Hon Gerry Brownlee - Oral Questions

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Justice: Investigation into the engagement of Clare Curran

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:22:00 +1300

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Justice: When will the State Services Commission publicly release its investigation into the engagement of Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): When the report is completed.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister seen a draft of the report; if so, does it detail evidence from the Hon David Parker and from the former Minister David Benson-Pope; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I have not seen a draft of the report.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister aware of whether the State Services Commission has heard evidence from Heather Simpson, or any other ministerial staff, to determine the role of the Labour Government in the appointment of Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No.

Gerry Brownlee: Is it true that the Labour Government has required that this report is not released while the House is sitting and is determined to have this report released right under the eve of Christmas in order to avoid the sort of scrutiny that it should come under?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, and I quote back to the member his own comments he made on Radio Live on 5 December: "We expect a factual document to get right to the heart of it, and I think we have got to give Mr Rennie and those who are putting the report together a bit of space." That is what they have got. We have not seen the report. The Government has not received it, and we have not had input into it in the way the member is implying.

Gerry Brownlee: Does it concern the Minister that at the time I made my statements Mr Rennie had been on the job for quite some time, and, in fact, had indicated that this would be a report that took perhaps 2 or 3 weeks, but it is now well over that time, and it therefore looks very much as though this Government has decided that this report will not see the light of day while there is likely to be severe scrutiny of it?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. The terms of reference for this inquiry were released by the State Services Commission just over 3 weeks ago on 23 November. I am told there are a number of people who needed to be interviewed, and the State Services Commission wanted time to interview, and complete the report-

Gerry Brownlee: You're hiding it!

Hon ANNETTE KING: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take great exception to that interjection from the member. It goes right to the heart of my integrity.

Madam SPEAKER: Is the member asking for the member to withdraw that?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I certainly am asking him to withdraw and apologise.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

ENDS

Electricity-Thermal Generation

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:14:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: How much electricity, if any, was generated from thermally fuelled sources in the months of April, May, June, and July 2008, measured as a percentage of total electricity generation for each month?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : Electricity from fossil-fuelled sources in those months peaked at 46 percent of the total in June and fell to 37 percent in July. This compares to around 35 percent in a normal year.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister's stubborn insistence on advancing the thermal ban, in the face of overwhelming opposition from industry experts, an indication of a total lack of confidence in the ability of the Government's emissions trading scheme to incentivise new renewable generation, because, if the emissions trading scheme works-as he assures us it will-why is it that we need this heavy-handed thermal ban?

Hon DAVID PARKER: First, it is not a ban. [Interruption] It is not a ban. National is doing its best to set up a phoney war. Its members are trying to argue that security of supply and renewables are incompatible, but of course we know that we can have both. The first casualty in this phoney war that is being set up was a salvo in National's own energy policy. It produced a graph on security margins that left off the period after 2006, because it did not suit the myth that National was trying to portray. National excluded from its security margins the 1,000 megawatts of electricity capacity that has since been added or is currently under construction. It is a phoney war and the first casualty is truth.

Moana Mackey: What reports has he seen on thermal electricity and renewables?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Just today Contact Energy, one of New Zealand's biggest generators, outlined its plans to invest up to $3 billion in about 1,400 megawatts of new generation projects, nearly all of it renewable. It includes about 500 megawatts of geothermal, a renewable baseload source of renewable electricity. Mighty River Power is also building more geothermal These investors have confidence in a renewable future. In contrast, of course, we have the backward-looking energy policy from the National Party, which is wedded to fossil fuels-

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well supported! Very well supported!

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is well supported by Nick Smith and about one other. National would tie electricity prices to rising gas prices and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. It is no wonder that Greenpeace said of National's policy: "Earth to National: there is this thing called climate change."

Gerry Brownlee: Is it now the Minister's position that thermal generation has saved his bacon this year but we do not need any more of it?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is not what the policy says. It is clear that we have large amounts of economic, geothermal, baseload renewable capacity that the generators are willing to build and that we know is cost competitive. National is turning its back on that, saying "More fossil fuel, less renewables".

I seek leave to table the graph used by National in its energy policy that excludes the 1,000 megawatts.

Leave granted.

ENDS

State-owned Enterprises-Assets

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:28:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by his statement of 13 July 2008 on Agenda in reference to State-owned enterprises that "Well I'm happy to have floats as long as it's non core assets"?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) : Yes. I would like to add that it is a longstanding policy of the Labour-led Government not to sell core assets, unlike that member and his party, with its now public-formerly secret-agenda that would see the selling of Kiwibank. That is a bank with over 600,000 New Zealand customers, a bank that pays tax in New Zealand, retains its profit in New Zealand, and is a distinctly New Zealand brand. What we will not do is sell it out from under our feet in the way that Bill English is promising to do.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister define for the House what he considers to be non-core assets, given that he has said on no fewer than three separate occasions this year that he is happy to float non-core assets, and will he also provide some examples of some of those non-core assets that he thinks it would be a good idea to sell?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is no problem at all. One very clear example of a non-core asset that could have been floated and has been sold is Southern Hydro. Southern Hydro is a wind farm in Australia that was owned by Meridian Energy. It was sold for $1.4 billion, and it is an example of a non-core asset that has been sold. A flotation methodology, if the price was good, could have worked for it, as well.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document showing that the sale of Southern Hydro happened well before the Minister made any of the three statements I speak of.

Leave granted.
Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible to hear. Members will be leaving the Chamber if this continues.

Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any reports on the value of State-owned enterprises?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, I have. I have seen another outbreak of the truth. In this case it was from Dr Richard Worth in material drafted by him that outlines the National Party approach. In it he says-

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is about to quote from a select committee document that is currently privy to the select committee and has not been tabled in the House. One of his own members, the Hon Paul Swain, is doing considerable support work on that document. It would be advisable for the Minister not to breach the conventions of the House by discussing select committee business on the floor of the House before it is reported.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think the member makes a very fair point. If this material is draft material before a select committee, then, of course, it would not be appropriate for it to be used in the House. Of course, that does not change the fact that Dr Richard Worth is proposing precisely those facts.

Madam SPEAKER: Members know they cannot actually quote from those documents.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I want to finish my answer.

Madam SPEAKER: As long as it is consistent with the Standing Orders; you cannot quote from that document.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have seen material from Dr Richard Worth-

Madam SPEAKER: No. I am sorry. Please be seated.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister deliberately defied your ruling. I could come in here with the draft monetary policy inquiry report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and make allegations about who has written what, what Paul Swain said, and there perhaps being other, different points of view in the Labour caucus, and then talk about splits and divisions. It is absolutely out of order for that Minister to bring any material into this House that is from a committee report and the property of that committee. He has no idea whether it represents the ideas of the committee clerk or those of members of the committee.

Madam SPEAKER: No. I have ruled on this matter. We will move on.

Gerry Brownlee: What did the Minister mean in June of 2006 when he confirmed that he hopes that "mum and dad New Zealanders might get a chance to have shares in subsidiary companies" of State-owned enterprises to be listed on the stock exchange; and can he tell us which subsidiaries of State-owned enterprises he intends selling after the next election, should Labour be returned to office?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I meant exactly what I said.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is not infrequent for you to ask Ministers to expand a little on their answers. We know what the Minister said, because I have the quote; we are just asking what he meant. Clearly, he would have to name some assets that the Labour Government intends selling.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister actually did address the question quite clearly. But the member has another supplementary question.

Gerry Brownlee: Why was the Government's decision to launch the Capital Market Development Taskforce, which is chaired by Rob Cameron, a well-known proponent of partial floats of State-owned enterprises, a response to the Minister's trio of public expressions supporting partial sales of State-owned enterprises?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you are to have us stick to the conventions, he could not make a question out of that. He said: "Why was", which made it a statement, not a question. If we are going to have the rules applied, let us apply them to everybody.

Madam SPEAKER: No. I think it was a question this time. We are not going to get silly over this.

Gerry Brownlee: If we are going to be pedantic, I should try again. Was the Government's decision to launch the Capital Market Development Taskforce, which is chaired by Rob Cameron, a well-known proponent of State-owned enterprise partial floats, a response to the Minister's trio of public expressions supporting the idea of partial floats of State-owned enterprises?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No; it could not possibly be, because this Minister, like the Government, opposes the sale of core State assets. Can I make it absolutely clear that, unlike Bill English, who wants to sell Kiwibank, and unlike Richard Worth, who wants to list State-owned enterprises on the stock exchange, we do not want to do that.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister try to tell the House just what the Government's position on State asset sales is, because Helen Clark says one thing, he has said another thing on three separate occasions, and Michael Cullen and Lianne Dalziel have launched the Capital Market Development Taskforce, but when we look at the Labour Party website, we see that there is no current policy on there, whatsoever, let alone any discussion about State-owned enterprises; and is it not true that the real secret agenda around this issue is being circulated among the Labour Cabinet Ministers?

Hon Bill English: Given that Dr Cullen appears to be the person who knows the answer to that question, I seek leave for Gerry Brownlee to be able to redirect his question to Dr Cullen.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. Will the Minister please just address the question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I spent lunchtime today at the Hutt railway workshop. That workshop is a clear example that this Government buys assets, and does not sell them in the way that Bill English wants to do.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister might confirm that that was a job interview.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I was well greeted by the workers, who were highly offended by Gerry's description of skilled tradesmen as people who worked in a sheltered workshop.

Madam SPEAKER: That answer did not address the question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Brownlee raised a facetious point of order, which invited precisely that response, given that Mr Brownlee had insulted the Hutt workshop workers.

Madam SPEAKER: Does the Minister wish to expand on his answer?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Madam Speaker, can you confirm whether it was a question, and not a point of order, to start with?

Madam SPEAKER: It was a question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh, right. Can I make it absolutely clear that I spent time at the Hutt railway workshop discussing the Government's plans to have an efficient, New Zealand - owned railway system, unlike the National Party, which already wants to change the name from KiwiRail to "DingoRail" again.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There was an interruption between the answer the Minister gave and the supplementary question I asked. I wonder whether you might allow me to ask that question again, so that he can give us an answer, because he has not addressed it. For him simply to say what he did at lunchtime, etc., is not really addressing the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. A question was asked, points of order were made, the Minister addressed the question, I asked him to expand on it, and he did.

Gerry Brownlee: Since the Minister made his trio of statements in favour of selling, or partially selling, State-owned enterprises-

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. To say "Since the Minister", is not how one starts a question.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that is true.

Gerry Brownlee: It is a great way to make one's point twice! Can the Minister tell the House whether, since his trio of statements favouring the partial float of State-owned enterprises, he has had a "please explain" conversation with Helen Clark, given her speech to the Labour conference in April in which she said that asset sales were a defining issue of the election; or was his trio of statements in favour of partial floats in fact Labour's real policy that she was referring to?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have regular conversations with the Prime Minister across a broad range of issues, but can I make it absolutely clear that the policy of the Labour-led Government is not to sell core State-owned enterprises. If members opposite think that State-owned enterprises never sell anything, I ask them to consider what happens every day with electricity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm-in order to make it clear to some parliamentarians-that the sale of, for example, vehicles owned by a State-owned enterprise is not a core State asset sale?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I can absolutely confirm that. Every day these multibillion-dollar enterprises sell non-core assets. Doing that is part of their role. Small subsidiaries are sold on a monthly basis, and many more are bought.

Chris Tremain: Name one.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I named one earlier-Southern Hydro. Whisper Tech has just entered a big joint venture. Quotable Value has sold its assets to a new vehicle. Every State-owned enterprise sells non-core assets, many of them on a weekly basis.

Gerry Brownlee: If we are to believe the Minister-that all he was talking about was used cars, old furniture, etc.-why did he say that he wanted mum and dad New Zealanders to have a chance to have shares in subsidiary companies of State-owned enterprises listed on the stock exchange; what is so hard about his explaining what he meant, when he has made that statement no fewer than three times this year?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, it might have been three times in this House this year, but I think I gave the member a very good example in Southern Hydro. If the price of a float had been higher than the price-

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A document currently being tabled in the House shows that long before Trevor Mallard made his statement of aspiration for mum and dad New Zealanders to have a share of used Government equipment, the Southern Hydro scheme had been well sold.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, that is all very interesting, but the Minister is addressing the question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I was asked to give an example of the sort of thing that could be floated, and Southern Hydro was a very large asset that was sold to Australians. If the price had been as good, then it could have been sold to a floating vehicle in New Zealand.

ENDS

Hongi-Tame Iti

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:26:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What did his hongi with Tame Iti, at the signing of the terms of negotiations with Tuhoe last week, symbolise?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : The fact that Mr Iti came to Parliament as part of a 400-strong delegation from NgaiTuhoe to sign terms of negotiations with the Crown. He was, of course, one of the signatories.

Gerry Brownlee: Does he recall the comments of the Hon Trevor Mallard earlier this year when he stated "I cannot believe that any responsible politician in New Zealand would endorse Tame Iti in the way that John Key did .", and has he heard what Mr Mallard thinks of his endorsement of Tame Iti by not just one hongi but, in fact, a trio of hongi last week?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sure that the member will find out sooner or later in his life that after the first time it is much easier.

Gerry Brownlee: Does he agree with Trevor Mallard when he stated in the same speech, "any decent leader would have had the backbone to turn round, go the other way, and not greet Tame Iti,"; if so, does his trio of hongi with Tame Iti last week indicate that he is not a decent leader and has no backbone, because he did not take the strongly worded advice of his wise colleague?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do recall that earlier in the year Mr Key was wandering around the Treaty House grounds at Waitangi looking for a friend, and found one. Mr Tame Iti was the only one available at that time. I was standing in a formal line for a formal powhiri. To have declined to hongi in that situation, when reconciliation was the purpose of the entire function, would have been grossly discourteous, in my view.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister think that his explanation about these two situations-first, John Key going to Waitangi and being greeted by Tame Iti by way of a hongi, then Tame Iti coming to Wellington to be greeted by Dr Cullen by way of a hongi not just once but three times-is in essence the same thing; if so, will he now apologise to Mr Key for the injudicious remarks of the Hon Trevor Mallard?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is only one deputy leader in this House who needs to apologise to Mr Key every day, and it is not me.

Gerry Brownlee: Is not his justification of his trio of hongi with Tame Iti, and his condemnation of John Key's singular hongi with Tame Iti, another example of there being one standard for Labour and another standard for everyone else, just like the Rt Hon Helen Clark's saying that tax cuts were the promises of a visionless and intellectually bankrupt people, until, of course, she herself decided to announce tax cuts, and just like the Rt Hon Helen Clark lecturing Fiji about free speech and human rights, until she unleashed on the New Zealand people the Electoral Finance Act, which is designed to shut down anyone who wants to attack Labour; and will he not finally admit that Labour members' positions are constantly riddled with contradiction and the use of facts designed to suit themselves?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In the member's case, his wind fills the room, not his sneeze.

Gerry Brownlee: I would take a point of order to ask the Minister to give an answer, but I guess that when one is caught, one is caught. I instead seek leave to table this very fetching photo of Mr Iti greeting, by way of a hongi, Dr Cullen.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Gerry Brownlee: I've sought leave.

Madam SPEAKER: I have already put it, and it was declined.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Before granting leave-and I am happy do so-I want to be sure that I will not have a question from Mr English tomorrow claiming that the photo is an advertisement under the Electoral Finance Act.

Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible to hear. I will put the question again. Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Leave granted.
Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table another two photographs of Dr Cullen hongi-ing Tame Iti.

Leave granted.

ENDS

Crown-connected Organisations-Board Appointments

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:23:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: What guidance documents, if any, are Government departments and Ministers expected to use when making appointments to the boards of Crown-connected organisations?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) : There are a number of documents, including the State Services Commission Board Appointment and Induction Guidelines, last revised in May 2007, and a number of Cabinet Office circulars.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is observing the constitutional convention that no appointments are made to Crown boards in the 3 months prior to a general election, and therefore the date for the election this year must be 8 November unless a confidence vote is lost prior to that time?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that the Government has adhered, and always will adhere, to that convention. But I would say that the cries from the National Party are more double standards on the part of National, and I would instance that the appointment by the party of its front-man for anonymous donations, Robert Brown, from the Waitemata Trust that last election pumped $1.4 million into National Party coffers, is the same Robert Brown who was appointed by the National Party as chair of Transit New Zealand.

Louisa Wall: Kia ora, Madam Speaker; tena koutou katoa. What evidence does the Minister have, on looking at recent appointments, that under a Labour Government the best person is appointed to the job?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would say that the Labour Government is far more balanced when it comes to appointments than the National Party ever was, and if any evidence is needed of that I would point to the recent appointments of former National Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, to be head of KiwiRail, and today's appointment of former National Minister, Paul East, as a governor to the board of Radio New Zealand.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Labour Government is so very balanced about the way it makes its appointments, can the Minister confirm that Mike Williams, the president of the Labour Party, was recently appointed to the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency-which brings the number of Government-appointed boards that he sits on to five, with an annual salary somewhere north of $140,000 a year-and is it true that Mr Williams gets so many appointments because the Prime Minister is sick of digging him out of trouble every time he opens his mouth so the Government has to give him lots of jobs to keep him busy and to keep him quiet?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that Mr Williams was appointed to the new transport agency, but not as chair-unlike the appointment of Mr McCully's mate Mr Brown, who was appointed as chair to Transit under the National Party, and who is the same man who fronts the Waitemata Trust.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister, in fact, confirmed for the House today that the Government is following all of the constitutional requirements when it comes to making appointments, and that therefore the only possible election date now available to the Prime Minister is 8 November?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it is not, and what I confirmed was that the Government is abiding by the convention.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister therefore suggesting that the Government is wilfully breaching the constitutional convention that no appointments are made to Crown boards in the 3 months prior to a general election, just as the Government has breached so many other constitutional conventions in its term of office, such as the bipartisanship over electoral law reform and the ensuring of neutrality of the public service?

Hon DAVID PARKER: For a start, the member misstates, or misrepresents, the convention. In terms of the politicisation of things, I would note that the person who has most politicised things in the State services this year was Mr Brownlee in his attempt to politicise the appointment of Mr Rennie as State Services Commissioner.

Gerry Brownlee: Will the Minister confirm rumours that scores of Labour Party members around New Zealand are currently updating their CVs and sending them to Ministers in a desperate attempt to get positions on boards before the dying, desperate, out-of-touch Government finally kicks the bucket; and can he tell us whether the Government will beat the record it set last month with 43 appointments in just 4 days?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am sure that the appointees to Government positions-not the least of whom would be Mr East and Mr Bolger-would be insulted by those accusations.

ENDS

Political Funding-Sources

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:20:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement that "greater transparency about the sources of political funding will lead to increasing public confidence in our democracy."?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) : Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: Is it Government policy that a party should be able to solicit and collect a $25,000 donation, yet not declare any such donation in its returns to the Electoral Commission?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is Government policy, with the changes in the Electoral Finance Act, that there be greater transparency. But I think this Parliament ought to know the real rort that has been going on here. The real rort is the National Party, which cashed up every penny it had before 31 December, cleaned out its trust accounts, cleaned out its anonymous donations, and cleaned out every piece of money it could get its hands on-and we have the evidence for it: "Nats call in their secret donations"-

Gerry Brownlee: By Nicky Hager.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, in fact it came from the press gallery, which that member bases all his arguments in this House on. They transferred it to the National Party, and now there is no accountability as to where that money came from, what trust it came from, whether it was from the Exclusive Brethren, or whether it was from the fishing industry, the insurance industry, or the tobacco industry. The money went into the account to rort the Electoral Finance Act. That is the real scandal of this House.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister appears to have forgotten what my question was, and she has gone on to her prepared answer, which is, of course, only able to be given because the National Party does say which trusts it gets money from-unlike New Zealand First. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Order!

Gerry Brownlee: It is not us that have those hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations, like the Labour Party has. Is the Minister concerned that Sir Robert Jones has confirmed this morning that he paid $25,000 as a donation to New Zealand First as a party in 2005, but that New Zealand First returns to the Electoral Commission in 2005 and 2006 list no such donation; and if she is not concerned about that, how would her lack of concern line up with her stated desire to bring transparency and increased public confidence to political party funding?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That would certainly be a matter for other authorities, not me. However, the Electoral Finance Act does ensure that there is greater transparency. But, of course, if one rorts the system before the Act comes in, as the National Party did, then one can be assured that lots of things are hidden. The Waitemata Trust, for example, handed over $424,000 just before the end of the calendar year, and the Ruahine Trust handed over $69,000, as National scooped up every piece of money it could. [Interruption] The member said that at least National knows what the trusts are. Well, nobody knows who the trustees of the Waitemata Trust are. Only one Mr Robert Brown, a longstanding business associate of National campaign strategist Murray McCully-

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, there is a speech there.

Gerry Brownlee: Yes, there is a speech. What is more, it is all available in the newspaper, because nobody is hiding anything. I take this opportunity outside of the normal range of questions to seek leave to table documents to show that Labour took $230,000 in donations from trusts in 2007 prior to the Electoral Finance Act.

Leave granted.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table an article by Ruth Laugesen, which shows that the National Party called in secret donations by Judy Kirk, who asked anonymous donors to put the money in before-

Leave granted.
R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that there is a huge difference between trust accounts that were set up many years ago, and have channelled millions of dollars to the National Party, and the present situation of smears, innuendo, and false allegations levelled against New Zealand First?

Hon ANNETTE KING: In my view, what the National Party is trying to do is hide its own activities by highlighting stories out of the media, which is what I have just been accused of doing. National has no other evidence than what it reads in the media, and on the basis of that it is attacking the New Zealand First Party to cover up its own shabby, dirty behaviour before the end of the financial year.

Gerry Brownlee: I interrupt the flow of the Minister's answer for a further seeking of leave, because I think it will help the Minister's answers. I seek leave to table a transcript of Bob Jones saying this morning that he gave the money to New Zealand First and now wants to know where it went.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Sue Bradford: Will the Speaker, in the light of concerns over donations to both New Zealand First and National, now support a Green Party amendment to the Electoral Finance Act proposing that only those who give very small donations should have their names left undisclosed to the public?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Labour Party would support getting rid of all anonymous donations, with State funding of political parties. That is a much cleaner approach.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister concerned by the fact that the New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, received $100,000 from overseas billionaire Owen Glenn, and that Mr Peters and New Zealand First failed to declare that funding on official returns while Mr Peters has been considering a diplomatic appointment for Mr Glenn?

Hon ANNETTE KING: My understanding-and there have been many questions in the House this week on it-is that Mr Peters did not receive that money.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister agree that the use of the Waitemata Trust by the National Party to hide the identity of donors was reprehensible, but does she also agree that New Zealand First's failing even to declare the existence of the Spencer Trust is just as bad?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I know little or nothing of the Spencer Trust, but I certainly know a lot about the Waitemata Trust, because a lot of work has been done to show just what a sneaky little vehicle it is-controlled and managed by Mr Browne, along with Mr McCully, to hide its donations from people like the Exclusive Brethren. I think any questions about the Spencer Trust would have to be directed to New Zealand First.

Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister said she did not know that Mr Peters had received a $100,000 donation, had she not heard the Prime Minister yesterday acknowledging that he had, and saying that he does not have to give it back?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. I do not agree with what the member has said the Prime Minister said.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister think the recent revelations about the undisclosed funding given to New Zealand First undermines the integrity of Labour's Electoral Finance Act, given that New Zealand First was one of its most vehement supporters; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: What has made the whole system a lot more transparent, going forward, is the Electoral Finance Act. I am really interested that this member asking the question is now very interested in transparency, but during the debate on the very bill, he opposed the bill.

Rodney Hide: How can there be any confidence in New Zealand's democracy, when an overseas billionaire pays off Winston Peters' legal bill to the tune of $100,000 while seeking an honorary consulship, and Bob Jones gives Winston Peters $25,000 that disappears into his brother's trust account; and is not the real corruption the fact that Helen Clark refuses to investigate this money because she needs the vote of New Zealand First?

Madam SPEAKER: No. If the member used the word "corruption", would he please withdraw that and rephrase his question. He knows that that is a word that is unacceptable in the House.

Rodney Hide: How can there be any confidence in New Zealand's democracy, when an overseas billionaire pays off Winston Peters' legal bill to the tune of $100,000 while seeking an honorary consulship, and Bob Jones gives Winston Peters $25,000 that disappears into his brother's trust account; and is not the real problem in all of this the fact that Helen Clark refuses to investigate because she needs the vote of New Zealand First?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Prime Minister has made it clear that there are many avenues to look at all the accusations the member has made, which are not backed up with proof. But I would say to the member that people in glass houses should not throw stones, because in 2007 ACT was late putting in its party donations return. So although ACT is very smart about everybody else, it could not keep up with what it was supposed to do.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am concerned that the Minister of Justice would suggest that what I said in my question was not factual, when in fact it is absolutely factual. We have had the statement from Bob Jones, we have had the statement from Brian Henry, and I think it is a bit rich-

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Rodney Hide: It is a good point, though.

Madam SPEAKER: No. Another comment like that and the member will be asked to leave the Chamber.

Gerry Brownlee: What are the penalties for deliberately submitting an incorrect or incomplete donation return to the Electoral Commission in any particular year?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I do not have the legislation in front of me, but there are penalties; I refer the member to the Act.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.That is a very simple question. This Minister presided over the passing of the Act. Without losing a supplementary question, I wonder whether I might reword it in a way that the Minister might be able to answer it.

Madam SPEAKER: No. I listened; the Minister addressed the question. The member may not like the answer, but she did address the question. You may ask another supplementary question, if you wish.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister think the public interest in the revelations about undisclosed donations to New Zealand First, and the considerable donation made to New Zealand First by Owen Glenn, warrant further investigations by the Electoral Commission to ensure that New Zealand First now understands-

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.It has been well established that Owen Glenn did not make any donation to New Zealand First. He made a donation to the legal fund of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and that is quite a different thing-quite a different thing.

Madam SPEAKER: This is a matter of debate; it is not for the Speaker to rule on the accuracy of questions or answers.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister think the public interest in the revelations about donations to New Zealand First from both Bob Jones and Owen Glenn that have not been declared by New Zealand First warrant further investigation by the Electoral Commission; and will she, as Minister, ask the commission to consider making those investigations, or is it just-as the Prime Minister said-that there is a smorgasbord of things that could happen and they hope none of them do?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Of course, the Prime Minister never said any such thing; and the member just did what he constantly does-he makes it up. He pretends he knows a lot about the Electoral Act, but he may not know that the Electoral Commission is actually independent of the Minister of Justice and it will decide whether it will investigate any action of any party in this House.

ENDS

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs-Safety

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:19:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: How confident is he that compact fluorescent lamp light bulbs are safe for New Zealanders to use in their homes?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : Very. Fluorescent lights are used in all countries, and can be safely used in New Zealand homes. The small amount of mercury is about one-twentieth of the amount in old fluorescent lights used in schools for decades, and is also substantially less than that in current tube fittings. Indeed, when I walked around the Beehive today I noted that just about all of the light fittings were fluorescent ones. Is the member suggesting we should ban them?

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister agree with the Government's spokesperson for energy efficiency, Jeanette Fitzsimons, who said yesterday that an Investigate magazine article about compact fluorescent light bulbs "raises some concerns", and that "New Zealanders need to know that using CFL light bulbs will not pose a health risk to themselves and their families."; if he does, will he be commissioning the review that his colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons has called for?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, her statement was correct, in that Mr Wishart's article does raise those views. It is based on one study; I can advise the member that the Ministry of Health is reviewing that study and other related research, and will no doubt present a more balanced view than Mr Wishart did.

Moana Mackey: Are people being forced to use compact fluorescent lamps?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Again, I repeat "No". This seems to be a common misconception on Mr Brownlee's part. A growing range of energy-saving lamps are now available-

Jacqui Dean: They hate them!

Hon DAVID PARKER:-for example, there are new generation halogen incandescent lamps that look exactly the same. I hear we have another person saying they hate them. It is based on what the bulbs look like. We actually have lamps that look exactly the same as the old-style incandescent lamps but they use 30 percent less energy and they last twice as long. These are not fluorescents-they have no mercury-but, unfortunately, compared with fluorescents the savings are not quite as high.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister telling the House that the Government spokesperson for energy efficiency did not know that this work was to be done to verify the claims made in the Investigate magazine; and, in any event, would it not have been simply a matter for the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency to commission the inquiry herself-or in fact is the relationship between the Greens and the Government now so bad that such activity cannot take place?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In contrast, I have a very open relationship with Jeanette Fitzsimons, and she has phoned me to express her views on these things in the last day.

ENDS

Electricity Generator, Whirinaki-Diesel Use

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:26:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: How many litres of diesel has the reserve electricity generator at Whirinaki used this year?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : The generator at Whirinaki has used 35.285878 megalitres of diesel. For Mr Brownlee's benefit, each of those is bigger than a nanolitre by 1015. In practical terms, that represents less than 1 percent of total generation this year.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that on Tuesday of last week the Electricity Commission published a consultation paper in which it stated that it may need to spend another $165 million this year on using the Whirinaki generator, just to keep the lights on, and that that would treble its budget for this year; and can the Minister further confirm that the $165 million will be recovered from consumers, so that Labour's midwinter Christmas present to New Zealanders will be an increased power bill for everyone?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Madam Speaker-

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it's lower.

Hon DAVID PARKER: As Mr Mallard interjected, the effect will be that the cost to consumers is lower, because electricity funded in that way will have less of an effect on prices than the status quo. Of course, the Whirinaki generator is being used this year. Last year it was not used at all-I think it was fired up on 1 or 2 days, just for trial purposes-because we had lots of water. That is why one has reserve generation-for dry years

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister recall telling the House a couple of weeks ago that the current spot price does not affect residential customers, and that they should not expect increased power bills as Meridian Energy had predicted; if so, can he now tell us how the levy of $165 million, which will be met in large part by householders, will lower their power bills?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that I said that residential consumers are not exposed to the spot price, but, of course, the member is now ignoring the interests of commercial users, some of whom are exposed to the spot price.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the level of Lake Hawea-whose sole purpose in the electricity system is storage-is currently at the very bottom of its resource consent range, and that the guardians of the lake are extremely concerned about the environmental harm that will be created if the lake goes below the 338-metre level, which has not occurred for some 26 years; and does he regard that environmental damage-[Interruption] Do you want me to start again, Madam Speaker?

Madam SPEAKER: No, continue. But would the member please desist from interjections.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the level of Lake Hawea-whose sole purpose in the electricity system is storage-is currently at the very bottom of its resource consent range, and that the guardians of the lake are concerned that if it goes below 338 metres, which it has not done for some 26 years, considerable environmental damage will be done; and does he think it is acceptable for him, as Minister, to preside over that damage taking place, when his Government talks so frequently about sustainability and protection of the environment?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm it as stated by the member. It is true that the level of Lake Hawea is close to the bottom of its normal operating range; none the less, the terms of its resource consent that now apply, that have long applied, and that were approved and granted by the Environment Court, state that in very dry years it can be drawn down by another small amount. Whether that happens remains to be seen.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the Electricity Commission has also said it may need to spend a further $5 million to run a conservation campaign later in the winter, and does this not mean that the commission has no confidence in the Minister's continued assurances that there is little prospect of a crisis, there is no need for a conservation campaign, and everything will be OK?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is not yet clear how much of the funding that has been provided to the Electricity Commission will need to be drawn down, because that depends upon hydro inflows between now and the end of winter.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the overall picture for electrical power in New Zealand looks a bit like this: spot prices are the highest they have ever been, lake levels are incredibly low, thermal generation is producing 45 percent of our power needs, the so-called reserve generator is guzzling millions of litres of diesel, consumers are being told to cut back on their power use, industry has already cut production, we are reliant on an asbestos-ridden, inefficient gas plant at New Plymouth, and the Electricity Commission wants another $165 million from consumers to keep the lights on, yet the Minister claims we do not have a crisis and says that we should not worry, because the system is working?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In no particular order, yes and no.

ENDS

Electricity Generator, Whirinaki-Diesel Use

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:11:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: How many litres of diesel has the reserve electricity generator at Whirinaki used this year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Madam Speaker-

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it's lower.

Madam SPEAKER: No, continue. But would the member please desist from interjections.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the level of Lake Hawea-whose sole purpose in the electricity system is storage-is currently at the very bottom of its resource consent range, and that the guardians of the lake are concerned that if it goes below 338 metres, which it has not done for some 26 years, considerable environmental damage will be done; and does he think it is acceptable for him, as Minister, to preside over that damage taking place, when his Government talks so frequently about sustainability and protection of the environment?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In no particular order, yes and no.

ENDS

Incandescent Light Bulbs-Importation

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:19:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: From what date will conventional incandescent light bulbs be unable to be imported into New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : It is intended that from October 2009 the sale of inefficient light bulbs will be phased out where we have cost-effective alternatives. This move is supported by the industry, it will save consumers money, and it will help the environment. Yet National opposes it.

Gerry Brownlee: Why has the Government opted for a legislative sledgehammer by banning the importation of conventional light bulbs when the evidence shows that around half of all New Zealanders have started to use energy-efficient light bulbs because they choose to, and why can the Government not let people make that choice rather than making a blanket ban and treating us all like children who must obey nanny State?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This has been done under the minimum efficiency performance criteria, which we apply to fridges and washing machines. We are doing it with Australia; they are doing the same thing. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because, as members can see here, we have efficient down light bulbs, we have efficient ordinary light bulbs, we have screw-in light bulbs, we have bayonet-fitting light bulbs-we even have light bulbs for chandelier fittings, which are efficient for members of the National Party-we have small ones, we have big ones, we have dimmable ones, and still the National Party opposes it. The National Party cannot even change a light bulb.

Gerry Brownlee: Is this not just another crackdown on consumer choice from a busybody Government that loves telling New Zealanders what to do, when to do it, and how to do it; and can he confirm that the next items on the Government's banned list will be petrol-powered lawnmowers, hedge trimmers, and garden vacuums?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I really do think this is rather pathetic.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Government consider it somewhat ironic that while it presses ahead with a ban on conventional light bulbs, the mercury in compact fluorescent light bulbs makes it uneconomic to recycle them, meaning that the disposal of them will ultimately add to New Zealand's toxic-waste stream?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This one here is actually a fluorescent bulb. It saves 80 percent power. These ones here are not-they have no mercury in them but they still save 35 percent. So these savings are in the range of 35 to 80 percent. Some of them have a little amount of mercury, but it is far less than the old fluorescent light bulbs we used to have. Yes, we need to do better in the future in terms of recycling these things, but I am confident that we will. It is just another excuse for delay on the part of the National Party

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister aware that broken compact fluorescent light bulbs emit mercury vapour at a rate of 100,000 nanograms per square metre and if so-[Interruption] I see, it is all funny, it is just a joke; putting a bit of boot into the choice of New Zealanders is a joke-can he assure the House that a broken compact fluorescent light bulb does not pose a health threat to New Zealand households, particularly those with young children in them?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would point out that if I stuck this light bulb in my mouth, there would be less mercury than if I stuck a thermometer in it. The member's press release yesterday said his objection to these things is because they are not dimmable. He might be dim, but the reality is we have dimmable versions of these light bulbs and National still opposes them.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I invite the Minister to give us a demo by shoving the light bulb into his mouth and swallowing it.

Madam SPEAKER: Members are on the verge of being silly again.

ENDS

Corrections, Department-Kuchenbecker Inquest

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:20:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by the statement from his department yesterday that it accepts the findings from the coroner's inquest into the murder of Karl Kuchenbecker at the hands of Graeme Burton?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) : Yes, the Department of Corrections does accept the findings of the coroner. Also, the department, along with the Parole Board and the police, acknowledges the mistakes that were made that contributed to Graeme Burton remaining at large, which in turn resulted in his murder of Karl Kuchenbecker. All three agencies have expressed their deep regrets and apologies and, just as important, have moved to remedy the deficiencies in the system.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Department of Corrections accepts the findings of the coroner, why did it put out in a press release yesterday statements that downplayed the coroner's view, by saying "there was only one occasion in . October and then in late November that Burton did not fully comply with the rules", and say that it "worked extremely hard . to get him back on track.", when the coroner makes it clear that he was supposed to be on a zero-tolerance regime and that the Department of Corrections should have locked him up; if the department accepts it was wrong, why it is making excuses?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The department is not making excuses, and I am certainly not making excuses on its behalf. Mistakes were made that should not have been made. They were made across three agencies. It is, rather, a tragedy that human error resulted in what occurred because of the mistakes that were made. I would, however, point out to the member that the coroner in his report identified those mistakes as things that should have been done but were not done, but did not accuse the department of carelessness or negligence.

Martin Gallagher: What recommendations did the coroner make regarding remedial actions that needed to be taken by the Department of Corrections?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The coroner made no recommendations, because he said that the Government had moved quickly to enact a raft of amendments to the Parole Act, and that both the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police had taken what he described as firm steps to deal with the systemic deficiencies made apparent by the circumstances of Karl Kuchenbecker's death.

Gerry Brownlee: Has he seen the statement in the coroner's report that had the Department of Corrections taken enforcement action against Burton's parole breaches earlier, "the prospect of an early arrest would have been considerably advanced."; if so, does he now think the statement of his chief executive in March of 2007 that "I don't think there's a nexus between the tragedy and the management of his parole." indicates an attitude in the department that contributed to Karl Kuchenbecker's death and, in fact, leads to the responsibility for his death lying with the department?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The direct responsibility for Karl Kuchenbecker's death, of course, lies with Graeme Burton, and no excuses should be made that anybody other than he is directly and squarely responsible for a senseless murder. Having said that, had actions been taken in a different way, as they should have been, by corrections, the Parole Board, and the police, it is likely that the circumstances would not have arisen where Karl Kuchenbecker was murdered.

Gerry Brownlee: Why should the public of New Zealand believe his department's acknowledgment of failure now, when during the coroner's inquest corrections continued to argue that it had no basis for charging Burton with breaches of parole by the end of November 2006, and does that not indicate that routine lenience on parole conditions still operates in corrections?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No, but a series of mistakes were made, each of which contributed to the tragic result that we saw. The Department of Corrections accepts its share of responsibility for that, and, more important, has moved to remedy the deficiencies that were pointed out, as was stated explicitly by the coroner in his report.

Gerry Brownlee: If his department accepts that it was wrong, does it also resile from the key message of the communications plan for the release of its own internal report in March 2007, which stated it "cleared corrections of allegations of wrongdoing or incompetency.", and the plan also advised the department to "Find a sympathetic reporter and give them a scoop.", and further stated: "Provide the Minister with all the information necessary to refute Mr Simon Power's claims."?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am not familiar with that document. If there is such a document-and I am somewhat reluctant to take the member's word for it, because he often gets things wrong-it would have been created before my time as Minister. I make no excuses for those who made mistakes. I can convey to the member, and to the House, the deep regret of the Department of Corrections that those mistakes were made and a determination to remedy those deficiencies, which the coroner reports the department has, indeed, done.

Gerry Brownlee: Does he admit that his department's response to the Kuchenbecker tragedy merely reflects a culture within the organisation that not only tolerates frequent mistakes but then seeks to deny responsibility, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary like that today, where a corrections file has been found in a street and corrections staff are able to say only that a file is missing but cannot say whether it is actually the department's file?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The department, of course, has to front up for any error on the part of an employee that might be made, and it is important that that should happen. What I want to say about the Department of Corrections is that at least the department did not do what it did under Nick Smith, which was to allow Graeme Burton and four others to escape from Paremoremo. The department has brought down by 84 percent the level of escapes from our prisons, and reduced by two-thirds the abuse of drugs. The department still has improvements that can be made, and it and I are determined that it will make those improvements.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table documents showing that the Department of Corrections produced material saying that its internal report cleared it of allegations of wrongdoing and incompetence, and that it further sought to provide the Minister with all information necessary-

Leave granted.

ENDS

Electricity-Carbon Dioxide Emissions

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:22:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Does he stand by his reported statement in the Press on 11 June 2008 that "CO2 emissions from the electricity sector had fallen since about 2000."?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : Data released just yesterday shows that the Government has New Zealand's greenhouse emissions from electricity production going down. As I have often said, we need to build 175 megawatts of additional renewable generation each year to achieve our 90 percent target by 2025. This year we are completing 300 megawatts, with another 130 megawatts under construction. Of course, this year's drought will produce a blip in emissions, as I have said previously.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister of Energy continue to stand by his statement when figures produced by his own ministry show that emissions from electricity generation have risen from 4,900 kilotonnes of carbon in the year 2000, to 6,600 kilotonnes in 2007, which is a 34 percent increase; and why is he saying that the Ministry of Economic Development has got it wrong?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In fact, the highest figure for emissions was actually in 2005, when it was 8,415 kilotonnes. The reality is that emissions are tracking sustainably down. I quote from the New Zealand Energy Quarterly, which was released yesterday for the March quarter; it shows emissions dropping from 2.3 million tonnes in the quarter to June 2006, to 1.8 million tonnes in the quarter to March 2008-that is total figures. Per unit of electricity generation, it dropped from 0.22 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour to 0.18 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour.

Su'a William Sio: How will the Labour-led Government's target of reaching 90 percent renewable energy be achieved?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This target will be achieved through the incentives for renewable energy put in place by the emissions trading scheme, which National opposes, and by the 10-year restriction on thermal baseload generation, which National also opposes. I understand that National believes that a 90 percent renewable target is desirable; the problem is that it does not support the measures needed to achieve that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister ever spoken to Simon Upton on this matter, or to anybody who was in the National Party at the time it signed up to the Kyoto Protocol; and does he have any idea what National had in its mind when it signed up?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: We didn't ratify it!

Hon DAVID PARKER: I just heard Dr Lockwood Smith say that they did not ratify it. I thought there was National Party support for the Government's having ratified it. I thought that was clear policy, but if that is to be relitigated, National members are showing their true colours. The reality is that it was the National Government that signed the Kyoto Protocol. It was right to do so. We were right to ratify it, as were other developed countries. It is the best hope the world has of reducing emissions currently. The member makes a very good point, because the reality is that now that it is settled across Parliament that we should be in Kyoto, what we as a Parliament are doing is trying to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost. The cost does not arise from the emissions trading scheme, it arises from the obligation to reduce emissions.

Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm the Ministry of Economic Development figures that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2000 were 4,900 kilotonnes and in 2007 were 6,600 kilotonnes-an increase of 34 percent; and is he now asking the House to accept his argument that the increases are starting to decrease?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can confirm that-

Hon Members: Aw!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I have not hidden it. In my answer to the primary question I said they were even higher in 2005, when it was 8.4 million tonnes or 8,415 kilotonnes. Since then they have been on a sustainable downward path, although we will have a blip this year because of the drought but that should not be a surprise to Mr Brownlee. The key to getting them down sustainably even further is by building more renewables. That is why the Government has a 90 percent renewable target and that is why we are building renewables.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister had a conversation with Dr Nick Smith who, as a former Minister for the Environment, spent his time going around the country shutting everything down-

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, he did; and Rawhiti 2B is a good example but he was stopped in his tracks that day, was he not; and he spent all his time as a Minister shutting everything down and arguing environmentalism, and now all of a sudden has changed his mind; and has the Minister spoken to him about that?

Hon DAVID PARKER: What I can confirm is that the only National Party policy in respect of electricity seems to be this call to reform the Resource Management Act. That Act, which was passed by the National Government, has not been an impediment to the renewables that we are building. We are completing 300 megawatts this year. That was all consented to under the Resource Management Act. We have another 130 megawatts under construction. That was consented to under the Act; in fact, I do not even think that one was notified. In addition, we have increased transmission expenditure to over $300 million per annum, climbing to $500 million, and all of that has been consented to under the Act. So the Resource Management Act is just being used as an excuse.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister agree that the Government's claims about sustainability and carbon neutrality are just spin, in the face of its record-given that 75 percent of all new electricity generation commissioned since 2000 has been 75 percent thermal?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I do not think the Government can be accused of being all spin on these issues. It is true the United Nations chose to focus on New Zealand, because it does see us as a source of hope in the world on these issues, rather than a source of despair-

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID PARKER: They may laugh, but we have our electricity emissions under control, we have our transport emissions projected to be stable, and we will get a decline in them. That is a significant achievement, given increases in GDP and population. Of course, we have deforestation emissions under control through, and only because of, the emissions trading scheme.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the Resource Management Act is not a problem for those wanting to build renewable generation, when his own Government's record is that 75 percent of new generation built in the last 8 years has been thermal and that the 500-odd megawatts of new renewables he talks about, which is just a faceplate measurement, will be less than 40 percent efficient?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As to the last point, again the member is just wrong. Geothermal has the highest load factor of all, and that is our major contribution to new generation: both this year, and the 130 megawatts I mentioned we have already started for next year, is all geothermal. That operates at close to 100 percent operating factors. In terms of the Resource Management Act, I note that all of the generation, as I previously said, that is being built has been consented under the Resource Management Act. Further, the only one I am aware of that was turned down was Dobson, and that was not turned down under the Resource Management Act. It was turned down under the Conservation Act and has been replaced by the Arnold River scheme, which has lower environmental impact and it looks very likely that that will be consented under the Resource Management Act, albeit note that I am not trying to put pressure on the decision maker.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that it took 6 years to re-consent the Waitaki scheme, and it took 7 years to re-consent Contact Energy's Wairakei geothermal scheme, and if those two points can be confirmed, does he still want to say that the Resource Management Act is not a problem?

Hon DAVID PARKER: What I can confirm is that I am actually a lawyer and I used to do quite a bit of Resource Management Act work. If I were the client, I would be concerned if it took 6 or 7 years and it was adverse to my interests. But, of course, the reason why we do not hear great complaints about it is, as the member ought to know, when we are re-consenting a Resource Management Act consent, during the period of that process the consent continues.

ENDS

Petrol Pricing-Inquiry

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:23:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Commerce: What does the Government hope to achieve from its inquiry into petrol prices?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : I agree with the person who said: "It would be helpful for people to see how the petrol industry's pricing structure worked. Everybody notices the price rises very, very quickly, but any price reduction is a great deal slower." The member, of course, will recognise those words, as they are his own.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister seen a copy of a letter sent by the Australian federal Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, to the consumer affairs Minister, the Treasurer, the finance Minister, and the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, saying that FuelWatch in Australia would be "an anti-competitive waste of money"; and can she explain how the situation might be any different here in New Zealand?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is the Minister considering a FuelWatch scheme for New Zealand, when the Australian Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the departments of finance, resources and energy, and industry have come out against FuelWatch; and does she not think it might be a better idea to consider whether the Government should go ahead with its planned 2c per litre accident compensation levy increase in July, its 5c per litre increase for biofuels in October, and its up to 10c per litre increase for regional petrol tax next February?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Despite the member's assertion, I have not decided that New Zealand will adopt the FuelWatch scheme. I have said that we will look at the report of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which includes a recommendation for a FuelWatch scheme. It is very interesting to note who has opposed the introduction of a FuelWatch scheme, because it empowers consumers as opposed to petrol companies.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Minister has now decided that her inquiry is simply a review, and that a FuelWatch scheme may not be such a good thing for New Zealand, has she also decided to back down from her suggestion that New Zealand have a motor fuels commissioner; if not, does she expect that that motor fuels commissioner will be as successful as the electricity commissioner, who has presided over a 50 percent price rise for domestic consumers since his office was created?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have not recommended any of the things that the member has asserted. I have not recommended that there be an inquiry; I have stated that there should be a review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry. I have not recommended that we have FuelWatch; I have recommended that we look at all of the recommendations that are contained within the commission's report. I have made it perfectly plain that I think the jury is out on whether we should have a fuel commissioner.

H V Ross Robertson: Has the Minister seen any reports that identify what is pushing up the international price of crude oil; and how is it impacting on the price at the pump in New Zealand?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes. The advice is that intense trading in oil futures contracts has been driving oil prices higher by the week, with no end in sight. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition recently asked Labour to say why petrol prices were going through the roof, but I am sure that he, as a former money market trader who speculated in currency, would be much better placed to answer that question.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table the various press releases and other statements from the Minister that, according to her answers today, were just a load of spin-

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

ENDS

Immigration Service-Corruption Cases

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:25:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement to the House yesterday that "there have been no substantiated cases of corruption in the Immigration Service since 2002-03"?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: Is he then saying that the Auditor-General got it wrong when he found cases of fraud identified in 2005-06 and reported to this House in 2006?

Hon SHANE JONES: No; Audit New Zealand in its annual financial review did refer to the existence of fraud cases.

Gerry Brownlee: Could the Minister explain how he expects New Zealanders to believe anything he says if a Minister is prepared to stand in the House on one day and in a very pious fashion say there were no cases of fraud other than those in 2002-03, but a Minister then comes in the next day and says that the following year the Auditor-General found cases, which he mentioned in his report, and he was right; perhaps he would also like to explain why the then Minister, the Hon David Cunliffe, a man widely believed to be running the show, signed out over two dozen letters outlining fraud in 2007?

Hon SHANE JONES: I reiterate my earlier answer: there have not been any substantiated cases of corruption.

Gerry Brownlee: Would the Minister like to take the time to explain to the House what he sees as being the difference between fraud and corruption?

Hon SHANE JONES: I would invite the member to consult the dictionary over there. There are no substantiated examples of corruption. The department, with its internal robust processes, has uncovered wrongdoing, and there do exist small matters of fraud.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister stand by the statement that the Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe, did not know of serious misconduct and corruption within the Pacific division, even though the Residence Review Board publicly released multiple reports in June and September last year saying the Pacific division was repeatedly breaching the principles of natural justice, administrative fairness, and so on; if so, if the Minister was aware of all this evidence-or was not aware of all that evidence-what was he doing during his period as Minister, or was he simply doing nothing and, far from running the show, just ignoring the show?

Hon SHANE JONES: I repeat again, one, there are no substantiated examples of corruption and, two, there is an internal robust investigation process located in the corporate division of the Department of Labour; and if the member has any other concerns, I would alert him to the fact that the Pacific division is going through a review.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister feel a little bit set up in having to put the incredible proposition that Ministers of Immigration were unaware of the problems within the Pacific division of the Immigration Service after the Auditor-General had explicitly highlighted the problem, the Residence Review Board had publicly released details of widespread, repeated wrongdoing, his own chief executive had launched an independent inquiry into illegal decision-making involving the head of the Immigration Service, and Ministers had signed off over 40 written questions detailing the size of the problem, and all of that in less than 1 year; so why should New Zealanders believe him any more than they believe the other two Ministers in this case?

Hon SHANE JONES: A welter of claims have been made there by Mr Brownlee. There are four reviews or investigations-tahi, rua, toru, wha. That ought to be enough for Mr Brownlee and the rest of New Zealand.

Hon Dover Samuels: How about a Maori lesson?

Gerry Brownlee: No, the poor fellow is the fall guy sent out there. It is surprising to us that Michael Cullen did not answer the question today, but I think we know why. Is not the Government spin on these immigration scandals just that, with Ministers claiming they cannot be involved, they cannot know, and they cannot ask questions because all these were simply employment matters-yet yesterday we had the Prime Minister, the Minister of Housing, and the Minister of State Services all piling into the Housing New Zealand Corporation and even suggesting that the chief executive should have her pay docked?

Hon SHANE JONES: For the benefit of the House, I say that one, in the year 2007, in April, independent investigators were called in and they concluded that the processes in the Department of Labour to uncover wrongdoing were at the upper end of good practice in the State sector; two, there are a wide range of claims, and no doubt they will all be exhaustively looked into in the many reviews under way.

ENDS

Immigration Service-Misconduct Cases

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:34:00 +1200

GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Immigration: Were cases of misconduct within the Pacific division included in answers to written parliamentary questions the Minister signed out in April, May, and November 2007, detailing substantiated cases of improper behaviour and corruption within the New Zealand Immigration Service as a whole?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) : Yes. I am advised that the statistics quoted in answers to written parliamentary questions to the previous Minister of Immigration in April and May 2007, and to me in November 2007, included cases of misconduct from across the Immigration Service, including the Pacific division. I am also advised that, as outlined in my answer to written questions from Dr Lockwood Smith in November 2007-and contrary to what that member then claimed in a media statement of 21 May 2008-there have been no substantiated cases of corruption in the Immigration Service since 2002-03. However, there have been substantiated cases of improper behaviour.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister think it was credible for the previous Minister, David Cunliffe, to claim he was unaware of corruption within the Pacific division and the wider Immigration Service in 2007, when at the very time that David Oughton was conducting his inquiry Mr Cunliffe was signing off written questions acknowledging 36 substantiated cases of improper behaviour and corruption in the Immigration Service, including the Pacific division; if he does think that, why does he keep pushing the line that there was no problem, and that Ministers did not know?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I have just said to the member that I have advice that since 2002-03 there have been no substantiated cases-which is what the member puts forward-of corruption across the Immigration Service. There have been, of course, cases of improper conduct. I am advised that the previous Minister raised concerns with the chief executive, and sought assurances that the department was treating the matter properly. Because they were statistics, he did not-which is what the member, I assume, would want Ministers to do, or what he would do if he were a Minister-delve into individual cases. A number of checks were done in terms of rechecking the process. I note that in July 2007 the investigations unit, as a further check in terms of further-removed independence, was taken from the Immigration Service and placed within the corporate unit in order to ensure its robustness.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any reports of a party in Parliament that has for years pointed out the corruption and duplicity of the Immigration Service, including its issuing visas under a tree in India and issuing false university degrees out of Dhakar, only to elicit from the previous questioner's party an allegation that that person and party were racist and xenophobic; and is it not a bit rich that National members have now decided to take up the cause?

Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure about the latter part of the question; the Minister will address the first part.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Many of those events pre-date my time, but as Mr Peters is an honourable and senior member of this House I take him absolutely at his word, and I agree with his last statement.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister seen the Auditor-General's report on the Department of Labour, which was tabled in this House on 9 November 2006, into that particular year, which stated that the Immigration Service had identified two frauds, and that the occurrence of these frauds in the notification process highlights the absence of a department-wide fraud policy, and that notes further that a consistent approach to dealing with breaches has not been established-and it still has not been established? And can he see a picture building here of Ministers being told about problems of improper behaviour and corruption inside the Immigration Service, but choosing to do nothing, then denying all knowledge of the problem, and then claiming it ought to be simply an employment-related matter?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: There are two separate distinctions. When individuals' employment matters are brought to Ministers' attention-say, those in respect of Ms Thompson-they are rightly, as has been stated publicly by the chief executive when I took over, Christopher Blake, matters for the chief executive. If the member is saying that if he were Minister of Immigration he would get involved specifically and practically in individuals' cases, then he would be in breach of the law. Can I also tell the member that following my predecessor raising concerns in December 2006, the department commissioned an independent review of its internal investigations unit. That review in 2007 found that the unit operated "at the upper end of Public Service practice". On 23 July 2007, as I have previously stated, under my predecessor, the department transferred the investigations unit from the Immigration Service to the corporate division in order to provide further robustness. There is a difference between putting one's sticky fingers in individual employment matters and operating appropriately in conjunction with the chief executive.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister really think it is credible for him to tell this House that in the presence of officials he becomes a quiet, shy, and retiring Minister who, upon hearing that his chief executive was seeking Crown Law advice about illegal decision-making in his department, decided in his shy and demure way that he did not need to know what it was all about, and that he best not ask any questions about it?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I assume I am addressing my answer to Gerry Brownlee, or is the author of the question Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith? Unlike what that member suggests should have happened, I acted in my capacity, lawfully. When my chief executive briefed me on 14 December on an individual and particular employment matter, and advised me that he had already contacted the State Services Commission, and then, post that, advised me that he had taken the extraordinary step of asking for legal advice from Crown Law to determine whether, if he was of a mind to reopen the matter, he could do so, even though it had been closed under previous chief executives, and had been advised that, legally-a word that is distant from that member-he could not, I chose not to break the law, and acted appropriately by not delving into individual employment matters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the department overcome improper behaviour and corruption within it, when MPs such as Jonathan Coleman make such improper representations for totally inappropriate applicants of the type that the Minister has had to deal with, and how did Nick Smith get into the country?

Madam SPEAKER: Ignore the last part of the question.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Tempting though it is, Madam Speaker! As to the first part of the member's question, in fairness, every member of this Parliament is entitled to make representations on behalf of constituents or individuals, and, in fairness, we have all made those representations-including me as a constituency member. We take people at their word. However, once we find out about nefarious goings-on involving a constituent, it is helpful if we assist the department in its inquiries. In Mr Coleman's case, he has some expertise in smoking people out.

Gerry Brownlee: Why, when answering the previous question, did the Minister indicate to the House that he had been briefed about an individual's employment matter within the Immigration Service; does he now expect the House to believe that he did not ask who it was about and what the issue was? And why has he come to this conclusion after a suggestion that he was acting in an incompetent fashion, when, in fact, he has been telling the House for weeks that he was never briefed along those lines?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yesterday I was asked a similar question by Dr Lockwood Smith-

Hon Darren Hughes: PhD.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: -PhD-and I replied as follows. When I was briefed on 14 December 2007, I was advised of the following: firstly, that there had been an independent investigation into historic employment matters; secondly, that it had concluded that Mary Anne Thompson had not sought to influence decisions about her family's residence applications; thirdly, that disciplinary action had been taken against a Department of Labour employee; and, fourthly, that these matters had occurred under, and had been dealt with and closed by, previous chief executives. The member may wish to revisit the Hansard from many weeks ago, where I have made these statements plain in respect of Ms Thompson, or he may wish to check with the author of the question.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister deny that the officer from the Immigration Service who was disciplined in this matter had dealt with immigration matters relating to family members of Mary Anne Thompson?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: When the Oughton report was released-and I saw it for the first time after it had been released-those matters were dealt with within it. As to when I was briefed and what I was told about the specificity of that matter, before the Oughton report was released I had not been advised of the specificity of that official.

Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Because the member continues to say it does not make it a fact. I say again to that member that I am very confident-and I look forward to interacting with the Auditor-General-that I acted legally. I question whether that member, if he were ever a Minister, would act in the same way.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a very long answer, and the Minister most certainly did address the question, but it appears that he did not listen to what the question was. He was asked specifically whether he can deny that the Immigration Service officer who was disciplined was, in fact, disciplined over his dealings with immigration cases relating to the family of Mary Anne Thompson. It is a simple question-yes or no. One cannot, as a Minister, on the one hand say: "I didn't know anything.", then a few minutes later say: "Well, I was briefed, and I did know that it was Mary Anne Thompson who was cleared.", without asking the question: "Cleared of what and why?".

Madam SPEAKER: I think the member was right that the Minister did answer the question in a very roundabout way.

Hon Member: Loquacious.

Madam SPEAKER: "Loquacious" may well be the word, but he is not the only member who has that problem. The Minister did address the question, and, as members know, they cannot always get the answers they want. Does the Minister want to add anything?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I think the answer the member seeks is self-evident and public.

ENDS