Admin

admin
9 Jun 2005
6:45am
comments

Questions for Oral Answer

admin

 

Oral Questions in the House of Representatives

  

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Hon PETER DUNNE to the Minister of Health: Does she believe the New Zealand public has confidence in the ability of the healthcare sector to continue to provide quality services, in light of the survey published by The New Zealand Herald recently showing 73.8 percent of people believe Government-funded healthcare has remained the same or worsened since 1999;  if so, why?

2. JOHN KEY to the Minister of Finance: Have any State-owned enterprises engaged in structured finance deals that could have reduced the New Zealand tax liability of the investing counterparty in the previous five years;  if so, what are the details of those arrangements?

3. CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: To what extent is the Government prepared to borrow for capital spending over the next four years?

4. HEATHER ROY to the Minister of Health: What action is she taking to address Treasury’s serious concerns about the sustainability of the current rate of growth in Vote Health, in particular the concern that, if the current rate of increase is maintained, Vote Health could be at least 13.6 percent of GDP by the year 2020?

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Transport Safety: Does he have confidence in the Director of Civil Aviation?

6. GEORGINA BEYER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on how many New Zealand families have benefited from the 1 April changes in the Working for Families package by region?

7. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister of Immigration: For what reasons would the New Zealand Immigration Service choose to appear or not appear at a Refugee Status Appeals Authority hearing?

8. LYNNE PILLAY to the Minister of Education: How is the Government improving the quality of education provided in schools?

9. JOHN KEY to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Of the 196,230 families who had registered for the Government’s Working for Families package as of 1 April 2005, how many families were not automatically enrolled because they were not previously on a benefit and, of that group, how many have in fact taken the step of voluntarily enrolling?

10. DAIL JONES to the Coordinating Minister, Race Relations: What has been the total cost across all Government agencies in the last financial year of providing internal or contracted Treaty of Waitangi-related courses and education material on the Treaty of Waitangi?

11. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: Is she satisfied with the performance of the health system under the current Government, given that a recent poll found that 73.8 percent of people believed hospitals are offering the same or worse services as when Labour came into office?

12. NANDOR TANCZOS to the Minister of Education: How much has total student loans outstanding increased in the last six years and what level is this total forecast to reach by 2010?

admin
2 Jun 2005
6:54am
comments

Questions for Oral Answer

admin

 

Oral Questions in the House of Representatives

  

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. ROD DONALD to the Prime Minister: Was freedom of speech one of the human rights issues she discussed with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during her meeting with him this week?

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: With respect to the three men named in question number one in the House yesterday, what investigations, if any, has he conducted into their applications to enter New Zealand, and does he have any concerns arising from those investigations?

3. JUDY TURNER to the Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement last year with reference to the “No Rubba, No Hubba Hubba” campaign that “A sexual health campaign aimed at young people is not going to work if it doesn’t get buy-in from young people.”; if not, why not?

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Education: Does he think the education system has got worse during the time in which he has been Minister of Education, as indicated by 44 per cent of respondents to a survey by The New Zealand Herald; if not, why not?

5. JILL PETTIS to the Minister of Housing: How will the Government be assisting people to become first home owners?

6. Hon KEN SHIRLEY to the Minister of Finance: Following his confirmation that the carbon tax will have an inflationary impact, what is the best official estimate of the combined impact on the consumer price index since December 1999 of all government sector increases in taxes, duties, levies, or charges?

7. SUE KEDGLEY to the Minister for Food Safety: Is food made with the unapproved, genetically modified and insecticide containing Bt10 corn on sale in New Zealand; if so, why?

8. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: Does she continue to stand by her statement that “people are not culled. They are sent to their general practitioners to be monitored”; if not, why not?

9. STEVE CHADWICK to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made on the rollout of the meningococcal vaccination programme?

10. RODNEY HIDE to the Minister for Transport Safety: Has he listened to the recorded conversation between the Rescue Coordination Centre and police the night the Iron Maiden sank, and what is the reason it took nearly two hours to launch the rescue helicopter?

11. LYNNE PILLAY to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on possible changes to the Government’s policy of 20 hours per week free early childhood education for three and four year olds?

12. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister of Immigration: Is it possible for a person facing serious criminal charges to be granted refugee status; if so, why?

admin
27 May 2005
9:32am
comments

Constitutional stocktake - what stocktake?

admin / Crime And Justice
I appreciated today’s web report of another Attorney General speech across the bows of the judicial supremacists. I am in Australia with the Justice and the Electoral Select Committee. Today we are to sit humbly at the feet of Australasia's most "heroic” sitting supremacist - Kirby J (though in the NZ pantheon Lord Cooke will outrank him).
 
But the report reminds me of Labour's success in quelling public uneasiness about our constitutional fragility.
 
I’ve been a grumpy member of Parliament’s Constitutional Arrangements Committee since last December. 
 
ACT agreed to participate though National and NZ First refused. We all feared that its sole purpose was to bury public concern about Labour’s partly completed agenda of constitutional changes. Those fears were justified.
 
The committee’s public output speaks for itself. As a political tactic, Labour’s move worked.  Despite refusing to submit to Labour's referee, National and NZ First have not kept their own constitutional balls in political play. Now Dr Cullen is fronting for Labour as a responsible constitutional conservative.
 
Have a look at the interim report on the Constitutional committee's web-site http://www.constitutional.parliament.govt.nz/.
 
How many of the following issues are dealt with?
 
·           Giving powers of general competence to local councils in 2002. That swept away the centuries-old protection created by the courts, when they confined artificial legal persons strictly to the purposes and powers expressly granted.  How will “consultation’ protect citizens from being taxed to fund their competitors, or to pay for bread and circuses for mass voters, or to favour particular business owners with grants and rate relief, or to promote contentious socio-religious or political causes. What now protects individual liberties from local authorities’ new powers?
 
·           What is the current status of the evaporating conventions that previously protected judges against unfair political criticism for trying to make the best they can of deliberately vague legislation? How could they be reinforced?
 
·           What mechanisms resolve tensions when Parliament fears that judges are usurping the law, making function of Parliament short of open reversal or confrontation. Should Parliament need to contemplate the sacking of law-making judges to restore the democratic right of the people to sack those who make the law?
 
·           What defences do we have against the strongly interventionist tradition of our State, dating from when we were the laboratory for ‘socialism without doctrine’, with German style laws like the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894, the first universal old age pensions shortly thereafter and the use of law to minutely regulate private business for much of the 20th century
 
·           How far have we eroded our secular state traditions?. The landmark Education Act 1877 over-rode the Protestant/Catholic divide that bedevilled other countries. Broadcasting and other state functions were consciously secular until recently. Numerous recent provisions give trump card status to undefined Maori spiritual or cultural values, putting the coercive power of the state at the service of superstitious charlatans. Meanwhile the adherents of our mainstream traditions are rightly told they must just lump their hurt over deliberate insult to their beliefs, but wrongly forced to pay taxes for state bodies which join in the insult (e.g. NZ on Air funding of programmes that offend them, the “virgin in a condom”)
 
·           The sale of “indulgences” by way of the paid withdrawal of RMA objections to spiritual and environmental “affronts”.
 
·           What is left of the statutory independence of the Commissioner of Police?
 
·           How many recognise the unique initial focus of our human rights law which reversed the common pattern of protection of the citizen from the abuse of state and political power? Instead it interfered with otherwise lawful conduct between citizens, while letting the state discriminate.
 
·           How much damage have we done to our inherited commitment to equality before the law, and appointments on merit, from historical and new “positive discrimination” such as reserved Maori seats and appointments and racial or quota entitlements to publicly financed services? How many provisions now discriminate on the grounds of race (like laws reserving appointments for Maori, giving privileges under the RMA to Maori)?
 
·           How far does international law trump New Zealand law?  For example, Ministers Paul Swain and Phil Goff say that United Nations rules tell us we can’t make prisons any more unpleasant than they have to be, that we cannot abolish human rights compensation to prisoners, nor eject dishonest refugee claimants summarily. Are they right? What are the limits to  the scope of “international law” and the vague pronouncements of international bodies to justify new discretions for judges to change longstanding existing law and to circumscribe Parliamentary sovereignty?
 
·           Why have none seen, as constitutional problems, the creation of new sources of patronage and corruption outside the scrutiny of Parliament and the safeguards of the appropriations process, by regulatory takings and grants of non-monetary, but extremely valuable privileges, such as carbon credits and land use consents.
 
·           What has been the cost of the absence in our human rights law of any express protection of property rights, despite that being internationally odd? What is left of the principle of compensation for takings?
 
·           Why have both big parties continued to slough off political decision-making to judges through the calculated use of undefined terms and weasel words which judges must then find meanings for?  For example; "take into account", "consultation", `respect', "recognition", and of course, "kaitiakitanga", the “principles of the Treaty”.
 
·           Is the Treaty a "living document" as Margaret Wilson and Dr Michael Cullen believe? If so who can decide what bits will grow and which bits will be pruned?
 
·           What are the "partnership obligations" in the charters and constitutions and governing laws of myriad agencies and authorities? What have they done to “one person - one vote” democracy?
 
·           What have we gained, having lost the principle of open courts where justice was seen to be done, given blanket secrecy (Family Courts, Youth Courts), name suppression, and the suppression of criminal records?
 
·           What use is the balancing provision in the NZ Bill of Rights Act and requirements to report on consistency, given the smooth passage in to law of blatant attacks on freedom of association and on social capital, like the prohibition of positive discrimination for marriage, age discrimination prohibitions and employment law’s abolition of freedom of contract between consenting adults.
 
I’ve put most of these issues to the committee in writing twice since ACT first told Dr Cullen on 28 November that we expected a stock take to assess obsolescence, list missing items, record damage and generally value the stock.
 
The anodyne descriptions of our constitution, you’ll see on the committee’s website, are the product of highly qualified advisers. I can not say more without breach of privilege. Draw your own conclusions.
 
 
ENDS
 
 
 
 
 
Stephen Franks MP                    
stephen.franks@parliament.govt.nz
Phone:            04 470 6636  /  027 492 1983
Fax:                 04 473 3532
 
admin
12 May 2005
6:34am
comments

Questions for Oral Answer

admin

 

Oral Questions in the House of Representatives

  

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. GEORGINA BEYER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received about trends in the number of working-age New Zealanders on benefits?

2. RODNEY HIDE to the Minister of Finance: Will he consider across-the-board tax cuts in light of the Australian Government budget decision to provide across-the-board tax cuts for Australians;  if not, why not?

3. SUE KEDGLEY to the Minister of Health: Has she introduced legislation to establish a trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency;  if not, why has she, with the Australian Parliamentary Secretary for Health, set up a committee to oversee the establishment of standards for therapeutic products under the new agency?

4. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: When she stated yesterday that “It is a matter of judgment for the Prime Minister how I use information from official reports.  By definition, I cannot leak.” Was she confirming that she was the source of the material to the Sunday Star-Times asserting that Commissioner Peter Doone said “that won’t be necessary”;  if not, what was she telling the House?

5. TIM BARNETT to the Minister of Justice: What changes to legislation did the Government initiate to deal more effectively with people who issue hoax threats which can be economically damaging to this country?

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Did she confirm to the House her confidence in the previous Minister of Immigration because she was a hardworking and conscientious Minister;  if so, was she aware when she expressed this confidence, of a Najim Al Ali who allegedly came to New Zealand, was accepted as a refugee, and subsequently brought others to New Zealand to live here permanently?

7. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of the statements in her signed brief of evidence dated 13 April 2005;  if not, why not?

8. BERNIE OGILVY to the Minister of Education: What was the single most popular suggestion amongst submissions made in response to the Government’s 2003 discussion document “Student Support in New Zealand”?

9. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Education: Does he have confidence in the Secretary for Education and the chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority;  if so, why?

10. DAIL JONES to the Minister for Trade Negotiations: Is gaining access for New Zealand apples and other pipfruit to the Australian market a priority for this Government;  if so, what actions are being taken to achieve this?

11. MOANA MACKEY to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to help young people into employment and training?

12. JOHN KEY to the Minister of Finance: Will his 2005 Budget contain personal tax cuts similar to those announced by his colleague in Australia;  if not, why not?

admin
7 May 2005
9:54am
comments

The Government's politically correct immigration agenda

admin / Immigration

This Week Newman Online looks at the Labour Government’s softly, softly immigration process and outlines how tighter visa application controls and a national quota system would better protect New Zealanders from the threat of terrorism.

This week, concerns over the Government’s running of the crucial immigration portfolio have hit the headlines again. This time it is over allegations that foreign nationals, who are considered to be security threats, are being allowed into New Zealand.
 
In particular, at least three visitors from Iraq with links to Saddam Hussein’s genocidal regime have been found to be living here. A number of other Iraqis with permits to visit New Zealand have also been identified. With some 46 countries considered to be of security concern, it is thought that these cases could be just the tip of the iceberg.
 
As the scandal escalates, doubts about Labour’s ability to keep New Zealanders safe from the threat of international terrorism continue to grow. It adds to the grave concerns highlighted by the Ahmed Zouie debacle. That case, reputed to have cost taxpayers well over $2 million, has resulted in a situation whereby an illegal immigrant, deemed by the SIS to be a risk to national security, is now walking free. In spite of tough talk by the Prime Minister at the time, the glitch in the law that allowed that situation to occur has still not been fixed.
 
This latest fiasco highlights the fact that our Labour Government has a very lenient approach to immigration. It welcomes people like the Tampa refugees who were considered to be undesirable by Australia. The fact that the original 131 refugees have been able to bring an additional 253 family members into New Zealand under Labour’s family re-unification policy is a cause of further concern.
 
The point is that it is not unusual for terrorist interests to seek out countries with lax security regimes from which to plot, scheme and recruit, safe in the knowledge that they are unlikely to be detected. Those skeptics, who feel that these concerns are unwarranted, should remind themselves of when they first saw those horrifying images of planes flying into the Twin Towers and thought for a moment that it surely had to be an elaborate hoax.
 
A lasting concern about the events of the past week is that it has, once again, sent a signal around the world that as far as issues of national security are concerned, New Zealand is a soft touch. This is even more worrying considering that in one of the most foolish decisions of any government in New Zealand’s history, Labour decided to scrap the air-strike capability of the Airforce. Helen Clark justified her move with the limp claim that the world is now such a benign place that we no longer need a proper Airforce to protect ourselves. How wrong she has been proven to be!
 
These days, enemies to national security come in all shapes and forms and it is a core responsibility of government to make sure that we are not only well prepared for any eventuality, but that we are well protected from any threat.
 
New Zealanders need to rely on strict immigration criteria in order to ensure that all of those people who are invited into our country – including visitors – are subjected to stringent security checks. Only people who pose no security risk, have no history of criminal offending and have a clean bill of health, should be accepted into New Zealand.
It is particularly important to be careful with visitors: while the majority of people who come here first as visitors and return to settle permanently do so through the proper channels, there are others who, once they have arrived, simply disappear and become one of the estimated 20,000 plus illegal over-stayers, who are living here on a permanent basis.
 
As an adjunct, any new immigrant should be subjected to a five year period of probation, during which time, if they commit a crime serious enough to warrant imprisonment, then their right to stay in New Zealand should be terminated and they should be sent straight back home.
 
For a small isolated country like New Zealand, a balanced population policy, which produces stable long-term growth, is essential.  That means ensuring, as far as possible, positive net migration whereby the number of people arriving exceeds - by a modest margin - the numbers leaving. Over the last five years this has changed dramatically: in the year to the end of March 2000 there was a net loss of 9,000 people; in 2001 year a net loss of 12,000; in 2002 a net gain of 25,000; in 2003 a gain of 41,000; in 2004 a net gain of 27,000; and in the 2005 year a net gain of 10,000 new migrants.
 
Clearly the number of people arriving and leaving the country can be greatly affected by a multitude of external events, including disasters and changes of government.
They dramatically affect housing markets, schools, hospitals and all other essential infrastructural planning.
It is important that annual reviews are held to make sure that the balance is right.  That means reviewing the trends in all of the immigrant categories including international treaties, refugee quotas and family reunifications.
 
It is also time that we stopped being politically correct with regard to immigration and introduced a national quota system based on our track record of success. Immigrant groups - irrespective of language tests and other criteria - who have been shown to be able to integrate successfully into New Zealand society, should be prioritised ahead of all other ethnic groups that have proven to be less successful.
 
In particular, the recent announcement by Labour that they are lowering the barriers for Pacific Island immigrants - which will result in hundreds of new migrants coming into New Zealand and going onto welfare - is a serious concern. We have enough New Zealanders on welfare as it is - including many beneficiaries who are quite capable of working and would do so if work requirements were toughened up - without having the Labour Government wanting to import more!
 
New Zealanders deserve better management in the immigration portfolio - let’s hope the problems of the last week serve as a wake-up call for better performance in the future.
 
admin
2 Mar 2005
9:00pm
comments

Questions for Oral Answer

admin

 

Oral Questions in the House of Representatives

  

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. MOANA MACKEY to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Has he received any reports on child poverty?

2. Hon KEN SHIRLEY to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does Te Wananga o Aotearoa’s Mahi Ora course have a large number of referrals from Work and Income, as claimed by former Associate Maori Affairs Minister John Tamihere, and what is the total number of referrals Work and Income has made to courses run by Te Wananga o Aotearoa in each of the last three years?

3. IAN EWEN-STREET to the Minister for the Environment: Did the New Zealand Government support or oppose the reported Canadian Government initiative to allow the commercial use of genetic seed sterilisation technology (so-called “terminator” technology) at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Bangkok from 7 to 11 February 2005?

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Associate Minister of Education: Why has he widened the State Services Commission Inquiry into Scholarship exams to include NCEA levels two and three when he told the House on 15 February that “the results for NCEA are within expected parameters.”?

5. JUDY TURNER to the Associate Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the current legal status of cannabis;  if so, why?

6. JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why was the plan to introduce a single benefit in 2002, which was announced by him in 2000, not carried out?

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Police: What dedicated personnel and resources has he employed for the specific purpose of confronting the illegal “P” drug problem in the western Bay of Plenty?

8. Dr WAYNE MAPP to the Minister of Labour: Has he been briefed by Andrew Little, Secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, on the Union’s push for five percent across-the-board wage rises;  if so, does he agree with the statement by Mr Mike Williams, President of the New Zealand Labour Party, that the five percent claim against all companies was “pretty modest” given the economy?

9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: What has happened to the 400 non-genuine refugees I referred to in question for oral answer number 10 yesterday, who were not approved for residency, and what explanation has he got for any of them still being in New Zealand?

10. GEORGINA BEYER to the Minister of Police: What measures have been adopted by the police to reduce the incidence of crime?

11. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does the Department of Internal Affairs inform the New Zealand Police of pending prosecutions of any individual facing child pornography offences;  if so, do they do so in every case?

12. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What role is New Zealand playing internationally to advance the Government’s policy for nuclear disarmament?

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

1. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: Was the committee granted a three month extension of the report back date for the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill, following calls for wider consultation with families and workers associated with sheltered workshops?

admin
1 Mar 2005
9:00pm
comments

Questions for Oral Answer

admin

 

Oral Questions in the House of Representatives

  

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement regarding Te Wananga o Aotearoa that, "Maybe the growth has outgrown the capacity to have proper governance,";  if so, is she satisfied that the Government has taken adequate steps to control growth at the wananga?

2. CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on business confidence?

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: Is he confident that his immigration policy is sufficiently protecting New Zealand from any adverse effects, including the threat of terrorism;  if so, why?

4. Hon PETER DUNNE to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his description of the student loan scheme as "very generous"?

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he agree with NZQA Group Manager Secondary Education Kate Colbert’s comments regarding NCEA results that, "year-to-year variability in mainstream areas, such as mathematics, is as expected.", and is he satisfied with reported levels of variability?

6. DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Land Information: Has he received any reports on plans to nationalise South Island high country land?

7. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister of Police: What types or categories of "clearance" of reported crimes exist, and, of these, which are included in reported clearance rates?

8. SUE KEDGLEY to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: Why has the Government put in place layer hen and pig codes of animal welfare which allow practices that do not fully meet the obligations of the Animal Welfare Act 1999?

9. H V ROSS ROBERTSON to the Minister of Conservation: What actions are being taken to protect native wildlife in the Dart Valley threatened by a rat plague?

10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: What steps is he taking, if any, to ensure that our immigration laws are not exploited, and what is his policy on removing non-genuine refugees?

11. Hon KEN SHIRLEY to the Minister of Education: What specifically was compensated by the $40 million he agreed in November 2001 to give as a Treaty of Waitangi settlement to Te Wananga o Aotearoa, and why is the deed of settlement not publicly available?

12. Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON to the Minister of Finance: Why does he consider it necessary to place an additional five cents per litre taxation on petrol when the Government is running a surplus of over $6 billion, and over $570 million currently collected from petrol excise is not spent on roads?

admin
2 Dec 2004
9:00pm
comments

Questions for Oral Answer

admin

 

Oral Questions in the House of Representatives

  

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. GEORGINA BEYER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to ensure people on Sickness and Invalid’s Benefits have access to the rehabilitative services they need to enable them to return to work where possible?

2. GERRARD ECKHOFF to the Minister for Rural Affairs: Will the Government be making a decision on public access to waterways on private land before Christmas; if not, when exactly will this decision be made?

3. PETER BROWN to the Minister of Immigration: Can he explain the purpose of the Occupational Shortages List and how is it operated?

4. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister for ACC: How many prison inmates are receiving counselling for trauma, and for how long has each been receiving such counselling?

5. LYNNE PILLAY to the Minister of Education: What progress is he making implementing the recommendations of the School Staffing Review Group?

6. ROD DONALD to the Prime Minister: Will she reconsider the commitment she made in Laos to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with ASEAN countries, including Myanmar, in light of comments from CTU President, Ross Wilson, that there is a risk such deals will “permanently damage New Zealand’s manufacturing base”; if not, why not?

7. Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Why should the public have any confidence in the latest reforms to the Resource Management Act 1991 when the New Zealand Law Society has stated “Overall, far from a set of proposals which will reduce costs and delays being incurred under the RMA, the net result, from our collective experience, we have no doubt, will be worse for everyone – Councils, industry, community groups, and ordinary members of the public.”?

8. DAVE HEREORA to the Associate Minister of Communications: What has the Government done to make telephone services available to deaf, hearing impaired and speech impaired people?

9. DAIL JONES to the Minister of Immigration: How many of the failed refugee status claimants who entered New Zealand between 1 January 2001 and 30 September 2004 with false, lost or destroyed travel documentation are still in New Zealand, and why?

10. Hon PETER DUNNE to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Associate Minister of Justice, Hon David Benson-Pope; if so, why?

11. RODNEY HIDE to the Minister of Finance: What percentage of full time workers are expected to pay some tax at the 39 cent tax rate in the 2004/2005 financial year?

12. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister for ACC: Does she agree with ACC policy that has resulted in ACC declining to pay the helicopter expenses of rescuing a badly injured shepherd in Central Otago; if so, why?