Questions to Ministers

3. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all statements made by him and on his behalf?



Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by all statements made by me and those people authorised by me to speak on my behalf.
David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that people gambling in a casino are “in a better environment than, say attached to maybe a pub”; if so, what evidence does he have to support that statement?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I most certainly do stand by that statement. Let me quote a few things for the member’s education. For a start-off, an Australian professor from the *University of Adelaide said the **National Association for Gambling Studies conference in 2008 considered Skycity’s host responsibility programme as probably the most advanced in the world. If one looks at the number of people presenting themselves for harm, on average that is around 1.9 percent of people, yet those who are presenting themselves for harm in non-casino environments are 3.8 percent. If one looks at those presenting themselves for gambling treatment, the majority cite non-casino gaming machines as their primary source of problems.
David Shearer: Why is he proposing the creation of $23 million to $28 million a year of private wealth through an increase in gambling over what would otherwise occur, when all the evidence shows that this will cause harm for thousands of New Zealanders?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I would utterly reject the number that the member is quoting. Secondly, I think it is worth having a bit of a look at gambling machines. Let us just take a look at pokie machines in the Auckland area. In 2004 that number in the Auckland area was 5,111; today that is 4,227. The number is, as the member can see, in the order of around 900 fewer, and will continue to go lower even if a deal is done with Skycity over time.
David Shearer: I seek leave to table a document by Goldman Sachs on 23 March that sets out clearly that the amount of funds that Skycity will earn from the gambling bill will be between $23 million and $28 million.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
David Shearer: Is he aware that Goldman Sachs has estimated—and obviously he is not—that Skycity would make $23 million to $28 million a year of additional profit from the increase in the number of pokie machines; if so, does he regard this and his changes to the Gambling Act* as legislation for sale?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the latter point, no. In terms of the first point, the member answered his own question earlier, when he said that that is Goldman Sachs’ assessment. If one goes and has a look at the—[Interruption] Well, the deal actually has not been concluded yet. I might add, when we were out announcing that we were doing a deal with Len Brown in Auckland, he was quite a little lamb chops before the election, because Len Brown knew as well that it will create 1,000 jobs in its construction, 900 jobs ongoing, hundreds of thousands of visitor nights for a convention centre, tourists that will be spending twice as much in New Zealand, and that by the way, the number of gaming machines is going down, not up.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this question.
David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement about the ACC Minister that he “directly asked her the question on two occasions” as to whether the leak of the email sent by Michelle Boag* came from the Minister, her office, or an agency she was responsible for; and what occurred after the Minister’s first denial that required him to ask her a second time?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and that was because we had two conversations in which both times, actually, the Minister offered that.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is just impossible to hear. I accept that both sides have been guilty of a lot of noise today, but it makes it so hard to hear.
David Shearer: Further to the answer given on his behalf last Thursday, did his office contact Cameron Slater* on the question of the leak of the Boag letter?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, it did not.
David Shearer: Did he chair the Cabinet appointments and honours committee* that appointed his Helensville electorate chair, Stephen McElrea,* to the board of *New Zealand On Air?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and it was the same one that appointed Michael Cullen to New Zealand Post.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The smaller parties at the back are not guilty in any way in this; it is the main parties at the front here whose noise is unacceptable.
David Shearer: Did he at any time last year indicate to the receivers or the ANZ Bank that the sale of the Crafar farms to *Shanghai Pengxin would be considered favourably by his Government after last year’s election?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.
Mr SPEAKER: I had not even called the *right honourable Prime Minister. The question asked whether the Prime Minister stood by all his statements or those made on his behalf, and then the supplementary questions are ranging over a range of issues that are not necessarily—Order! I want to make sure they do not depart too far from the primary question.
David Shearer: Does he think that the interference of senior National Party members in all of these incidents leads to a perception of political interference, special treatment, or cronyism?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! What troubles me about that supplementary question is the primary question asked about recent statements, but that supplementary question does not refer to any particular statement. The question—unless I am reading the wrong question—asked: “Does he stand by all statements made by him and on his behalf?”, and several supplementary questions have not referred to any statement made by the right honourable Prime Minister. I listened very carefully to that last question. I heard no reference to a statement made by the Prime Minister. I do not want to deprive the member of his questions, so if the member can relate it to a statement by the Prime Minister, I would be very grateful. Please relate the question to the primary question.
David Shearer: Do his answers to the supplementary questions relate to a sense of the incidence of—a perception of—political interference, special treatment, and cronyism?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and that is why the New Zealand public support this National Government so strongly.

5. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: Why has she declined to accept the Law Commission’s recommendation, supported by the Privacy Commissioner, to increase the Privacy Commissioner’s investigative powers, including by giving her the power to issue compliance notices, and to conduct information-handling audits?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): The member is quite wrong.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took care in wording the primary question. The Minister has had time to consider it. I wonder whether she would like to—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The Minister said the member had made errors in his question. She said it was wrong. I cannot know whether the Minister is right or wrong. The solution is to pursue the Minister with incisive supplementary questions.*
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Primary questions go through an authentication process through the Office of the Clerk, so it is not as if a groundless proposition is being put to the Minister here. I wonder whether you might just think about whether or not this is a precedent we want to see followed in future.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The process of the Office of the Clerk approving questions—just because the question has been validated—does not make the question right. There may be support material provided to validate a question, and the Clerk’s Office accepts it, but that does not mean that any supposed fact or statement contained in the question is correct. That is up to the Minister. The Minister has asserted pretty emphatically that something in this question is not right. It is worth pursuing that to find out what it is.
Charles Chauvel: Without the powers that the Privacy Commissioner says she needs to do her job, how can the House have any confidence that the Privacy Commissioner will be able to fully investigate high-profile or important privacy breaches, such as the question of whether the Minister, or any one in her office, improperly disclosed the *Bronwyn Pullar email and associated information?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are, in fact, a range of responses that the Law Commission has suggested we make in terms of the Privacy Act. However, I note that the member who has just resumed his seat was in a Government that was in office for 9 years and did not address them—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —but the Privacy Commissioner—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite Charles Chauvel to repeat his question.
Charles Chauvel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Without the powers that the Privacy Commissioner says she needs to do her job, how can the House have any confidence that the Privacy Commissioner will be able to properly investigate high-profile privacy breaches, such as the question of whether the Minister, or any one in her office, improperly disclosed the Bronwyn Pullar email and associated information?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is yet again wrong. The inquiry by the Privacy Commissioner is—and this is all I can really say on it—relating to privacy matters in ACC and what has happened to particular emails and other documents. It is not specifically about my office. So that is wrong. But the Privacy Commissioner already has powers under section—[Interruption] Do they want to hear it or not, Mr Speaker?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Privacy Commissioner already has a range of powers, which she set out for the Hon Trevor Mallard and me. They are, obviously, broad powers and roles under section *13 of the Privacy Act; also under section *90 to freely obtain information and make inquiries; under section *91 to require information and evidence to be produced and to summon witnesses; and under section *76 to require a person to attend a compulsory conference. There is an obligation to comply with the requirements of the commissioner, set out in section *92. There are also other relevant powers. In fact, there is the entire Privacy Act, and I suggest that member reads it.
Jonathan Young: What is the Government already doing to implement the recommendations from the Law Commission’s review of the Privacy Act?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Government has already acted to address the immediate need for better information-sharing for public service delivery through the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill*, which is expected to be passed later this year. The Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill will improve the rules around the collection, storage, and use of personal information, while ensuring there are safeguards in place to protect an individual’s right to privacy.
Charles Chauvel: Why is the Minister exacerbating the Privacy Commissioner’s inability to press fully for answers in this matter by invoking the public interest defence in this House as a ground for refusing to answer legitimate questions from members, thereby further preventing relevant information from entering the public domain?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is quite wrong, again. This is actually an issue for the Privacy Commissioner, and as an independent body, which she is, she needs to be free to conduct her investigations without the sorts of lies and manipulations that people have said in this place.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect on whether that answer was in order, particularly the final phrase of it.
Mr SPEAKER: I heard what the Minister said. A member cannot accuse another member of lying. I am not sure the Minister actually did that. She referred to lies and things in this place. I do not like ruling more and more stuff out. It was certainly on the margins—I accept that, absolutely.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, if that was not offensive to this side of the House, then it was a description of her own behaviour that she was talking about. That is the only way she can survive the challenge from the honourable member over here. He says it was offensive—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the member, and I think the member’s point is not unreasonable. I think the Minister should get to her feet, please, and withdraw and apologise.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. I withdraw and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.
Charles Chauvel: Why is she further trying to prevent relevant information from entering the public domain by threatening news media and members of this House with meritless defamation proceedings, and just what is it that she has to hide?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Minister of Justice has no ministerial authority or responsibility for that, and that member should know better.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1204/S00034.htm