1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his statements?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes.

Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, which said last week that his statement that “National will have policies that reflect the fact that living on a diet of carbon will be increasingly bad—bad for the world and bad for our economy.” has not been followed through by his action in Government, and that his promises are ringing hollow; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. The reason is that the Government is hopeful that by the time of the Copenhagen conference at the end of the year we will have on the books probably the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme of any developed country—a medium-term target and a long-term target. And we will be addressing the rise in greenhouse gas emissions—something the Labour Government in its 9 years did a lot of talking about but did absolutely nothing towards addressing.

Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that he would “turbocharge” the work of community groups such as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society; if so, why is the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society saying that opportunities for talks on environmental concerns have been rare, they have found his door firmly closed since the election, and even now, nearly a year later, no date has been confirmed for a meeting with him?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I stand by my statement. I am more than happy to meet with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. In fact, from time to time I have seen its representatives. When the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society does come to see me, as I am sure it will, in the latter part of the year, it will say that it was a disgrace that Labour let emissions rise by 24 percent over the time it was in Government.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “Government policy decisions over the next few years will have consequences … not just for the next 10 or 20 years but for the next 50 and beyond. So it’s vital we get them right.”; if so, is that why, under his emissions trading scheme, the big emitters will still be receiving about a third of their taxpayer subsidy to pollute at the end of the century?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I stand by the statement. The design of the emissions trading scheme is such that it addresses, I think, that finely balanced position between economic growth and environmental responsibility. I point out to the member that if the result of an emissions trading scheme is simply to send large polluters offshore where their polluting is much more damaging for the environment, that is not helping anybody.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that “New Zealanders are sick of worrying about the surging levels of violent crime in New Zealand. We are not going to put up with it”; if so, how does he account for the 7 percent increase in violent crime in the previous financial year, the majority of which occurred under a National Government and on his watch?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I do. When the Government announced last year the most comprehensive response to the P problem in this country, I was somewhat surprised that we did not get the support of the Labour Party. Well, I am not actually surprised, because in 9 years Labour did absolutely nothing about that problem. When it comes to talking tough, Clayton Cosgrove talked tough about boy racers, but when legislation is before the House to do something about it, he runs for the hills faster than the boy racers drive.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “the Pike River underground coalmine near Greymouth was an example of modern mining practices that had minimal impact on the landscape”; if so, is he proud of the fact that the Pike River Coal mine has received not one but two fines for environmental pollution in the last few months and it has not even started producing coal yet?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I do stand by that statement. If Pike River Coal has caused problems, then it needs to rectify those. I point out that the concession it got on the Department of Conservation estate was granted by Labour, the party that Sue Bradford wanted to be in coalition with, even if others in the Greens did not.

Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “protection of the public should be the most important consideration”; if so, does he think that fewer police cars, fewer police in parts of New Zealand, budget reprioritisation, and a reduction in police training could account for the decrease in the protection of the community evidenced by the police taking longer to answer priority one calls—the most serious of all calls—since his Government was elected; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: If a Government has ever tried to address the issue of violent crime, the rise in crime, and the protection of New Zealanders, it is this Government. It is this Government that is adding 600 extra police—300 of them going to South Auckland. It is this Government that is putting more funding into the police service then ever before in the history of New Zealand. It is this Government that has had a busy legislative programme across a number of areas, from Tasers to DNA, right through to changes in parole.

Hon Trevor Mallard: More crime!

Hon JOHN KEY: If the Labour Opposition wants to do something about protecting New Zealanders, rather than just twittering on about it in Parliament, it should support the Government’s moves to rid out streets of methamphetamine—something Labour did nothing about when it was in Government, and does not want to do much about when it is in Opposition.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “Modern mining is quite different from what we have seen in the past. Old-fashioned mining techniques did leave a scar on the landscape, modern mining techniques are quite different”; if so, is he proud of the fact that Oceana Gold’s new goldmine on Department of Conservation land regularly receives fines for environmental pollution, but finds it cheaper to pay them and keep on polluting?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I stand by the statement. The fact that that company is fined or gets caught shows the system is actually working.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that “My style is to be open and transparent and take people with me.”; if so, why did he not disclose the fact that NZ On Air had carried out a second investigation into his member of Parliament Melissa Lee, that she needed to pay back $80,000 of taxpayers’ money, and that his Minister of Broadcasting had known about the seriousness of the situation and had concealed the information since August; and why did it take the media to disclose that matter, if his style is so open and transparent?

Hon JOHN KEY: I certainly would describe my style as open and transparent. Anybody who read the statement put out by NZ On Air when it was looking at the spurious allegation made by Labour would have seen that NZ On Air made it quite clear that it was looking at some other, technical issues. Although it is true that 2 weeks ago my office was made aware that there were some other issues, I was not personally made aware of that until I saw it on the news last night. Maybe that reflects badly on NZ On Air, which thinks that the way that it should respond to these things is by leaking them to the Labour Party, without having the courtesy of sending the letter in the first place to Melissa Lee.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau. Ki te Pirimia, ko taku pātai e pēnei ana: kei te whakaae ia ki tōnā ake kōrero “It is important that Mr English is focused on the critical decisions he needs to make for New Zealanders …”, mēnā āe, ki tōna nei whakaaro, he take tukituki tā Mr English nā runga i tāna noho hai Minitā Tiaki mō Pouaka Whakaata Māori engari, kua tuku moni ki tono kē ahakoa ko ia te Minita mō te Pūtea, ahakoa anō hoki, he hōhonu ake ōnā mōhiotanga e pā ana ki te tono o Whakaata Māori?

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us all. To the Prime Minister, my question is as follows: does he stand by his statement that “It is important that Mr English is focused on the critical decisions he needs to make for New Zealanders …”; if so, does he believe that there is a conflict of interest for Mr English, who is a shareholding Minister for Māori Television yet, as Minister of Finance, has given money to another bid to broadcast the Rugby World Cup while at the same time knowing the details of the Māori Television bid?]

Hon JOHN KEY: There a number of things. Yes, I do think it is important that the Minister of Finance is focused on the critical issues. The second point is that the Minister of Finance has not given money to an alternative bid; that is an important point. The third thing is that I think we could all acknowledge that the process of bidding for, and deciding on, Rugby World Cup free-to-air broadcasting has been less than perfect, and National accepts its responsibility as part of that.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kei te whakaae ia ki tōna ake kōrero “It is important that Mr English is focused on the critical decisions he needs to make for New Zealanders …”; mēnā āe, e tika ana kia whakarahi ake a Mr English i te pūtea tono a Television New Zealand kia reka ake ai ki tērā o Te Pouaka Whakaata Māori ki te pāho i te Kapu o te Ao, ā, nā tērā kua noho ngoikore tā Pouaka Whakaata Māori tono?

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Does he agree with the statement “It is important that Mr English is focused on the critical decisions he needs to make for New Zealanders …”; if so, is it appropriate for Mr English to increase Television New Zealand’s funding bid to broadcast the Rugby World Cup so that it is more appealing than the bid by Māori Television and makes it inadequate?]

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, it is important that Mr English is focused on the big issues. I restate the point I made earlier that at this stage the Government has not put extra money into a bid by Television New Zealand. I think it has been the genuine desire of the Minister of Finance to see Māori Television and Television New Zealand work together to achieve a successful outcome, so that all New Zealanders can view those 16 games on a free-to-air basis.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave of the House to table two documents that are representative of a series of documents that are about infringement notices. The first is from the West Coast Regional Council, and it is an infringement notice to Pike River Coal for discharging coal fines into Big River on 16 June 2009.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dr Russel Norman: The second document is another infringement notice from the West Coast Regional Council, dated 15 March 2007, to Oceana Gold Ltd for its discharging a contaminant into fresh water.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.