1. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on improvements to elective surgery?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : I have seen a number of reports that show that in the 8 years between 2000-01 and 2007-08 the number of people getting elective surgery rose an average of 1,432 a year, or just 10,021 over those 8 years. This increase was well behind population growth.

Dr Jackie Blue: What reports has the Minister seen of the results for the 2008-09 year just ended?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have just received the preliminary results for 2008-09. They show that the number of people getting elective surgery in 2008-09 was 130,216 patients, a record increase of 12,265 patients. This is the largest increase in the history of the public health system, and it is higher in 1 year than it was under 8 years of the previous Labour Government with its having doubled the budget.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How can New Zealanders who are waiting for complex surgery have any faith in him, when he has directed district health boards to improve discharge numbers, which can be achieved by doing lots of minor surgery, rather than to improve case-weighted numbers, which give a true picture of the amount and type of surgery being carried out?

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, what the member will find out, of course, is that more New Zealanders than ever before are getting elective surgery. It was her party’s history in Government that it doubled the budget and in 8 years it could not achieve what has happened in the last 12 months.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he fail to answer my written question asking about discharges and case-weighted procedures, due on 12 August, until 1.57 today; was it because it shows that he is manipulating the figures, or did he forget about the question in the same way that yesterday he forgot about the four draft Horn reports he had received, and about the dinner that he had had with Murray Horn and his colleagues to discuss the recommendations—which was it?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think it is clear from that question that the member does not appreciate the fact that what this Government is trying to do is to tidy up the mess that we inherited from her and her colleagues, whereby, despite a doubling of the health budget, fewer New Zealanders got elective surgery.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Ruth Dyson’s question was about the answer she had received to a question about the Minister’s portfolio. He gave a political attack in response and went no way towards responding to the question she had put.

Mr SPEAKER: I sympathise with the honourable member’s point of order in that the answer perhaps was not quite what the member would have wanted, but then one has to accept that the question was also very long and some quite subjective stuff was inserted into it. It was a very long question with assertions and all sorts of things in it, so I fear that I cannot assist the honourable member, with a question like that.

Dr Jackie Blue: How does this increase of over 12,000 compare with the Government’s goals for increasing elective surgery?

Hon TONY RYALL: When the National Government came into power we made it clear that we had a goal of lifting the number of people getting elective surgery by an average of 4,000 a year, which was nearly treble the growth rate that there had been under the previous Labour Government, in order to match population growth. In short, the Government has delivered the total increase it had aimed for over those 3 years over the last period.

Dr Jackie Blue: What were the increases in particular elective surgical specialties?

Hon TONY RYALL: The preliminary information shows that there were increases in nearly all elective surgical specialties, including orthopaedics, ear, nose, and throat surgery, plastic surgery, and ophthalmology. But the largest increase was in general surgery, which had actually decreased between 2000-01 and 2007-08 under Labour. In the year just completed, the number of people getting general surgery rose to over 29,000, which is an increase of around 11 percent.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the email trail between the Minister’s office and my office requesting an answer on time to the overdue question that I alluded to in my supplementary questions.

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.

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with the reported comments attributed to Hon Tau Henare on the issue of Māori representation in Auckland that “I believe the issue is too far-reaching and too important for a party presently sitting at 1 percent in the polls to decide alone.”?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because under MMP no party alone has ever been able to decide the position on any issue that goes through this House in legislation. Issues require consultation and negotiation.

Hon Annette King: Will there be Māori seats on the Auckland super-city council as the Māori Party demands, or no Māori seats on the Auckland super-city council as the ACT Party demands, or has the Prime Minister, as the acclaimed deal maker, found a compromise position, which is something he hinted at recently?

Hon TONY RYALL: We are currently working through the arrangements relating to the reorganisation of Greater Auckland local governance, and decisions will be made in due course.

Hon Annette King: What compromise position is possible between two warring factions of the Prime Minister’s multiparty Government when his parliamentary colleague the Hon Tau Henare said there had been “a distinct lack of political will.” in trying to resolve the issue and the schism that has emerged among the minor parties propping up the Government?

Hon TONY RYALL: The National-led Government has a strong relationship with its support partners. We speak with them regularly on all sorts of issues. They are certainly the first cabs off the rank. But differences of opinion are not unusual. I ask the member to look at the opinions of her own party members, not only on this issue but also on her party leadership.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister agree that if Rodney Hide does walk, it will actually be a win-win for his Government?

Hon TONY RYALL: That is not the case at all. This Government is providing strong leadership for New Zealand, and all the Ministers, including Mr Hide, are contributing to that.

Hon Annette King: Will the Prime Minister be allowing a free vote on Māori seats on the Auckland super-city council by National members of Parliament, as proposed by the Hon Tau Henare in correspondence to the National Party caucus, or is he afraid that the deep divisions seen between ACT and the Māori Party will also be exposed within his own caucus, which has been tolerating Māori issues because of the deal stitched up with the Māori Party?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Prime Minister is not afraid of anything—not the least of which is dealing with the party opposite, which itself cannot actually articulate its own position on this issue.

Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister agree that the idea of having Māori seats on councils is a “foolish preference pushed by a few white, liberal people on the council who feel guilt.”, which is a statement made by the Hon Tony Ryall; if not, has he asked Mr Ryall to keep his controversial views under control in order to preserve the stability and harmony with his Māori Party colleagues?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Prime Minister has not asked the Hon Tony Ryall for his view on this issue, because these discussions are ongoing. I assure the member that the Government is working with its support parties every day, providing strong leadership for New Zealand.

Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister consider the Māori Party to be more expendable when he is considering which side the National Party will take on Māori seats in the Auckland super-city council, because they will not take National Party votes, but the ACT Party stirring up the racial pot will?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Prime Minister values the support of both the Māori Party and the ACT Party. He works constructively with them every day of the week. He is able to deal with both of those parties with the respect that they deserve, and maybe that is why that member is sitting over there.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou. Can the Prime Minister confirm that if Rodney Hide persists with his rabid right-wing agenda, he will be dancing alone with no stars, no Crown cars, and certainly no say over Aucklanders?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think it is well known that the ACT Party has strong views on this issue, and we are currently working through the arrangements for the super-city. We are having discussions with support parties and we are not about to start conducting those discussions within the news media.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This might seem like a fine point, but I think it is an important one. It is my understanding that senior Ministers are outside the country at the moment and that Mr Ryall is Acting Prime Minister.

Hon Darren Hughes: Bill English is in the country.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am sorry; if Bill English is here, my point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I am struggling to understand the point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Sorry.

3. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Why did he reject Treasury advice that an appropriate 2020 target for New Zealand’s emissions would be 15 percent above 1990 levels rather than the 10 percent to 20 percent below 1990 levels that he announced last week?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) : Firstly, I do not consider that a target of 15 percent above 1990 levels would have been internationally credible. The range amongst the targets tabled in negotiations by developed countries is minus 30 percent from Norway through to 0 percent by the United States. Positive 15 percent would be untenable. Secondly, it would have been inconsistent with National’s election mandate. On climate change, we campaigned on New Zealand not being a laggard nor being a world leader, but doing our fair share. Our 10 percent to 20 percent target is consistent with that. Thirdly, Treasury’s proposal was to exempt forestry from the target. It is the Government’s view that if we can get correct the parameters of the policy, we can get significant plantation forests planted, and can make a significant contribution towards New Zealand making the minus 10 percent to 20 percent target.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Minister agree with the Treasury analysis that in choosing a 2020 emissions target he is imposing higher costs on New Zealand than those of our trading partners, and, indeed, as Treasury shows, causing three times the damage to New Zealand growth, jobs, and incomes compared with the damage caused by Australia’s target, and 10 times the damage of the US’s target?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The economic analysis that was provided noted that the cost to the New Zealand economy of our 10 percent to 20 percent target would be very similar to the cost of the Australian target of 15 percent to 25 percent. The reason I recommended a target range very similar, in economic cost terms, to Australia’s is that I think it is fair, with the degree of integration between the New Zealand and Australian economies, that we take a similar burden on this important issue.

Moana Mackey: Has the Minister seen the comment from the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that New Zealand’s high conditional emissions target is “disappointing and inadequate”, and why does the Government continue to discourage the development of low-carbon sectors in the New Zealand economy by viewing climate change policy as a trade-off between the environment and the economy, a position that the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has labelled a “fallacy”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: With all due respect, I disagree. [Interruption] Let me put it in context. Do I think it is possible to reduce emissions significantly without cost? The frank answer is I do not.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister still endorse the statement made by his colleague Tim Groser that the response to our climate change targets at Bonn was “uniformly positive”; if so, how does he square it with the comments of Dr Pachauri, the chief scientist of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that New Zealand’s goals are “disappointing and inadequate” and that we “clearly need a much greater level of ambition”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I totally support it, and it is consistent with the communications I have had with a range of countries about the target that New Zealand has set. I simply say to members opposite from both the Green Party and Labour that when they were in charge of this country our emissions grew by 14 percent. We could have tabled a much more ambitious target if, in fact, the previous Government had made some policy on climate change, rather than talking big and doing absolutely nothing.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. What has been the trend in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions in recent years, and how has it impacted on New Zealand’s ability to set an ambitious target for a post-2012 deal?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: New Zealand can reduce its net emissions by either reducing gross emissions or planting trees. In the 1990s New Zealand’s emissions grew by 10 percent, but, thankfully, 600,000 hectares of trees were planted. During the course of the last Government gross emissions grew by 14 percent, and not only were no trees planted but there was significant deforestation. It is noteworthy that if the previous Government had, over the same number of years, constrained emissions to the same rate as had occurred in the 1990s—10 percent—and had planted trees at the same rate as in the 1990s, New Zealand’s emissions today would be 14 percent less. Lo and behold, members opposite now complain that we are not setting a more ambitious target.

Moana Mackey: Has the Minister received any indication from any of his ministerial colleagues that they will resign if they do not get their way on this issue?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.

Hekia Parata: Is it correct that New Zealand is the only country that is including agricultural emissions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. Every country has to account for its agricultural emissions on the same basis as New Zealand is, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and also under the Kyoto Protocol. Countries are free to implement their own domestic policies to reduce emissions, and most countries for which agriculture contributes a small proportion of their emissions have not included it. That means other sectors of the economy must carry the cost. The problem for New Zealand is that agriculture contributes such a large portion of our emissions that excluding it from our domestic policy puts a higher burden on the rest of the economy.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Minister agree with a former National Energy Minister, the Hon Barry Brill, who in today’s New Zealand Herald commented on the Government’s targets for climate change that “The cost is appalling. Why aren’t we rioting in the streets? Even now, we can’t afford decent healthcare, education, prisons, so where we will we find another $6 billion per year? How can a family of four find an extra $112 per week after tax?”; or does he think that such costs are acceptable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There has been significant public debate about the level of cost. There are people who have argued it is $112 per week; I do not agree with that figure. The Government believes that a reasonable figure—and it comes from a study—is about 30 bucks a week for the average New Zealander. That is a significant amount, but it is my view that it is the contribution that New Zealanders need to make in respect of climate change policy.

4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Will he resign as a Minister if Māori seats are included on the Auckland Council?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) : Yes. On 6 April Cabinet decided that there would not be separate Māori seats on the new Auckland Council. Subsequently, on 3 June I met with the Prime Minister when he asked for my thoughts on reserved mana whenua seats. I advised him that it would be impossible for the ACT Party to vote for any race or tribal-based seats on the Auckland Council. We believe in one law for all, every citizen having a vote of equal value, and every position of political power being open to every citizen in fair and free elections. I advised the Prime Minister that I would not be able to introduce any bill that included separate Māori reserved seats for any group, and that in such a case I would not be able to continue as Minister of Local Government. I also gave the Prime Minister my assurance that the ACT Party would abide by its confidence and supply agreement, and would continue to support his excellent and honest Government, which stands in marked contrast to the Government of the past 9 years.

Phil Twyford: Has he seen any reports of the ACT Party leader who said in last year’s Television New Zealand election debate that he would support the entrenchment of Māori seats, and did it influence his view now that Māori seats are fundamentally against the culture of New Zealand and the principles of the ACT Party?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Yes, I stand by that statement, and no, it did not influence my view. Before the last election the Hon Tariana Turia came to see me and explained that the seats, if we were going to have Māori seats, should be in the same position as every other seat in the House. On the basis that I believe everyone should be treated the same, I agreed with her.

Phil Twyford: What indication, following the Cabinet decision in April that there would be no Māori seats, has he received from the Prime Minister that National would change its mind and support Māori seats?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: The Prime Minister, I think, has been quite public in his consideration of the issue. It is also the case that the parliamentary select committee is considering the bill and the issue, and has received submissions on it. Ultimately, this will be a decision that the Government and Parliament make. I just wanted to be clear to the Prime Minister about my position, so he would not have any surprises. It certainly was not a threat in any way.

Phil Twyford: How does the Minister reconcile his statements in relation to the super-city: “I don’t sort of go in there and say it’s my way or the highway”, and: “We live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament ultimately will make this decision.”; how does he reconcile those statements with his threat to throw his toys out of the cot if he does not get his own way on Māori seats?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Very easily, in fact, because I have never made threats or said it is my way or the highway. What I have said is that this is a very important principle to the ACT Party, and as the leader of the ACT Party I could not be responsible for introducing legislation that ran so counter to ACT’s philosophy and principles, and therefore if the Government or Parliament wanted to do it, they would need to find another Minister of Local Government to introduce that legislation. That is not “my way or the highway”; that is a politician standing up for a principle of his party—something that the Labour Party members seem to know nothing of.

Phil Twyford: Did the Minister or anyone in his office leak, or authorise the leak of, Tau Henare’s email in order to grandstand and demonstrate that a party polling at 1 percent can tell the Government what to do?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No, I did not see the email until after TV3 had it; so, no, that was not possible.

5. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has he received any advice on whether a law curtailing women’s rights in Afghanistan has been “brought into line with the expectations of the international community” as he was promised by Hamid Karzai; if so, what was that advice?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) : I have received no formal advice; commentary suggests there may have been some changes to the law. However, officials are seeking an official translation of that law as it has been legislated, before assessing what changes have been made.

Keith Locke: What action will New Zealand take should Hamid Karzai’s assurance, to the Minister, on women’s rights turn out to be false—for example, that men are still to be legally permitted to starve their wives if denied sex?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government is not prepared to jump to conclusions about whether the President has done something he indicated he would not do. We are not alone in this matter. New Zealand has expressed the same concerns as the rest of the international community, and if we find those concerns remain, we will consult our international partners over what appropriate steps ought to be taken.

Hon Chris Carter: Did the Minister seek advice on the possible impact on existing social and economic projects—including those affecting women—in Afghanistan’s Bamiyan province, following this Government’s decision to phase out the highly regarded, and very successful, provincial reconstruction work being done by New Zealand personnel in that province?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am not in a position to answer that question. I undertake to get back to the member as soon as I can obtain some advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Keith Locke: What assurance did the Minister get from the Afghan Government about the humane treatment of any prisoners handed over by New Zealand military personnel, and is he confident that any such assurance would be kept, should the prisoners be handed over to Afghan forces controlled by brutal warlords such as Rashid Dostum?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am not in a position to answer either of those questions. Again, I undertake to get back to the member as soon as I have been briefed on the particular matter concerning that warlord.

Keith Locke: Why does the Minister think that our SAS soldiers should risk their lives to defend a hopelessly corrupt administration, which is currently renewing its mandate through an obviously fraudulent election, and should not the Minister be sufficiently briefed by what has been in the papers over the last 2 or 3 days?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister have given answers to those questions; I have nothing to add.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to say that answers have been given and we do not know where and how, etc., is surely—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to reflect on the question he asked. Rather than it being a question, the member made a string of allegations about the situation in Afghanistan, which may or may not be correct. But given the nature of the question, it is a bit rich then to expect the Minister to answer it in any particular way.

6. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement: “It’s definitely a sort of inherent sort of institutionalised racism, in that you’ve accepted one way of doing things, and not respected another cultural norm. They have no right to do that and we will oppose that. I’ll oppose that as a Minister of New Zealand’s Government”, and does he think that opposition to the Māori seats on the Auckland City Council is an example of “institutionalised racism”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: Yes and no.

Hon Shane Jones: Will the Minister of Māori Affairs resign if the Government decides to exclude Māori seats from the Auckland Council, or is he less passionate and principled about the issue than the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, who has said bluntly that if the Government includes Māori seats he will hand in his ministerial warrant?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, is passionate and competent, and he believes strongly in the positions that he advances. He very much enjoys working with the National-led Government on those issues.

Rahui Katene: Why does the Minister think that Māori representation on the Auckland Council is important?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister’s view is that the guaranteed representation for either mana whenua or Māori is a necessary step to ensure that their voices are heard in Auckland city decision making. It is the Minister’s opinion that existing legislative provisions under the Local Electoral Act have proven to be ineffective in providing for Māori representation at the decision-making table. He also considers that there is a sound Treaty basis for this level of representation, which recognises the special place of mana whenua and Māori in a 21st century New Zealand.

Rahui Katene: How does the Minister define “institutional racism”, and how can it be addressed in local government?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Institutional racism could be defined as the collective failure of an organisation to provide equitable opportunities, benefits, or advantages to different racial or ethnic groups of a society, by neglecting to acknowledge that there are different cultural ways of being and doing that can and should be provided for.

Hon Shane Jones: Does the Minister stand by his statement: “The agreement that the Māori Party has with National is totally mana-enhancing. … and to not talk behind each other’s backs. We have an open, honest policy. … and at all times there are no surprises,”; if so, can the Minister confirm that he and his colleagues knew about the email, and were not surprised at all to find out about the backroom decision-making process of ACT and National?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister can confirm that the Māori Party has a very open and honest relationship with the National-led Government. The Minister of Māori Affairs has a very good, open, and constructive relationship with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, for example, who is trying to make up for the shocking performance of the previous Government. They enjoy working together.

Hon Shane Jones: Why is the retention of the Minister’s own Māori seat a significant enough issue to be a bottom line in the Māori Party’s confidence and supply agreement with National, but ensuring Māori representation in our communities is not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The question is a nonsense. The Minister of Māori Affairs has fought and continues to fight very strongly on issues of Māori representation. In no way can his passionate stand on those principles derogate from his equally strong position about the importance of his own seat.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your input. You have maintained a high level of standards. It is really both unnecessary and deprecating for the Minister to try to characterise this question, which is very serious to the Māori community, as being either foolish or stupid. I invite you to correct him.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the honourable member has raised. I ask Ministers not to commence answers to questions with any kind of attack or put-down. Obviously, when the question is shaped in such a way that the Minister feels it contains something of a put-down, then it invites a bit of a response. But I ask Ministers to avoid initiating an answer in that manner.

Hon Annette King: Does the Minister think that the following statement represents institutionalised racism: Māori seats on councils are a foolish preference pushed by a few white liberal people on the council who feel guilt?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Many statements have been made, both for and against the position of Māori representation on the Auckland City Council. Some are more colourful than others. The Minister certainly would not rush to judgment about institutionalised racism on the basis of one statement.

Hon Shane Jones: What is more mana-enhancing: having a flag blowing in the wind on the Auckland Harbour Bridge once a year, or ensuring Māori representation in our largest city?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Both are equally passionate positions that the Minister of Māori Affairs contends for. An equally mana-enhancing matter would be involvement in a National-led Government led by Prime Minister John Key.

7. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for ACC: What has been the cost to ACC levy payers of the endorsed provider network contract for physiotherapists, providing for free consultations since 2004, and what advice has he received on the rehabilitation benefits of this expenditure?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : The cost of the free physiotherapists policy on levy payers has been estimated at $244 million. This is the cost of physios over and above what the cost would have been if the previous policy had been maintained. I am advised that there has been no identifiable rehabilitation benefit, despite increasing the number of treatments by 1 million. The increase in the number of treatments was greatest in high socio-economic areas like Remuera and Fendalton.

Michael Woodhouse: What reports has the Minister seen on the advice given to the then Government when the endorsed provider network funding model was suggested?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have seen a briefing paper that the then Minister for ACC, the Hon Ruth Dyson, received in February 2003 on this policy. It advised her that there was no proof regarding the assertion that having free physios would result in earlier return to independence for patients. The paper further states that neither Treasury nor the Department of Labour supported the initiative. The Minister and the Government ignored that advice out of an obsession with complying with International Labour Organization principles, and as a result wasted $244 million of levy payers’ money.

Michael Woodhouse: When did the physio costs start to blow out; and what steps were taken in response?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The cost of free physios was estimated to be $9 million per year. In the first year it cost $18 million, and it subsequently blew out to over $100 million. The indictment on the previous Government is that it not only ignored officials’ advice with the initial policy but did not review it when the cost of the policy ballooned out of control. Sadly, levy payers are left with a cost of $244 million for Ruth Dyson’s expensive social experiment.

8. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Immigration: Why did he advise the House yesterday that a planned interview between the Department of Labour and the New Zealand Herald was not called off following the intervention of his political adviser?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : Because the decision not to proceed was the Department of Labour’s to take.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is the Minister advising the House that the New Zealand Herald report on 19 June that “the Department of Labour called off a planned interview with the Herald about the investigation after Dr Coleman’s ministerial adviser James Watson intervened.” is factually wrong?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I stand by my answer that the decision for the interview not to proceed was the Department of Labour’s to take.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to that question and answer. It was a very direct question, which was, in the end, not addressed by the Minister. It went to the timing of the decision, and saying he stood by a previous answer to a different question—and it was a different question, in my view—is not sufficient.

Hon John Carter: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need further assistance on this matter. I respect that the point of order was raised in perfectly good faith. It would be my judgment that the Minister is being very careful not to accuse another party of being wrong on something, but, by the answer he has given, he has given a very clear answer from his perspective to what the member was asking for.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did his officials tell the New Zealand Herald last month that they were not making inquiries again into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam, when only 1 week before, on the morning of Thursday, 17 July at a Queen Street venue, two individuals were interviewed at length by an experienced immigration investigator?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I cannot be responsible for their actions after the fact. The member will have to address that question to the department.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When the original investigation was closed because of “insufficient evidence”, might a contributing cause of that insufficient evidence have been the decision not to send an experienced immigration investigator from New Zealand to India last December to interview the original complainant, and instead to deploy an inexperienced investigator?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As the member knows, I am not responsible for the level of expertise in terms of the investigator delegated to the inquiry. The inquiry is purely—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A serious question has been asked, and the House should hear the answer.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The inquiry is purely a matter of responsibility for the Department of Labour, as the member well knows.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When did he first read the report into the first failed investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam, and what advice, if any, did he offer his officials at that time?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The advice I have consistently given throughout this matter is that the member should be treated like any member of the public, and that if any information came to light for the consideration of the department, it should proceed to investigate it just as it would for any member of the public. So if that member over there has information to hand over, I suggest he does so.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Pete Hodgson’s supplementary question asked when the Minister had read a report. Nothing in the answer went anywhere near to giving information to the House about when he had read the report about this matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me, but if I heard the Hon Pete Hodgson correctly, he went on to ask what advice the Minister had given his department in respect of the matter. I think the Minister answered pretty clearly and comprehensively in terms of the advice he has given to his department.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a matter of clarification. My question read as follows: when did he first read the report into the first failed investigation, etc.? I could read it all out if you wish.

Mr SPEAKER: It is the “etc.” bit that is relevant.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Then please allow me to continue: when did he first read the report into the first failed investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam, and what advice, if any, did he offer officials at that time?

Mr SPEAKER: I believe the Minister did answer that supplementary question. He is obliged to answer only one part of that two-part question, and he chose to answer the part about the advice he has given his department on the matter. I think he was very clear with the House as to the advice he has given his department on that matter. I cannot assist the honourable member more. If he had stopped his question halfway through, he might have been able to get more specific information about the first part, relating to when the Minister read the report. But because the question contained those two parts, the Minister was perfectly entitled to answer the second part, and I think he did so absolutely fairly.

9. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Customs: What steps is the Government taking to streamline border processes for passengers?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) : Today the Prime Minister announced that it will become faster and easier to travel between Australia and New Zealand through the introduction of SmartGate. It is an automated passenger processing system giving New Zealand and Australian e-passport - holders the option to process themselves through customs and immigration using biometric technology. It will be introduced in Auckland in December this year, with Wellington and Christchurch to follow by mid-2010. SmartGate makes border processing more efficient, meaning reduced queue times for travellers, while maintaining existing border security standards.

Simon Bridges: What will SmartGate mean for the traveller?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The technology will streamline trans-Tasman passenger clearance processes. It will reduce the amount of queuing throughout departure and arrival lounges, and will give visitors a very positive first impression of New Zealand—a country led by an incredibly dynamic Prime Minister, ably assisted by an innovative Minister of Customs.

Simon Bridges: Who can use SmartGate?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: SmartGate is totally optional. Anyone travelling to New Zealand holding an Australian or New Zealand e-passport who is over the age of 18 can use it.

10. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : Despite the fact that the previous Government quietly cut $150 million from Vote Health and left district health boards delivering $160 million of health services that were not funded, yes.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does the Minister agree with the Murray Horn report that preventing illness may not be cost-effective, and is that why funding for programmes like Let’s Beat Diabetes has been cut?

Hon TONY RYALL: The ministerial review group report is out for public feedback. I know that New Zealanders would be concerned about any such changes to policy, and I hope the member expressed concern when her bench mate, Annette King, cut $110 million out of health services for reprioritisation before the last election.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What recent feedback has the Minister had in relation to progressing his goal of more convenient health care?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think the most exciting piece of news on how we are improving services for New Zealanders was the record number of elective surgeries performed for New Zealanders in the last 6 months—the biggest single increase in that period of time.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does the Minister agree with the Murray Horn report that freezing the wages of all staff in the health sector is necessary, and how will that freeze assist to deliver National’s promise of closing the wage gap with Australia?

Hon TONY RYALL: I do not think that quote is in the ministerial review group report; I cannot recall reading that quote. I have to say that it is no secret that restraint is needed in the State services.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does the Minister agree with Murray Horn’s saying that helping people to live longer may not be cost-effective? Is he now telling older New Zealanders that it is better and more convenient for them to die sooner?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have made it absolutely clear that this Government is determined to improve health services for all New Zealanders, and we will not allow preference for working New Zealanders over retired or non-working New Zealanders. This Government takes seriously its responsibility to protect and improve the New Zealand public health service.

11. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What steps is the Government taking to help people be better prepared for disasters?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) : Last week I launched an updated resource to help children, schools, and families be better prepared for disaster. Called What’s the Plan, Stan?, the resource helps children to understand and prepare for disasters. What’s the Plan, Stan? has been distributed to all primary and intermediate schools. As well as being a teaching resource, it is also designed to help schools develop their own emergency plans. A third purpose is to provide information that families can use to plan for emergencies at home and in their communities.

Louise Upston: What other initiatives are under way to improve disaster response and preparedness?

Hon JOHN CARTER: What’s the Plan, Stan? builds on the previous good work done by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. All members will be aware of the Get Ready Get Thru education programme, which has been run since 2006 to raise New Zealand’s level of readiness. In addition, I have today released a new set of guidelines to assess damage to buildings in events such as earthquakes and explosions. [Interruption] The Opposition might not want to take matters of civil defence seriously, but this Government does. The guidelines were developed by the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, and they will help councils give homeowners an assurance and consistency after such events. For example, we are taking a leaf out of the sporting field and we have these signs, which we will ask local government bodies to use consistently. Where a house or a building is unsafe, it will get a red card stating that it is unsafe. Where it is under investigation or restricted use, we have a yellow card. Where it has been inspected and it is safe, we have a green card. It is something that we believe even the Opposition will be able to understand.

Louise Upston: What is the state of civil defence preparedness in New Zealand?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The state of preparedness in New Zealand is at a very high level. The structure that we have in New Zealand is one that we are very proud of. It was, I must say, developed under the previous administration, and it is a world leader. There are some strengths and weaknesses in it. We are developing the strengths, and we are working with local government across the country. There is work to be done in the communities, but this country is in a good state with regard to civil defence.

12. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Prime Minister: Has he, his office, or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet contacted Telecom New Zealand Ltd to seek any information on its proposed maintenance contracting arrangement with Australian-based company Visionstream; if so, what was the substance of any such discussions?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Prime Minister: No.

Clare Curran: Why has he failed to seek any assurance from Telecom that its attempt to remove employment conditions from its workforce will not interfere with the Government’s broadband commitments?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Prime Minister is advised that this is an issue of contracts between private companies, and it is not appropriate for the Government to intervene. Telecom is a private company, having been privatised by a Labour Government that included Phil Goff and Annette King.

Clare Curran: Does he stand by his election commitments to deliver ultra-fast broadband; if so, why has his Government taken no serious action to ensure that this dispute does not affect Telecom’s reputation as an efficient, customer-focused communications provider and a reputable corporate citizen?

Hon TONY RYALL: I know that the Prime Minister appreciates that changes in contract arrangements can be stressful and unsettling for the engineers involved, but this is a matter between a private company and its employees.

Clare Curran: Supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: It is my advice that the Labour Party has used its allocation of supplementary questions today.

1. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Chairperson of the Health Committee: Will the Health Committee be seeking public submissions on the briefing on health promotion, disease, and injury prevention in relation to children?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (Chairperson of the Health Committee): That is a matter for the committee to decide. It has not considered the matter yet.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does the forward programme of the committee leave open the possibility of hearing submissions as part of any legislation to implement the Horn report?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: The forward programming of any committee leaves it open for the committee to take a whole variety of actions. Hearing such submissions could be one of them.

2. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Chairperson of the Health Committee: Will the Health Committee be seeking public submissions on the report from the Controller and Auditor-General Ministry of Health: Monitoring the Progress of the Primary Health Care Strategy?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (Chairperson of the Health Committee): That is a matter for the committee to decide. It has not considered the matter yet.

Hon Ruth Dyson: If no legislation is needed to implement the Horn report, will the committee hear open, public submissions on the proposal to gut the Ministry of Health and set up the new bureaucracy, the national health board?

Mr SPEAKER: I point out to the Hon Ruth Dyson that a supplementary question must relate to an item of business before the committee, not to an item that may possibly at some future stage come before the committee. I will give her a chance to reword her supplementary question. It needs to come within the Standing Orders.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does the committee’s forward programme allow it to hear open, public submissions on implementation of the Horn report if no legislation is required to implement the report?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: As I said before, any committee’s forward programme can allow a whole spectrum of activities to take place. When I asked the member yesterday whether she knew of any ministerial reviews that had subsequently led to a select committee inquiry, she was unable to think of any such precedent.

Mr SPEAKER: The chair of a committee should not bring that material into an answer, either.