the Afghan unit arrived a few minutes later. So clearly, whilst they were down, essentially, the SAS were there. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I have called Keith Locke. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to show some courtesy, please. I have called Keith Locke.
Keith Locke: Did either the New Zealand Defence Force or the International Security Assistance Force subsequently interview any of the Tiger International Armor employees present during the raid on Tiger International Armor offices on 24 December?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Certainly the New Zealand Defence Force officers did not interview them subsequently. The person who was filmed, Mr Baraily, was the very person who fired on the New Zealand Defence Force officers.
Keith Locke: Why will the Government not allow an independent inquiry to be held into New Zealand’s actions in relation to prisoners taken in Afghanistan that would look at all the facts and testimony available, including that of Afghan civilians who have been affected but not interviewed by the New Zealand Defence Force or the International Security Assistance Force, rather than relying purely on the word of the New Zealand Defence Force?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Unlike Mr Locke, I actually trust, and I believe in, the New Zealand Defence Force officers, and an inquiry is unnecessary. Many of Mr Stephenson’s allegations from last year, which Mr Locke is relying on, have been disproven by the New Zealand Defence Force. We were not even at Wardak, which is the incident referred to in June. Mr Baraily fired on our officers first.
Petrobras, Petroleum Exploration Permit—Te Whānau-a-Apanui’s Consent
12. HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Acting Minister of Energy
and Resources: Does the survey and drilling arrangement between the Government and Petrobras have the prior and informed consent of Te Whānau-a-Apanui; if not, will this lack of consent breach the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): No.
Hone Harawira: Did the Minister consult with the Māori Party before calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whānau-a-Apanui, and what consultation will the Minister engage in with the Māori Party before calling out the armed forces against the tangata whenua of Te Tau Ihu—
Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the relevance of any questions in respect of the Māori Party, as the Minister has no responsibility for the Māori Party and what we do, honourable as it is.
Mr SPEAKER: It is perfectly within the member’s right to ask whether a Minister consulted with the Māori Party. There is some question, though, over the wording of the supplementary question the member has asked. I ask him to reword his supplementary question to make sure that it links pretty closely to the primary question, but he certainly is entitled to ask whether a Minister has consulted with another party.
Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Did the Minister consult with the Māori Party before calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whānau-a-Apanui, and what consultation will the Minister engage in with the Māori Party should the Minister call out the armed forces against the tangata whenua Te Tau Ihu if they decide to challenge the Government’s decision to grant survey and drilling permits to the Chinese-backed Australian mining company Greywolf Goldmining?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have no responsibility for the operational arrangements of the New Zealand Police.
Hone Harawira: Does the Minister know that calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Tūhoe and Te Whānau-a-Apanui has seriously undermined the relationship between Māori and the Government’s coalition partners in the Māori Party, and what formal protest was lodged by the Māori Party about the Government’s actions being in breach of the coalition agreement, which states: “The relationship between the Māori Party and the National Party will be one of good faith and no surprises.”?
Mr SPEAKER: That question is not within the Standing Orders, so I do not see any ministerial responsibility in any part of that question. However, if the member can bring a question within the Standing Orders, I am prepared to allow him to ask one, but it is his last question.
Hone Harawira: Can the Minister advise whether any formal protest was lodged with the Minister by the Māori Party about the Government’s actions in calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whānau-a-Apanui being in breach of the coalition agreement, which states that “The relationship between the Māori Party and the National Party will be one of good faith and no surprises?”.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I answered before, I have no operational responsibility in energy and resources for those operational decisions.
Mr SPEAKER: The question asked whether the Māori Party had protested to the Minister about something that had taken place.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is set down to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. The question was about the Defence Force and its involvement. How can the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources have any responsibility for the Defence Force?
Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need further help. The final question simply asked whether the Māori Party had protested to this Minister. It is pretty easy to answer that question—either it has or it has not. The focus of the question was not on the details of who called out either the police or the Defence Force, it was simply whether this Minister had received protests from anyone, and that does not seem unreasonable. It may be that she did not receive any protests at all. Anyway, I would have thought that it is not a difficult question to answer. It does not need to involve any answer in respect of the police or the Defence Force.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked about a protest about specific activities for which I have no responsibility, so why would a protest be made to me about matters outside my portfolio?
Hon Trevor Mallard: It is absolutely appropriate that as the Minister who is generally responsible for these mining and drilling issues, the Māori Party should approach her about the Government’s approach on these matters.
Mr SPEAKER: It is an interesting issue. The Minister raises a reasonable point. Although I argued that she should answer in respect of whether a party had protested to her, if it was about nothing to do with her responsibilities then I think it is a valid point that she is not answerable for that. I think I have to accept the point made by the honourable Minister. Ministers are answerable only on issues for which they have ministerial responsibility. The Minister cannot be asked whether some other member or party had protested to her about something she has no responsibility for. Certainly, as I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Minister herself pointed out, whoever was called out in relation to this particular event was nothing to do with the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. I think I have to accept that the Minister’s point of order is a fair and reasonable point of order and that I am in error in suggesting that she should answer the question. I accept her point that, in fact, she has no ministerial responsibility.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to disagree with the ruling you have just made, and I know I am treading on some tight ground here. Under the delegated arrangements, the Minister does have responsibility for permitting, drilling, and supervision. It would be entirely proper for the Minister of Defence to consult her about the security arrangements for that. It would be entirely proper for the Commissioner of Police to consult her on security. It is also entirely proper for the arrangements around security to be the subject of a protest from any member of Parliament to her. Members can do so if they want to. She could send them away and say “It’s none of my business.”, but they could still approach her.
Mr SPEAKER: The member makes some good points. I think he is correct that the Minister could have been asked whether certain Ministers who were responsible for those actions consulted her, but that is not what this question asked. The question asked specifically whether anyone had protested to the Minister about the calling out of either the police or the Defence Force—I am not
sure who was involved. I think that is where the question erred. If the question had been more along the lines that the member has suggested in the first part of his point of order, I think I would have been more insistent on the Minister answering it. But I do accept the point of order made by the Minister that I cannot ask her to answer on the matter when she has no ministerial responsibility for whether those authorities were called out in this instance. I have to accept that. I think it would be inappropriate for me as Speaker to do otherwise.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I suggest, on the basis that both you and I originally thought that the original supplementary question was an answer, that you let Mr Harawira have another crack at it. He could ask whether the Minister was advised that the Māori Party had protested.
Mr SPEAKER: Nice try, but I think I was pretty generous to Mr Harawira. I invited him to reword his question, and I think I have been reasonable. [Interruption] I believe I have been reasonable on this, and I accept unreservedly the point of order raised by the Minister. I think I would be erring if I did not do that. I think that is where the matter should lie today.
ENDS
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
