Tuesday, 20 February 2007
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers

1. Climate Change—Forestry
2. Carbon Neutrality—Prime Minister’s Statement
3. Foreshore and Seabed—Legislative Framework
Question No. 4 to Minister
4. Corrections, Department—Confidence
5. Family Violence—Departmental Advice
6. Hospitals—Productivity
7. Rates Rebate Scheme—Response to Expansion
8. New Zealand Qualifications Authority—Deputy Chief Executive's Statement
9. Corrections, Minister—Departmental Information
10. Electricity Supply—Reliance on Fossil Fuels
11. Electricity Generation—Thermal Stations
12. Ingram Report—Review of Immigration Matters
Question No. 2 to Minister

Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers

Climate Change—Forestry

1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Following her statement to the House last week recognising “the important contribution of forestry to climate change mitigation strategies”, by how much can New Zealand forestry mitigate climate change, and what is the level of her Government’s commitment to New Zealand forestry?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Government is very committed to New Zealand forestry playing a role in climate change mitigation. The extent of this, of course, depends on both the general levels of investment and disinvestment in the forestry industry.

Rodney Hide: Why, then, did this Government remove the large part of the incentive that existed to plant trees during the 1990s by confiscating the forest owners’ carbon credits that were recognised as a property right, the result of which has seen a slump in confidence in the forestry industry, with plantings falling from an average through the 1990s of 65,300 hectares of new forest to just 8,000 hectares, and the unprecedented result of the planted forest cover in New Zealand getting smaller each year rather than growing?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member should not believe everything Mr Dickie tells him. Firstly, the credits were created by the Kyoto agreement, and the vast majority of our forests pre-date that agreement. Those credits were an intrinsic property right of existing forests. They were created by Governments, and the liabilities pertained to Governments—the credits are owned by Governments. That is the nature of the agreement. That is the most important point in that regard. Secondly, deforestation and a lack of planting have been caused not by that; they have been caused primarily by low prices for timber and high prices for dairying, which have incentivised, therefore, conversion from forestry to dairying, given that there is no penalty attached to that.

Tim Barnett: What initiatives have already been actioned or proposed to encourage forestry to play a constructive role?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Last year the Government launched the Permanent Forest Sinks Initiative. It is already attracting investments such as that from Ngāti Porou, which will alone sequester up to 75 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. There is also significant Government investment in the Forest Industry Development Agenda, and, of course, the proposals out for consultation include the possibility of cash grants or carbon credits for new forests planted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Minister excused the deforestation on the basis of changed economics rather than Government policy, when in the same period in which this Government has seen a 40,000 hectare deforestation Australia has been able, under exactly the same economic conditions, to expand its forest estate by 400,000 hectares; how does the Prime Minister equate all her rhetoric about carbon neutrality with New Zealand’s appalling record compared with Australia’s?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member might well ask himself exactly the same question, given that between 1996 and 1999 forest plantings more than halved in New Zealand.

R Doug Woolerton: Will Dr Cullen’s proposed incentives for exporters include specific measures to encourage the planting of new forests above and beyond current projections?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government is certainly looking at proposals to encourage new plantings of forest, because obviously additional plantings would be a significant contribution to meeting our Kyoto obligations. There is also a necessity to look at methods—for example, the inclusion of “cap and trade” systems—that provide some kind of disincentive to deforestation and conversion to other land uses.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora tātou. Why is the Government on the one hand championing the climate change cause, then on the other hand using taxpayers’ money for Landcorp to destroy 23,000 hectares of pine forest north and south of Taupō?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That land is not owned by Landcorp. It is simply that Landcorp has the management contract for that process, which would have been carried out by somebody else if Landcorp had not carried it out.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does the Government not just rule out the proposed deforestation tax, which is causing even more trees to be felled and making the climate change situation for New Zealand worse in respect of the balance; noting that the Government had to do a U-turn on both the carbon tax and the animal emissions levy, why does the Government not just cut its losses and back down now?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is always possible to be scared of ideas, but I would encourage the member to just dip his toe in the water occasionally and try the odd one, and to slither around a little before rejecting it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: Could the Minister add just a little more to his answer?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I am saying to the member, to put it bluntly, is that there is a discussion document out there. Some people are having a rational discussion; Mr Dickie is getting into a sort of foaming hysteria mode.

Rodney Hide: In having this discussion about ideas, has the idea ever occurred to the Prime Minister that when people plant trees, they look at the costs and at the returns, one of the returns they might be looking at being the fact that there is an expectation that they will get a carbon credit per hectare worth thousands and thousands of dollars—in fact, more than the cost of planting that hectare—and one of the costs they might be thinking about when they plant a forest being whether they can convert it to something else without having to pay a tax to the Government of $13,000; or are the Prime Minister and the Government so out of touch with New Zealanders that they think those basic—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You were away last week. You don’t need to make up for it this week.

Madam SPEAKER: Look, please—would the member ask a question and not give a speech. And we will not have unnecessary interruptions, please.

Rodney Hide: I know these simple ideas are hard to get across to this Government.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please just ask his question. Thank you.

Rodney Hide: In speaking about ideas, has the idea occurred to this Government that when people are looking to invest in a forest, they do have a regard to the return and the costs, that a big part of the return that was expected in the 1990s was the carbon credits that had been widely touted—indeed, credits the Government had promised would belong to the owner—that one of the costs was what one could do with the land at the end of the forest’s life, and that in terms of lowering that return and increasing that cost, this Government is the reason that trees are not being planted in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Most of the trees that have been cut down were planted long before the Kyoto agreement. If the member really thinks that the people planting those trees thought they would get carbon credits for an agreement that did not exist, then he thinks those people showed an enormously large understanding of the future. But the member might well ask himself the question whether, if trees can be cut down and the land converted to higher polluting usages, and there is no cost at all attached to it, that encourages disinvestment in forestry and conversion to other land uses.

Hon David Parker: Is the suggestion that property rights attach to carbon credits inconsistent with the viewpoint taken by other parties that no property liability attaches to existing emissions?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is indeed a very, very good point. But as usual, of course, what we are hearing from the Opposition is that one capitalises one’s gains and socialises one’s losses. That is a long-standing tradition of the National Party.

Rodney Hide: Does, then, the Prime Minister disagree with Mrs Gillian Robertson from the New Zealand Anglican Church Pension Board, who wrote about its forests: “No wonder forest owners are desperately cutting at present, even at losses, with the Government threat of owners having to pay a levy equal to more than what the current harvest is worth.”? That is what Mrs Robertson and the Anglican Church Pension Board are writing, and the board actually owns trees, unlike this Minister.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: With all due respect to members of the Anglican Church Pension Board, I say that if all new ideas had been rejected in the first place, the Anglican Church would never have existed.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that when this Minister gets into trouble, he tries to get out of it with a—

Hon Annette King: What’s the question?

Rodney Hide: It is a point of order, actually.

Madam SPEAKER: It is a point of order, so would members please just settle. I know we started late today and it is a little different from usual, but would the member please make his point of order succinctly.

Rodney Hide: I know that when this Minister is in trouble, he gives smart alec comments about the pension board—

Madam SPEAKER: Well, that is not a point of order—

Rodney Hide: —but those cannot be an answer to the question. The Minister said to this House that he wanted to debate the ideas. We are putting up the ideas and the experience of people who are actually growing trees, yet all we get is abuse of the people we refer to.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to further address the question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Let me put it again, in a somewhat different way, for the benefit of the member. If there is no penalty on deforestation and conversion to land uses that have a higher value otherwise, then there will be a strong economic incentive to deforestation. That is what the current economic position is.

Carbon Neutrality—Prime Minister’s Statement

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that New Zealand “could aim to be carbon neutral”; if so, by what date does she think this could be achieved?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. But she is not prepared to put a date on our first achieving that goal. She is confident that consistent progress can be made towards that target.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister think that it is consistent with her statement that New Zealand could be carbon neutral that this very month her Government is firing up the massive E3P gas turbine, the second-biggest greenhouse gas emitting power station ever built in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I remind the member that his colleagues only a year or two back were calling for the Government to accelerate progress on various thermal power stations around the country because of what they described as an electricity supply crisis around the country. This flip-flop, of course, is consistent with the member’s flip-flop on global warming itself.

Hon David Parker: Has the Prime Minister seen any evidence that others are committed to achieving the goal of carbon neutrality?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly. I believe that many in the House are committed to that. Obviously, the Green Party, and, I believe, also United Future and New Zealand First, are committed to goals of this variety. From the National Party we have had a lot of empty rhetoric, but when asked by the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues to engage in solutions the National Party refused to come to the table. National always prefers the problem we have to the solution we do not have.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister agree that the electricity sector could be the first to be carbon neutral, without it even having to purchase any offsets, by moving over the next couple of decades to 100 percent renewables except for dry years and emergencies; if so, is that what Minister Parker will be telling Gerry Brownlee in response to question No. 10?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not know what Mr Parker will be telling Mr Brownlee in answer to question No. 10, but the member is certainly correct that the ambition is to move to reliance upon renewables for normal baseload activity, but, of course, thermal capacity will still be required for firming activity, and, given the nature of much of our renewables, that will mean a quite considerable amount of thermal generation capacity will still need to be maintained.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister confirm that E3P has a projected life of 40 years, that it is set to emit about half a million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, and that those emissions will far outweigh any of the announcements of policies that she declared last week in her statement of intent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We should look at those kinds of questions in the light of the net impact. The commissioning of E3P, with the commissioning of additional renewables generation over the next 10 to 15 years—there is a considerable amount of that on the agenda at the present time—will enable less efficient thermal generation to be taken out of capacity, thereby reducing net emissions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Prime Minister received any letter from the Leader of the Opposition indicating National’s opposition to firing up E3P?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, not at all, but then, of course, the Leader of the Opposition at one stage said that climate change was a complete and utter hoax, and now he says that the results could be catastrophic.

Peter Brown: Will the Prime Minister be specific and put the whole issue into perspective by saying whether, in terms of addressing climate change, the most effective approach would be to have the USA, China, and India achieving some modest reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions, or to have New Zealand becoming carbon neutral; if it is the former, can she tell us what pressure New Zealand is exerting upon the USA, China, and India to address the issues?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government has consistently supported extending the Kyoto Protocol agreement to the widest possible group of nations. It believes very firmly that those who at present are not within Kyoto will need to be brought within some kind of post-Kyoto agreement—notably, of course, India and China, and, obviously, the United States. as the largest emitter in the world at the present time, needs to be brought in, too. But members should remember that many United States states are already taking quite significant action in this regard—particularly, California.

Nandor Tanczos: With regard to New Zealand’s emissions, does the Prime Minister agree that the only way the agricultural sector, which is New Zealand’s single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, can approach carbon neutrality is to decrease animal numbers, in direct contradiction to what is happening now; and given the recent statement made by Frank Brenmuhl, the Chairman of Dairy Farmers of New Zealand, that farmers will grow bananas if they need to, instead of cows, what is the Government doing to encourage them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will try to be as gentle as I can: to grow bananas in New Zealand would require an awful lot of electricity in order to provide sufficient warmth, and that probably would increase the level of global warming, rather than reduce it.

John Key: Is it not the case that the problem with the Prime Minister’s statements is that she is running around trying to convince the country that she even seriously half-believes in New Zealand becoming carbon neutral when at the same time she is offsetting that by firing up E3P, which is something to do with security of supply; and that maybe the reason the National Party does not oppose E3P is that we firmly have our eye on the ball of both security of supply and a realistic long-term target for climate change?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The wonderful thing now is that Mr Key can manage a flip-flop between one supplementary question and the next supplementary question, even on E3P.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister tell the House exactly what the carbon footprint is of Treasury, the Inland Revenue Department, and the other four departments that the Prime Minister announced last week would be carbon neutral?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The carbon footprint of Treasury is, obviously, rather low, and that of the Inland Revenue Department is somewhat higher, but that does not mean to say the Government should not begin with its own organisations in that regard.

Nandor Tanczos: The Prime Minister having stated her welcome support for the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill in Parliament last week, will she be encouraging her Cabinet to watch tonight’s premiere of TV3’s WA$TED!, which “takes your average household of eco-horrors and turns it into a clean green haven”, so that all ministries can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut waste?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the documentary was about how to turn each house into a clean Labour haven, then I am sure we would all be watching it with a great deal of interest.

John Key: Is it not the situation that the Prime Minister has not got a clue what the carbon footprint of the Inland Revenue Department, Treasury, and the other Government departments is; that the reason she promoted it last week was that it was about all she could think up; and that if she had not claimed that New Zealand would be carbon neutral, she would not even have bothered to suggest those things, because the savings—compared with those of E3P—will be absolutely next to nothing?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member is prepared to put down a specific question, I will give a specific answer. The Prime Minister is certainly aware the Government has a Fruit in Schools programme, and did not run around as the “Muesli Bar Kid” before finding out that that was the case.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister accept the widely reported conclusions from international research that building new roads increases vehicle miles travelled, and tends to reduce the use of public transport and cycling; if so, why is her Deputy Prime Minister promising to boost carbon dioxide emissions with “the biggest ever road building programme this country has ever known”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister’s splendid deputy is proposing that for a number of reasons. Firstly, new roading is needed for safety reasons. Many of our roads lack hard shoulders, lack passing bays, and lack other mechanisms that would reduce our road toll, which, while it has come down dramatically in the last 20 years, is still higher than that of many other developed countries—that is, in human lives. Secondly, and specifically in the Auckland area, improvement in the roading network is likely to have benefits in terms of traffic moving more quickly, but in particular, of course, in many areas we also need better traffic mechanisms for buses. As I have said to the member many times—and I will keep repeating—whatever happens in terms of upgrading rail, buses will remain the main mode of public transport in Auckland. For very simple, geographical reasons, there are only two main railway lines in Auckland.

John Key: What is the precise carbon footprint today of the Inland Revenue Department, Treasury, and the four other Government departments that the Prime Minister outlined last week; is the answer that the Prime Minister does not know—the same position she had last week—and would not have a clue what the impact on New Zealand is?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member is capable of telling me what the carbon footprint of the National Party is, she might be able to tell him.

John Key: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister in question No. 4 and question No. 6 what the precise carbon footprint is. The Deputy Prime Minister got up and said: “Well, if the member wants a precise answer”—

Madam SPEAKER: I take the point. Would the Minister please further address the question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thought we were on question No. 2, not questions Nos 4 and 6. Obviously, the member’s supplementary questions are all numbered for him so that he does not get them mixed up along the way. If the member cares to put down a specific question, I will try to provide—[Interruption] No, I ask him to put down a specific question, in writing, and in the morning. Bill English will write it for him—as he usually does—and we will try to provide an answer for him.

John Key: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We asked a precise question. The Deputy Prime Minister told us that he would be happy to give the precise answer. Surely, if it was in the statement of intent last week, he would know what the exact answer is and he would not need me to put down a written question.

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order.

Foreshore and Seabed—Legislative Framework

3. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Deputy Prime Minister: What reports, if any, has he received on proposals to change the legislative framework relating to the foreshore and seabed?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I have received a number of reports relating to a proposal to repeal the existing framework and re-vest the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, effectively holding that subject to subsequent legal claims. This proposal is in the bill being promoted by the Māori Party.

Shane Jones: What reports has he seen on support for this proposal? [Interruption]

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is a very good question, as Mr Power said. I have seen a report suggesting that the bill needs to be considered by a select committee, a report claiming that this was never said, and, finally, a report saying that the bill will not be supported at all. All three reports are attributed to the leader of the National Party, Mr John Key.

Tariana Turia: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. What does the Minister have to say about the statement from Jock Brookfield, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Auckland, that the legislative framework relating to the foreshore and seabed was a gross overreaction to the June 2003 Court of Appeal decision, which: “held that Māori customary communal title in areas of sea land (of foreshore and seabed) could exist at common law.”, and that: “customary title is a species of legal property and should not be taken by Parliament without full compensation determined by an independent authority.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thought the article by Professor Brookfield was very interesting, but I think it was unfair in one key and important respect: any group has the right to go to the High Court, which has the inherent jurisdiction in customary law matters in any case, for a declaration that, but for the passage of the Act, territorial customary rights existed—that is, in language he uses, customary title. If that declaration is made by the High Court, the Crown must enter into negotiations with the claimants for redress, and any agreed redress must be taken back to the court for confirmation. Alternatively, of course, the Crown can enter into direct negotiations with groups that it believes have such territorial customary rights and then proceed back to the court for the registration of an agreement. That is happening with Ngāti Porou, Whānau-a-Apanui, and Ngāti Porou ki Hauraki, and excellent progress is being made in those discussions. I think the member may be surprised at what comes out of those discussions. I think New Zealand as a whole will be pleased to see the kind of balance that, in fact, the Foreshore and Seabed Act is capable of producing.

Question No. 4 to Minister

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I seek leave for this question to be held over until the Minister of Corrections appears in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

4. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Corrections) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Simon Power: What does it say about the culture of his department when a former employee has alleged, on National Radio this morning, that smuggling of contraband by guards at Rimutaka Prison “would not have occurred without management knowledge of it, and they had knowledge of this for a long time, and the fact is they chose not to act.”; and is that why several guards have had to go to the media before the Minister is prepared to do anything about it?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: On 22 November last year the department’s chief executive appointed a barrister and two former police detectives to independently investigate allegations by ex-staff members. Since then further allegations have arisen and are being addressed by the inquiry. Allegations arising more recently—as of today—by a former staff member are not new. She was interviewed last year and the independent investigator is also looking into those matters.

Simon Power: What does he say about the allegations made by a former employee on radio this morning about the way in which his department has treated whistleblowers “and the depth that they”—the department—“will go to, to try to discredit people and to cover up these matters.”, highlighted by the case of one guard who was attacked by an inmate and was left to fend for himself by other guards because he did his job, by conducting proper cell searches and reporting contraband?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: All allegations are treated seriously and the investigation will inquire into all those matters. The Minister will be able to comment on them when the investigation has been completed.

Simon Power: How can the public believe that he is in touch with what happens in prisons, when they hear Andy Coward, a former guard with a PhD in psychology and 20 years’ experience working at prisons on four continents, say that the prison system in New Zealand is “a disgrace and a joke” and “the most despicable thing I have ever seen”; and all the Minister can say, publicly, is “Talking with Barry, there may have been some slackness.”?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: As I have said, all the allegations are subject to an investigation. The results will be made public, in the public interest.

Simon Power: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that corruption amongst prison guards is not a widespread problem, when the Department of Corrections now admits that guards have been smuggling contraband to inmates at Rimutaka; when officers at Arohata and Wellington prisons have also resigned while being investigated for corruption; when last month he ordered an inquiry into corruption by guards at Rotorua District Court, after the department’s chief executive said he would not investigate; when guards report that cellphones and P are rife at Waikeria Prison; and when an inmate reports that P is being consumed openly in the exercise yards at Mount Eden Prison; and what is going on in his department?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Once again for the benefit of the member, all these allegations are subject to investigation.

Simon Power: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Barry Matthews, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, enjoys the confidence of the Government and is, according to the Prime Minister, “an exceptional chief executive”?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I do agree with the statement of the Prime Minister, who said that Barry Matthews is an exceptional chief executive.

Simon Power: Does the Minister intend to communicate with Labour members of the Law and Order Committee regarding their vote on National’s quest for a wide-ranging inquiry into this hugely dysfunctional department?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: There is currently an investigation into all allegations. That is the Government’s position right now.

Family Violence—Departmental Advice

5. Hon PETER DUNNE (United Future—Ohariu-Belmont) to the Prime Minister: What advice, if any, has she received from the Minister for Social Development and Employment or other Government agencies about the policies needed to curb the rise of family violence in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has received many reports from the Minister and from Government agencies on this matter, including, of course, the advice from the Justice and Electoral Committee that there is an urgent need to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many, many New Zealanders that rising family violence is now virtually endemic and relentless, and that the time has come for action rather than talk; and instead of calling for more reports, will she bring together groups like Plunket, the Families Commission, and Barnardos, which have an interest in this area, to develop a strategy for concerted action that this Parliament can have within the next 3 to 6 months to act upon to curb this mounting problem?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A great deal of that has already occurred, and a number of initiatives are under way right now. There will soon be a very major programme designed to change community attitudes towards violence and abusive behaviour—$11.5 million will go into the community prevention programme. The family violence prevention social service in last year’s Budget received very significant increases in its funding, and there is funding of $14.8 million going towards the Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents—SKIP—programme, which funds some 89 community groups to teach positive parenting, and alternatives to physical discipline. At the end of the day this is a community issue, a community problem, and the Government has to work with communities to try to seek solutions to this.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Prime Minister accept that the perception of many in the community is that, despite the initiatives referred to in the earlier answer, the problem is mounting and is close to getting out of control, and that many New Zealanders are sick and tired of every Monday morning waking up to hear of the latest horrific attack that has occurred on children in a New Zealand family; if she does accept that proposition, how does she see the nexus being broken between what look like worthy programmes, on the one hand, and a mounting public concern that nothing much is happening, on the other?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What that comes down to is a number of very difficult issues. Clearly there is mounting public concern. That can be seen as a good thing, in the fact that the public is less accepting of family violence than would have been the case 25, 20, or 15 years ago, when people commonly made remarks that accepted some levels of family violence as being normal. It is not clear that overall there are actual increases in the levels of family violence—there is always the problem of how much of the increase is from reporting changes and how much is from actual change in the incidence of family violence. What the House and the Government can do is make those moves that are within their competence. This House has a chance next Wednesday to make one very clear statement—that it does not support the current section 59 of the Crimes Act, under which kids have been beaten with large lumps of wood, riding crops, and what have you, and people have not been convicted because section 59 provides an excuse for that. It is a simple thing. I will not argue about some of the details of the bill itself, but I state quite clearly to vote for the second reading so that the House can then work through some of the detailed issues subsequently. If the National Party votes against the bill en bloc, as it has said it will do, then the public will draw a conclusion about what that means.

Hon Annette King: Can the Prime Minister confirm that reporting of family violence has doubled in the last 10 years, and does she agree that increases in reporting of family violence should be encouraged?

Judith Collins: For goodness’ sake!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Opposition spokesperson says “For goodness’ sake!”. The Minister is quite right. Incidents of family violence should be reported. It is only by getting more and more reporting of what is actually occurring that the community as a whole can make its own statements about the unacceptability of family violence.

Hospitals—Productivity

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the level of hospital productivity and why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I regret I cannot answer the member’s question because we cannot yet reliably measure productivity. However, we are making good progress in developing a variety of productivity indicators for the future.

Hon Tony Ryall: What is wrong with the health system when official Treasury reports calling for value for money in the health sector show that hospital performance has plummeted during Labour’s term in office, with the reports suggesting that almost $3 of extra spending is now needed to get $1 of extra benefit for Kiwi patients?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member, as usual, selectively quotes. What the Treasury report found was not that productivity has gone down, up, or sideways, but that productivity is difficult to measure. Let me just quote back to the member the substantive finding from the paper in question. Treasury states: “This research is useful as a case study that underlines how little is known about public sector activity.”

Sue Moroney: Does he think that productivity means having fewer staff working harder for longer, or does the Government take a more enlightened approach?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The latter, I can assure the member. During the 1990s the National Government’s view was that productivity was about putting a competitive market model at the core of the health system, shifting costs on to individuals through part-charging, and deflating salaries. National’s aim was to have doctors and nurses running ever faster down corridors. The Labour-led Government, however, knows that achieving higher productivity involves better training, better facilities, and better technology. We are delivering just that.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister read the Treasury report that states quite distinctly that hospital efficiency has fallen by 8 percent in a 3-year period, and, further, has he seen the Treasury report that states: “Although there has been an increase in staff numbers, hospital outputs have not increased commensurately.”, and “Output per full-time doctor and nurse has reduced.”; and could he explain to the House how come we have more doctors and nurses but less treatment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Again, the member quotes selectively. He has not read out to the House the blizzard of caveats around the finding that the data may be wrong, that the quality may have improved, etc. In other words, for example, Treasury measured how many people were discharged from hospital but did not measure how many of them went on to live. Some of the things about productivity need to be examined a little more carefully than the member would have us believe.

Hon Tony Ryall: How is it that Labour can put $4 billion extra into the health system and deliver fewer elective operations, fewer specialist appointments, and fewer day-stay operations, and call that a success?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member straightforwardly makes it up as he goes along. I can say to the member, for example, in the totality of medical discharges, that it has increased by a third or more since the change of Government—and that is the bulk of the work that goes on in our hospitals. The member makes assertions repeatedly in the belief that someone will believe him; I do not.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does he think that New Zealanders can be confident that the substantial additional resources that have gone into the health system have produced the best results for citizens?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I think the member now makes a good point, which is that if we cannot measure productivity in our health system—or, indeed, elsewhere in our public sector—then we should attempt harder to do so. This Government does not lack initiative in this regard. We are keen to measure productivity. We want to know that the taxpayer’s dollar is spent in the best way, and, in the case of the health system, I will repeat to the member that we are making good progress.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does he stand by his statement: “One of my priorities for the health sector is achieving value for money …”, and can he explain how employing 2,000 extra hospital managers and administrators in the last 6 years is giving New Zealanders value for money for that extra $4 billion?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Again, the member quotes selectively. He says that we have this number of managers and administrators, but forgets to tell the House that on top of that we have 5,000 more doctors and nurses. I wonder which of those administrators the member would not employ. Would the member not employ the administrator who pays the staff? Would the member not employ the administrator who rings people to come in for the out-patient clinic? Would the member not employ the administrator who records the work done so that we can measure productivity? Which of those administrators would the member not employ, and would he like to tell the House whether the health system would be better off for that? The long and short of it is that this health system is bigger and better than it was when he was in Cabinet.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In light of the fact that the Government says that there is no problem, I seek leave to table nine detailed reports from Treasury showing that there is less being produced with more under the Hodgson health system.

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

Rates Rebate Scheme—Response to Expansion

7. ANN HARTLEY (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Has he received any reports on the response to the Government’s expanded rates rebate scheme?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): Yes indeed I have. I can advise the House that as of yesterday’s date, local authorities have received $41,276,000 of rates rebates from this Government for the rate-paying Kiwi households around New Zealand. This compares with just $696,389 paid out in rebates for the whole of the 2005-06 financial year, which was for just 4,200 households. This represents a sixtyfold increase in Government funding so far this year.

Ann Hartley: How the does the average rates rebate granted to date compare with the average rebate for the previous financial year?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He just said that! He just answered it.

Hon MARK BURTON: Dr Smith clearly was not paying attention, but I am happy to inform him that as a result of the maximum allowable rebate increasing from $200 to $500, the average rebate to date this financial year is $448, compared with just $165 for the 2005-06 financial year.

New Zealand Qualifications Authority—Deputy Chief Executive's Statement

8. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the statements of Bali Haque, Deputy Chief Executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, that “The examinations and marking process have gone smoothly” and that “candidates will have robust and reliable NCEA results earlier than ever before.”; if so, why?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes; this year, students sat 1.9 million papers marked by 1,920 markers and watched over by 4,000 exam supervisors. Students received their National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results online and in the post on 17 January, a full week ahead of last year due to system improvements. Schools have now also received 2006 NCEA interim national data—more than 1 month earlier than in 2005—and that allows schools to get on and plan their year and analyse their statistics.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister imagine the shock felt by top student Anna Wing of Northland, who found “not Achieved” on her results slip when her return paper marked “Merit” stated the opposite, and explain to her why, despite two requests, she cannot get any corrected provisional results from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, which she wants for her university course?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the authority has been saying, there are individual cases. If the member gives me that one straight after question time, I will fix it.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Has the Minister ever known a year in which there were not some glitches with external examinations, despite the fact that the past system had no internal assessment in year 12; has the Minister ever known a year in which there have been fewer glitches than in 2006, despite 1.9 million papers having been required to be marked?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member, of course, has a great deal of experience in the schooling system in New Zealand and therefore would know that there have been massive improvements in this system. That is the point he is seeking to make. I have also had a large amount of experience in marking as well, and I know that there are always individual issues, such as the one raised by Katherine Rich just now, and if she had bothered to phone me before question time that problem probably would have been fixed by now.

Katherine Rich: Can he understand how the frustration felt by Jeremy Moroney of the Hawke’s Bay, who had “results not available” for calculus on his slip, turned to anger when the paper returned was clearly marked and graded, and he too could not get the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to send out revised provisional results so that he could send them to his engineering course?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority a four or five-page list of individual cases; out of 1.9 million scripts one would expect that each year. This has improved dramatically each year of the NCEA, and I expect it to carry on improving. I say to the member that if she has individual cases that are still outstanding she could either pick up the phone and ring me, or ring the chief executive, who has invited anybody in the country to do that if he or she has an individual case, and the problem will be fixed as rapidly as possible.

Katherine Rich: Why should it take the raising of this issue to a Minister by a member of Parliament when these kids have attempted to phone the New Zealand Qualifications Authority themselves to sort it out; and when the authority has made mistakes does the Minister think these students deserve better service than the dismissive response they have received from the authority, which just glibly says that mistakes happen and directs them to a website that does not have any of their internal marks on it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On the first point: of course, it does not require this matter to be resolved in this way. The authority has been very clear about the fact that it will fix individual problems. I have now invited the member to give the problems to me and they will be fixed.

Katherine Rich: Will he instruct the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to find some way of getting a full set of correct provisional results to these students, and to those from other schools such as Avondale College and Logan Park High School, so they can send them to their tertiary providers or put them on their CVs, because the authority is telling them that they will have to wait until April or May to get their final certificates?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If I could take one of those questions. It was the mistakes made by the Logan Park High School administration—as the member will know, because she is the member for that area—that was the reason students did not get their results back, not the New Zealand Qualifications, and not the NCEA. That is why the school was apologising in the paper. What would be quite helpful, and I think this was the point raised by Mr Donnelly, is that instead of people looking at NCEA to try to find the obvious one or two mistakes each year, they should applaud the fact that the standards-based system, which everybody in the country who understands assessments supports, is now working as well as one could hope 1.9 million scripts to work. If there are individual issues, simply pick up the phone, ring me, and they will be fixed. The system is working.

Katherine Rich: Why should it take a member of Parliament picking up the phone to ring the Minister, when these students have phoned the New Zealand Qualifications Authority time and time again and get some glib response that they are to go to a website, when what they want is their corrected provisional results so they can give them to their employers or their tertiary providers?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I want to reassure the member that one does not have to go through the process of an MP raising these specific issues. I would like the member to give me the case she is talking about, because her predecessor, for example, raised numerous cases, and we could never get the details out of him. But I am hoping she will set a different way of going about this. If she raises these cases and tells us exactly what they are, she will lift her own standards and we can fix them.

Corrections, Minister—Departmental Information

9. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in the information he receives from his department?

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Corrections) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: Yes.

Ron Mark: When the Minister stated on 19 February on Radio New Zealand: “The thing that concerns me is that people assume this is right across the prison system. It is not. This is one unit, perhaps, in Rimutaka.”, had the Department of Corrections informed him that in November 2006 a Canterbury prison officer reported to prison managers that corrupt officers were smuggling in P and up to 28 cellphones per month, and names of officers were provided, and has that management, which is the same management who were responsible for overseeing and running the “goon squad”, briefed him on that incident?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: The member raises a number of issues on which, I am sure, the Minister of Corrections has responded to him directly. There are a couple of matters that are currently subject to investigation, and I am sure the member appreciates that.

Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in the information provided by the Department of Corrections when honest prison officers who take enormous risks reporting allegations of smuggling and corruptions to prison managers are, firstly, ignored, secondly, put at risk when the fact that they have passed on that information is deliberately leaked back to the inmates and the officers involved, and, thirdly, suspended and investigated for alleged misdemeanours?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: All allegations and accusations are treated very seriously within the department. I am not familiar with the particular issue the member refers to, but I would be more than happy to follow that up and come back to him with an answer.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister see that as long as the department is run by people such as those who led the “goon squad”, who regionally oversaw and approved of its corrupt and illegal activities, and who at head office level failed to bring that region and its squad to account, seeking instead to justify their decisions not to fire anyone, he will never be able to have confidence in the quality of information provided to him by his department?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Corruption within the service is not accepted or tolerated.

Electricity Supply—Reliance on Fossil Fuels

10. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Does the security of electricity supply for the next 20 years rely on the use of unsustainable fossil fuels?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): We expect that the emissions from fossil fuels in the electricity sector will increase very significantly over the years to come as a consequence of the Government’s climate change policies.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did the Minister just say that he expects the emissions to increase, or did he mean decrease?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I thought I said decrease. I made a mistake.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister agree with Dr Keith Turner, the Chief Executive Officer of Meridian Energy, who says that to overcome considerable risk to the reliable power supply of the South Island a new coal-fired thermal plant producing 350 megawatts may be needed?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I do not. Indeed, I think the article in the Press that perhaps led to that question in the House is perhaps a misreport. I understand from contact my office had with Meridian Energy today—at Meridian Energy’s behest, not at my prompting—that it was misreported in the Press and that it has no plans for thermal generation.

Gerry Brownlee: So Keith Turner got the big call from the Prime Minister to tell him to get back in his box. Does the Minister agree with Mr Murray Jackson, Chief Executive Officer of Genesis Energy, who says that natural gas is critical to New Zealand’s energy security, with 25 percent of New Zealand’s electrical energy being generated from natural gas?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It certainly is at present and it will be for some time to come. Indeed, as Jeannette Fitzsimons noted earlier in one of her questions, it is inevitable that we will have some reliance on thermal generation for some time into the future. It is, nonetheless, true that E3P will reduce greenhouse gas emissions this year because it will back off coal, and progressively over time we will see marked reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation.

Charles Chauvel: What additional support is the Government giving to renewables generation to improve its viability?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Just prior to Christmas, after Parliament rose, we announced a fund to support and bring forward marine power generation in New Zealand in a similar way to which we have brought forward wind power generation. In addition, the draft New Zealand Energy Strategy has proposed the consolidated call in of renewable geothermal and wind proposals to facilitate consents.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is the Minister so confident that coal use is going to reduce, when chapter 3 of his draft Energy Strategy under the title “Security of Electricity Supply” does not even mention coal, and when Huntly is now a baseload station producing 4,500 megawatts per year—without which this country would see the lights go out?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because, as is recorded in the draft Energy Strategy, it is abundantly clear that coal is probably the most expensive form of new generation in New Zealand other than nuclear—it is certainly more expensive than gas and renewables.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister put the whole issue in balance and acknowledge that about only 9 percent of New Zealand’s electricity is generated from coal, whilst in the USA it is 50 percent, in Australia it is 75 percent, and China is commissioning a new coal-fired power station every 10 days; and, if that is so, in the light of all this does he agree that it is imperative the world solves the clean-coal technologies?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I certainly agree that coal does not make up the majority of New Zealand’s electricity generation; nor should it, because it is a more expensive option. I agree with the member though that in terms of the world’s challenge for climate change, that clean-coal technology is very important and deployment of it in countries in Europe, the United States, and China will be important. It is unlikely to be a solution for New Zealand because coal-fired power stations, even without the additional cost of carbon capture and storage, are more expensive.

Gerry Brownlee: If renewable energy from hydro, wind, and geothermal fuel sources is the way of the future, why does the Minister not come out and direct State-owned generators to stop using coal and produce a timetable for the exit of other thermal plants—or does he know that that suggestion would be as silly as the rest of his energy policy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The reason we do not pick on State-owned enterprises, rather than have wise policy settings across the sector, is that if we banned State-owned enterprises from doing it but did not ban, for example, Contact Energy—not wanting to pick on them—TrustPower, or any other generator from pursuing coal, then if it was more cost effective for those generators under those policy settings to develop coal they would, and, therefore, emissions would grow.

Electricity Generation—Thermal Stations

11. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Minister of Energy: What reports, if any, has he received on plans to build new thermal generation plants?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): The first report is, of course, the one that was in the Press in the last couple of days that Meridian Energy is now disavowing and is saying is incorrect. The second report was in the Sunday Star-Times on 11 February, when Mighty River Power said that in light of the Government’s energy and climate change policies it is unlikely to go ahead with the Marsden B coal-fired plant.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister received any other reports on approaches to building new thermal generation plants?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In contrast with this Government’s consistent opposition to new coal-fired plants, I have received a report that another party welcomed the Marsden B facility at its inception. That party said it: “welcomes the new coal-fired Marsden B …”, and said: “the development of this generation is exactly what New Zealand needs”. That party’s thermal energy spokesperson went so far as to say: “The Government must ensure that it doesn’t let the RMA sink this desperately needed piece of generation.” The party that was promoting coal generation was, of course, the National Party.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Minister argue that requiring State generators to abandon coal and progressively get out of other forms of thermal generation will in fact give a price advantage to privately owned generators when he goes around the country saying that renewable sources are the cheapest form of generation—is it that for the private sector coal is cheap or is it that for the Government it is expensive—and how does that give consumers any confidence, given that the Government is such a big player in generation and ultimately sets the price that households pay?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is not what I said. I said it is important that the policy settings are right to dissuade the building of coal-fired generators, be they for the private sector or for the State-owned sector. It is clear that the Government’s climate change policy is having the effect of dissuading anyone from building new coal-fired power stations.

Ingram Report—Review of Immigration Matters

12. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he continue to claim that he has reviewed the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): Yes. A number of immigration matters are covered in the Ingram report, which I have read on a number of occasions, as previously stated to the member on 12 September, 14 September, and 15 November 2006.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Would information that Sunan Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa at the time Mr Field was making representations to the then Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor, on Mr Siriwan’s behalf have been relevant information to the Associate Minister’s decision to issue Mr Siriwan with a work visa?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Presumably, yes.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: In considering the crucial issue as to the knowledge of the Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor, of Mr Siriwan’s working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa at the time he signed his letter of 23 June 2005 directing the New Zealand Immigration Service to issue a work visa for Mr Siriwan, would the evidence of the Hon Phil Goff have been relevant, as Mr Goff knew that Mr Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa, because he had met him there, working on the floor of the house, almost exactly 3 months earlier?

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have ignored that member for a long time, but he has constantly misrepresented the truth in this case. At no stage has anybody demonstrated that I knew anything at all about Mr Siriwan, other than the fact that when I, accompanied by a number of senior officials, visited the house being built, there were two workmen in place. What the member is saying is inaccurate.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member be seated. The member knows, as many members do know, that that was not a point of order.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Ingram inquiry found absolutely no evidence of impropriety by the member Mr Phil Goff, and, as the House has heard, Mr Goff strenuously denies that false assertion by the member.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the Ingram inquiry concluded that the evidence does not support a finding that Mr Field knew that Mr Siriwan was working on his house in Samoa at the time of his final representations to the Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor, on 17 May 2005, yet the Hon Phil Goff knew that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house during that time, because, along with Mr Field, he had seen Mr Siriwan screening the floor on 18 March 2005, and had spoken to him about the work he was doing to level the floor in preparation for tiling it?

Hon Phil Goff: I wish to make a personal explanation in relation to the comments the member has just made. Several years ago, when I was visiting Samoa on Government business for meetings with the Samoan Government, I travelled with a large number of people—I think the group might have included the Commissioner of Police from New Zealand—and we called in to the house being constructed for Taito Phillip Field. We looked briefly at the house. I saw two people there. I was introduced to them but I do not recall their names. I have no idea of their background or identity. For the member to say that I knew that a Mr Siriwan was working there is inaccurate. The member should not continue to make statements that he knows to be inaccurate.

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. While the Hon Phil Goff was giving his personal explanation to the House, which was meant to be heard in silence, Nick Smith interjected twice. You have given warnings twice today already about members breaking those Standing Orders.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, and I have given two lots of warnings. So would the members who interjected during that time please leave the Chamber. I did not hear exactly who the members were. The members know. There was interruption during the personal explanation. Would those members please leave the Chamber. I have given two warnings.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would seem to me that the personal explanation from Mr Goff was not concluded.

Madam SPEAKER: I think he sat down.

Gerry Brownlee: Surely he would want to tell us how he might have corrected Mr Ingram’s conclusions.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Did the Hon Phil Goff provide relevant information to the Ingram inquiry on the immigration issue as to whether Taito Phillip Field knew that Sunan Siriwan was working on his house in Samoa at the time of Mr Field’s final meeting with Damien O’Connor and his private secretary on 17 May 2005?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In the first place—in answer to the member—the member Phil Goff’s position has been fully covered by his personal explanation. In the second place, Dr Lockwood Smith has advanced no evidence to this House that the Hon Phil Goff had any specific knowledge of people working on Taito Phillip Field’s house. Thirdly, the Ingram inquiry found absolutely no evidence of impropriety by the Hon Phil Goff. And, fourthly, in any case, the Minister of Immigration is not responsible for the statements made to the Ingram inquiry.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): Further to question of the day No. 2, I now have the information. I seek leave to table the estimates of the carbon footprints of the Government departments concerned.

Leave granted.

© Scoop Media