Questions and Answers - Wednesday, 21 February 2007

Questions to Ministers

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—2006 Examination Administration

1. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received on the administration of the 2006 National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) examinations?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I am informed that students sat 1.9 million papers, marked by 1,920 markers and watched over by 4,000 exam supervisors, and that results have been turned round faster than ever before. As with a process of this size, individual issues have arisen. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has dealt with those swiftly and appropriately. I am therefore very pleased to say, along with the sector, that the 2006 examination season has gone smoothly and we can be proud of our examination system.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Minister been able to sort out yet the two cases raised in the House yesterday by Katherine Rich?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In the House yesterday Katherine Rich asked me, without notice, about two students whom she asserted had been receiving bad service from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. I asked her to provide me with case details but, unfortunately, she did not do that. However, the authority has informed me that both of those students’ cases had already been fixed prior to the question being asked yesterday. If the member had a genuine concern about those students, rather than attempting to run stunts like those of her leader, she could have asked questions through the normal channels and she would have found that both of those cases had been dealt with appropriately.

Katherine Rich: Is it not disturbing that a Minister who earns over $200,000 a year has not got better things to do than to arrange lame patsy questions to himself about how supposedly I have got it wrong, when yesterday’s questions were based on written advice from his own officials; if his own officials have been scurrying about fixing the issues that I raised yesterday in the House, how come one of the students I have spoken to has heard nothing about her inquiry except for an email that confirms she will have to wait until April-May before she gets her corrected results?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If the Opposition spokesperson on education knew anything about the NCEA, she would know that all students get their final result in April, which is when this student will get it. She would also know that the results are updated on the Net daily, which is why students are referred to the Net. That, of course, is why it is important for me, on my salary, to clarify these issues—because people like Mrs Rich occupy positions but do not understand their portfolio.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What advice would the Minister give to schools, students, or parents who want to discuss aspects of NCEA results?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The advice I would give them is not to ring Opposition spokespeople like Bill English and Katherine Rich, because they never understand their own portfolio. They always end up exploiting and misrepresenting the cases of individuals they always name, but whose cases they never understand. People should go to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and have their case dealt with appropriately and swiftly.

Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Inquiry Consideration of Letter to Prime Minister

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Did she receive a letter dated 3 August 2005 from Mr Keith Williams in relation to Taito Phillip Field, and was that letter considered by the Ingram inquiry?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, that letter was received in my office. It was addressed to me and to the Minister of Immigration, and was considered by the Ingram inquiry.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr Phil Goff’s personal explanation yesterday to the House confirms the facts set out in that letter, that along with other Ministers he met two people at Mr Field’s house in Samoa in about July 2005?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I was not here yesterday for the personal explanation, and I have not been apprised of what was said in the House.

Hon Bill English: Did she see a story published in the New Zealand Herald and appearing on Television One in September 2005 alleging that an immigrant applying for a work visa through Mr Field had done unpaid work on his house in Samoa, and would she expect that Mr Goff was aware of this same story in the New Zealand Herald referring to people working on Phillip Field’s house?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is the normal practice in the course of an election campaign to read the headlines in the New Zealand Herald, and if it was a headline I am sure it was read.

Hon Bill English: Did Mr Goff at any stage since the publication of that story talk to her about his meeting with people at Phillip Field’s house in Samoa, or is it the case that he has not raised the matter with her at all?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The particular angle that the member is pursuing has been knocked around in this House before. I understand that Mr Goff had no idea that workers somehow connected to Mr Field’s electorate practice were working on that house.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister confirm that no allegation is made on page 32 of the Ingram report—or anywhere in that report—about my having any knowledge that was inappropriate, and, furthermore, that Mr Ingram QC described the claims made by the said Mr Williams as entirely implausible?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I accept entirely the information in the member’s question. On this side of the House I trust my colleagues; Mr English does not.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the House please come to order. Does Mr Hide have a point of order, or is he seeking to ask a question?

Rodney Hide: I thought I might ask my one question now.

Madam SPEAKER: That is fine.

Rodney Hide: In respect of her trust in her colleagues and the Taito Phillip Field affair, does she stand by her statement that Taito Phillip Field’s behaviour was “unethical” and “immoral”, and, given that her Government now rests on the word of her former colleague—who was not fit, by her own light, to be in her caucus—as to what business he is up to, what does that say about her Government that she is relying on the vote of someone whom she has declared to be unethical and immoral?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I in no way resile from the statement that I made. I do believe that the people of Mangere who voted for a member to support Labour policy are entitled to have that counted.

Hon Bill English: Has Phil Goff ever discussed with the Prime Minister the fact that he visited Phillip Field’s house in Samoa, met people who fitted—

Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Only a few minutes ago it was pointed out to Mr Bill English that my name is Taito Phillip Field.

Madam SPEAKER: That is true.

Taito Phillip Field: He continues to ignore what is required of him in this House.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please address the member correctly.

Hon Bill English: My apologies to the member. Can the Minister tell the House when, if ever, the Hon Phil Goff spoke to her about the fact that he had visited Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa and met people there who were doing the tiling—people who exactly met the descriptions published in several media stories in September 2000?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have been well aware, from the time this matter was first raised, that Mr Goff and others visited a colleague’s house. Mr Goff had no idea there was any personal connection between those people working at that house and Mr Field.

Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister now trying to tell the House that Mr Goff still does not know that there was some connection between the people he met and what Taito Phillip Field was up to; and would she expect that a senior Cabinet Minister, having been to the house, having read the stories, and having been part of the discussions about the Ingram inquiry, never raised the matter with her or explained his own role?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I suggest the member get his hearing checked. I have been aware from the outset that Mr Goff visited that house. I am also aware that Mr Goff is now well aware—as I am, and the whole House is—of the contents of the Ingram inquiry, which brought out clearly the relationship between the tiler and Mr Field.

Taito Phillip Field: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether she is aware that Mr Keith Williams, at the time he approached me, did not disclose to me that he was illegally employing Mr Sunan Siriwan; that by his own admission, Mr Williams is an unrepentant, unreformed alcoholic and is a witness entirely without credibility; and that he attempted to use his letter of 3 August 2005 as a form of blackmail prior to an election?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am aware that the member believes that to be the case. I have no independent verification that it is the case.

Hon Bill English: When did the Prime Minister herself first become aware that an unusually large number of visa applications funnelled through Taito Phillip Field were being approved by the then Associate Minister of Immigration?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The numbers being approved or processed by the then Associate Minister of Immigration were not known to me until the matter started to come into the public arena and Ministers were preparing for questions on it.

Carbon Neutrality—Road-building Programme

3. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: How does his proposal to embark on the “biggest road-building programme this country has seen” implement the Prime Minister’s goal of being carbon neutral, and what reports, if any, has he received on the climate change impacts of the new road-building programme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I note, first of all, that the member misses the end of the quotation, which was that it was at least since the 19th century, when clearly the largest amount of New Zealand road building occurred. Completing the Auckland roading network, in particular, will reduce congestion. It will also improve economic efficiency, which should assist in paying for the expensive programmes that will be required to move towards the goal of carbon neutrality. Land Transport New Zealand’s funding methodology does take into account the assessment of both congestion and environmental benefits.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: So is he saying that this project simply meets the objectives of economic efficiency and does not contribute to carbon neutrality; and if he is not saying that, then could he answer the question of how it contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will try to repeat the answer. Firstly, there will be a reduction of congestion, of course. The most inefficient way of running a transport system is for motor vehicles to be sitting still, going nowhere, and pouring out emissions. They normally pour out more emissions sitting still than they do when they are actually moving, so it is even worse when it is just a static situation. Secondly, I am afraid—and the member is more than well aware of this, having announced, somewhat prematurely, perhaps, a billion dollars’ worth of tax credits for carbon neutrality—that programmes to achieve that long-term goal will be very expensive. That has to be paid for, and improved economic efficiency, which is what transport improvements do generate, will be an important part of enabling that to happen.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister dispute the international research that shows that when new roads are built, any gains made by freeing up congestion are more than lost by the increased number of cars that travel on those new roads—in other words, net greenhouse gas emissions increase, even though emissions per car may decrease?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That may well be true in some circumstances, but of course there are a range of other measures, as well. A good part of the road-building programme is also related to improving the safety of roads. The saving of lives is a major gain in economic efficiency as well as to social outcomes, and that will also contribute to the future.

Shane Jones: How much has Government spending on public transport increased during the member’s time as Minister of Finance?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Proportionately it is far more than the increase in spending on roading. In 1999-2000, Government funding for public transport was $45 million. Public transport funding for 2006-07 is estimated to be $437 million, nearly a tenfold increase. This level of increase is unprecedented at any time in our history.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How much longer will the Government continue to say, in response to those who question its love affair with motorways, that it has spent a lot more on public transport than was being spent when it came to this Parliament, recognising that at that stage the Government was led by climate change deniers anyway; and when will he accept that increasing almost nothing to very little, even if it is a sixfold increase, will not meet the Prime Minister’s goal inside a century?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Those who wish to tread lightly upon the Earth might regard the statement that $437 million is a trivial amount as a somewhat broad approach to the problems of Government financing. We will continue to say that we are increasing the level of public transport spending faster than that of roading spending as long as it is true—and as long as I am the Minister of Finance, it is likely to be true.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister be categorical and give this House an assurance that this Government will not renege on its road-building programme, no matter what pressure the Greens exert?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly, that is the intention. We look forward to working with other parties in the House to ensure that we complete the Auckland roading network.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How can the Minister say that this new roading programme is mainly about safety, as he said yesterday when he talked about shoulders on roads, passing facilities, and so forth, when four of the five projects that he has so far announced will be funded in this way are entirely new large roads or motorways, not safety upgrades of existing roads; can he also tell us how many passengers have died on trains in the last year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not aware of any passengers having died on trains, though some may have done so through the long wait on not very long journeys. As far as I am aware the deaths were all of natural causes, not of unnatural causes.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

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

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Simon Power: Can he confirm that two guards have been suspended from Christchurch men’s prison for smuggling contraband, and what further investigations are being conducted into allegations that recruits are too inexperienced to handle prisoners, searches are not conducted properly, and guards are fearful of identifying corruption?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I can confirm that two guards have been suspended and a small number are under investigation. We are boosting the training for all incoming prison officers and providing support for anyone—be that person a prison officer, a probation officer, or a member of the general public—who has information about any illegal activity taking place in our prisons.

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s assertion that corruption is not widespread in the prison system, following the statement in this morning’s Christchurch Press made by a Christchurch prison guard, who said: “It’s just so corrupt. It’s happening everywhere.”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister. It is not rife. It is all very well for an individual to make claims. It is more difficult to substantiate those, and we welcome any information that anyone might have to assist us with our inquiries.

Simon Power: Is the Minister concerned that corruption amongst prison staff and management could be widespread further than Christchurch Prison and Rimutaka Prison, given that earlier in the week he stated that it was only at Rimutaka; if so, what action is he taking to ensure that all other prisons in New Zealand are subject to a similar review, and are also not rife with contraband and corruption?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It is a sad reality that contraband gets into every one of our prisons. It comes into them in a number of different ways. We have a large number of prisoners—over 7,000—who spend too much of their time devising ways to bring it in. The vast majority of contraband coming into our prisons comes in through visitors, and we are working to toughen up in that area.

Simon Power: How does he reconcile the statement he made yesterday that the Department of Corrections Chief Executive Barry Matthews is “an exceptional chief executive”, in agreement with the Prime Minister’s assessment of Mr Matthews, with reports of corruption at Christchurch men’s prison, Rimutaka Prison, and the failings of the probation service in not recalling Graeme Burton on 5 December—as it could have done, under the provisions of the Parole Act—when it was first made aware of his breaches of parole on that date and not 2 weeks later?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There are currently a number of investigations under way relating to the Burton situation. I will not comment on those until those reports are out. Barry Matthews is an exceptional chief executive, working in a very difficult area of social responsibility.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Over the roaring coming from the other side of the House, I have not heard whether you have called me.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I call the Hon Phil Goff.

Hon Phil Goff: In respect of his comments about stopping contraband coming into prisons, can he confirm that the drug testing currently being carried out shows that the level of drugs present in prison is the lowest it has ever been since the testing began, and that the level of testing shows half the amount of drug taking that occurred when National was in Government?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I just happen to have those figures. In 1998, when the previous National Government was in charge of prisons, 34 percent of inmates in our prisons were identified drug users. We have that figure down to below 15 percent now.

Simon Power: How can the public have faith in the ability of the Department of Corrections to conduct an independent investigation into any issue regarding corruption and other matters when, in respect of the release of convicted murderer Graeme Burton, Barry Matthews—an exceptional chief executive, according to the Minister and the Prime Minister—has already stated in the media that the investigation will clear the department of any wrongdoing, when the report has yet to be released?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I suggest that member waits to see the results of that inquiry.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the member confirm that one of the biggest cultural differences to do with prisons is—and this is not taking away from the problem of contraband coming in—that in the last 10 years escapes have reduced by 80 percent, so instead of people hopping out to get their contraband, as they did under the National Government, there is a little bit of a problem with people bringing it in?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am happy to confirm that by any international standard our prison system is doing well. It has lower suicide rates, it has severely reduced the number of escapes, and the number of identified drug users in the system is half that of when the National Government was in charge of prisons.

Simon Power: Why would anybody in an environment with LCD flat-screen TVs, along with such things as under-floor heating and PlayStations, want to leave or escape from a New Zealand prison?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: As usual, that member gets it wrong. Prison is not a pleasant place for any sensible New Zealander, and I would suggest that that member encourage as many New Zealanders as possible to stop breaking the law so they do not end up there.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Minister recall that under the National Government the only security around Manawatū Prison, which is close to Mr Power’s electorate, was a 6-wire farm fence, and people used to hand contraband through the open windows?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Can I say that since we have come into Government we have built 17 kilometres of perimeter fencing around the prisons in this country to provide better security, because that previous Government had ignored the issue.

Maternity Services—Improvements

5. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Does he consider that the granting of extra funds for primary maternity services is all that is needed to ensure a nationally consistent service; if not, what else is his ministry doing to improve maternity services?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I would like to thank the member for her continuing interest in maternity care. The additional $11.4 million announced in early February will greatly assist retention of the primary maternity workforce. Doctors and midwives have been supportive of the funding increase. Funding is only part of the story, and they have especially welcomed being involved in developing even better services for pregnant women by improving connections between services for them.

Barbara Stewart: Does the Minister consider it likely that his call for “primary providers to continue to develop integration between services and professional groups so as to maximise services to women” will be acted upon without more leadership from his ministry than is currently being displayed?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: This Government is supportive of the cooperation between doctors, midwives, district health boards, and the ministry that was signalled by the parties involved after the announcement on 2 February.

Lesley Soper: Does he know of any other initiatives that will support the provision of better maternity services for New Zealand women?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes, there are more initiatives. Just this month a pilot midwifery entry to practice programme has been rolled out. Over the next 2 years a total of $4.7 million has been allocated to pilot a programme aimed at supporting new graduate midwives, in December 2005 the Government injected $18.4 million into primary maternity services across the country, and late in 2006 the Government announced a $2 million fund for rural midwives.

Barbara Stewart: Has the Minister’s Ministry of Health considered bringing midwives into primary health organisations to have them work with general practitioners, in order to provide a more consistent service; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I believe that this has been discussed between the parties, and we welcome progress in this matter.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Number of Recipients

6. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: How many 3 and 4-year-olds will receive 20 free hours of early childhood education from July this year?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): From 1 July this year, Labour’s 20 hours’ free policy will be available to up to 92,000 3 and 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister explain to parents how this Government’s position has slithered from the Cabinet objective of “no fees for 3 and 4-year-olds up to 20 hours a week” to access for only some 3 and 4-year-olds: if their parents can enrol them in a centre, if the centre offers the service, and if the service is available in their area at all—a long way from the campaign slogan used at the election?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The statement at the last election was that from 1 July 2007 Labour’s 20 hours’ free policy would be available to up to 92,000 3 to 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres, and nothing has changed since then.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister seen any reports as to how many 3 and 4-year-olds will receive 20 free hours of early childhood education under a National Government?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer is none. The National Party’s policy, as set out on its website, is to scrap 20 hours’ free early childhood education. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister sees reports; he cannot comment on the actual policy.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The reports say that.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, the reports say that. The report from the National Party website says that it would scrap the 20 hours’ free policy. So no children at all would get access to the policy, despite the fact that the early childhood sector, through agencies such as the Waikato Free Kindergarten Association, have described it as a wonderful initiative by the Government. It was, therefore, surprising to hear, last week, Opposition spokesperson Paula Bennett complain that thousands of children will miss out. They will only miss out if there is a National Government.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that the figure of 92,000 was derived from the numbers of 3 and 4-year-olds who currently attend some early childhood education service, but that only 82.8 percent of decile 1 children who enter school have had any early childhood education experience, and that only 94 percent of children overall have done so—leading to the conclusion that even if some for-profit centres reject the 20-free-hour policy, participation increases in the non-participant sector could more than compensate for that negative?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member is right. The 92,000 figure comes from the current enrolment of 3 and 4-year-olds, who will be there on the date of 1 July. What we are looking forward to—as a part of an overall strategy, of course—is that as the strategy rolls out towards its completion in 2012, we will get 100 percent of enrolment in those centres.

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that chipping at each other with comments across the Chamber does not lead to good order in the House.

Katherine Rich: When the Minister has confirmed that this service will not be available to all 3 and 4-year-olds—as the Prime Minister has actually said herself—how come ministry officials came before our select committee this morning and said they have no idea of how many centres will take up the scheme, no idea of how many children will be able to enjoy 20 free hours, and no idea of what parents can expect from the scheme; is he not worried about that, given that the policy is to roll out in only 5 months’ time?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government has consistently said that up to 92,000 young people will be eligible for this policy on 1 July. As to the second series of questions, I say the ministry said no such thing. This member is now establishing for herself a good record of being totally misleading and inaccurate. What parents can expect on 1 July is to begin to access 20 hours’ free early childhood education, as the policy promises.

Katherine Rich: When Helen Clark said herself: “We will see 3 and 4-year-old children in our licensed teacher-led early childhood centres being funded for 20 hours’ free education a week.” does the Minister agree that most parents took that to mean all 3 and 4-year-olds, not just a lucky few; will the Minister finally confirm to parents, who had an expectation as a result of the last election that they would have access to it, that it is nothing more than a campaign slogan?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Prime Minister was absolutely right; 3 and 4-year-olds will be able to access 20 hours’ free education from 1 July. That is exactly what will happen. This is not a slogan like the National Party’s slogans; this is substantial policy. The member, I know, does not know education policy herself, and neither does her associate, but I am sure parents do and will appreciate the policy.

Paula Bennett: Is 20 free hours simple, as the Minister told parents on 24 January, or not easy, as he told parents on 18 February, and will he finally have reached impossible by 1 July?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I say in answer to that multi-choice question, which must have stretched the member, I am sure, that on 1 July, 3 to 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres—92,000 of them, potentially—will begin to have access to this policy. That is what will happen.

Paula Bennett: When will the Minister admit that the slogan “20 free hours” might have sounded good around a Labour Party election table but is actually a cruel hoax to parents, as it is obvious that the Government cannot deliver on its promise with regard to all 3 and 4-year-olds come 1 July?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am going to go on talking to parents and the early childhood sector about this hugely popular policy, which will be rolled out from 1 July this year. I will also talk to them about the fact that the National Party would scrap that hugely popular policy.

Agricultural Exports—Trade Barriers

7. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Minister of Trade: What progress has been made this year in reducing barriers for New Zealand’s key agricultural exports?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade): Good progress has been made in a number of areas. The meeting I attended in Davos in January has helped to breathe life back into the World Trade Organization (WTO) process, though no breakthroughs have yet been achieved. Further progress has been made in the latest—the 10th—round of the New Zealand - Chinese free-trade negotiations. We have just learnt that following discussions I had with the Egyptian Minister of Trade in December, Egypt has reduced or eliminated tariffs on our key exports to that country.

Dianne Yates: What changes were signalled at Davos to give greater optimism that the WTO talks will now move forward?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Firstly, at Davos I think an important formal signal was given by the Director General, Pascal Lamy, that formal negotiations would resume after being suspended in July. But I think the most important thing that happened was that the European Union and the United States had re-entered into serious negotiations to overcome the differences between them that had led to the suspension in July. It is important now that these talks are broadened, that they are brought back into the multilateral process, and that it happens quickly, because the time frame necessary for the conclusion of the WTO round this year is a very narrow one. [Interruption] And if Gerry has a question he should actually stand up and ask one rather than yelling it from his seat.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that Egypt’s recent reduction in tariff rates on New Zealand’s agricultural exports is yet another example of the great start to the Export Year 2007 agreement reached between New Zealand First and the Government?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I do agree with the member and I thank New Zealand First for the initiative and support for Export Year this year. What is really important is that Egypt had negotiated a free-trade agreement with the European Union that competes directly with us on our key agricultural exports. That had largely removed the tariff barriers. When I met with Minister Rashid in December, I pointed out that that left us at a competitive disadvantage. He agreed to respond positively to our representations, and he has now delivered—eliminating tariffs on milk-powder and sheepmeats, and reducing to 2 percent the tariffs on butter and cheese. That is great progress.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to indicate to the House that the Government is prepared to allow an additional supplementary question on this particular topic from Dr Worth, if he can explain how, when he was riding a camel, instead of—

Madam SPEAKER: Please, would the member be seated. That is not a point of order.

Sickness Benefit—Registered Job Seekers

8. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many sickness beneficiaries are also registered job seekers?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am advised that as at December 2006, the number of Work and Income clients receiving a sickness benefit and also formally registered as job seekers, was 4,910. As at the same time, December last year, 2,873 Work and Income clients receiving invalids benefit were also formally registered as job seekers. It is important for the House to be aware that clients on a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit do not have to register formally as job seekers to take advantage of work support under the new service approach. I am further advised that since June 2006, 18,564 sickness or invalids benefit clients have participated in the new service approach.

Judith Collins: How many working-age adults registered as sickness beneficiaries could be working?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can inform the member, as I have on previous occasions, that in the last 7 years well over 100,000 people have left the unemployment benefit. [Interruption] If the member will let me finish, I will do so. Of those people, just 8.5 percent have transferred to the sickness benefit. I am happy to repeat, for the member’s benefit, those extraordinary numbers I gave in my answer to the primary question. I am very proud of the professional and dedicated efforts of Work and Income people, whose entire focus is on placing New Zealanders into real work for real wages.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister did not address the question, which asked how many working-age adults on the sickness benefit could be working. He has talked about the unemployment benefit, but that was not the question. He did not address it.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question. He related his answer to the primary point of the question.

Darien Fenton: How does New Zealand’s reduction in benefit numbers compare with rates in Australia and the UK?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am pleased to inform the House that between 2000 and 2005 the United Kingdom has had a net reduction of 6.4 percent of people in receipt of an unemployment benefit or of some form of incapacity benefit. Australia has, in the same area, achieved a 0.8 percent reduction. Over the same period, New Zealand, I am delighted to inform members, has had a 25.8 percent reduction.

Hon Chris Carter: Say that again.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: 25.8 percent.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The primary question was about sickness beneficiaries. I do not know how it is that the Minister is able to get away with those sorts of supplementary questions and answers. They have nothing to do with sickness beneficiaries; they focus simply on the issues the Minister wishes to promote.

Madam SPEAKER: I listened carefully and the Minister did address incapacity in those figures, as well.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Is the Minister aware that there has been an increase in the proportion of Māori in receipt of the sickness benefit in the past 6 years; if so, what conclusions does he think can be drawn from the corresponding decrease in the proportion of Māori in the unemployment statistics over that period?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The important factors in that observation are found when we look at the respective trend lines for the various parts of the population. I am sure the member is as pleased as I am that Māori unemployment has more than halved during the period of this Government. That is not to say it is not an important focus for my colleagues and I and for the efforts of Work and Income.

Judith Collins: When the Minister stated last year that one in five sickness beneficiaries, or 20 percent, are capable of undertaking paid work, what numbers was he relying on then, and where did he get them from?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am pleased to confirm that the latest advice I have received is that the new service approach shows that 24.9 percent of clients who indicate that they should qualify for a non-work-tested benefit have indicated that they are willing to work immediately, be it part-time or full-time. I should also share with the member the fact that in December 2006, 11 percent of sickness benefit clients, approximately 5,300, declared earnings, and 15 percent of invalids benefit clients, approximately 11,500, declared earnings.

Judith Collins: Why are only 11 percent of sickness beneficiaries seeking work, when the Minister confirmed today in the House that at least 24.9 percent—in other words, 25 percent—are capable of undertaking paid work; why is there such a difference?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I refer the member to the detail of my primary answer. It makes it quite clear how successful Work and Income is in achieving those results.

Judith Collins: What evaluations have been done on the initiatives taken to get sickness beneficiaries into work, and when will the Minister make those initiatives public?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The member will recall that Mr Hughes, the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development, told her and the other members of the select committee that those evaluations were nearly complete, that they had yet to come to my desk, and that they would be made public when I had seen them. I have not yet received that report.

Buildings—Sustainability

9. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction:: What reports has he received on improving the sustainability of buildings?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): I have seen a number of reports commending the Government on its leadership in this area. A recent example of this leadership is the new Department of Conservation head office building in Wellington. This building is New Zealand’s first fully refurbished, equivalent five-star, eco-sustainable building in the country, and it is an example to building owners and developers of what can be achieved to retrofit existing buildings to a sustainable level. The new building uses 40 percent less power than a conventional building, and uses 60 percent less water through technologies such as water recycling, heat pump systems, wind generation, an improved use of natural light and automated lighting systems, chilled beam air conditioning, and automatic opening windows.

Russell Fairbrother: What other initiatives are under way to improve the energy efficiency of buildings?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The Government has a number of initiatives under way to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. These initiatives represent the most significant energy efficiency reforms for buildings since the introduction of compulsory thermal insulation in new homes in 1977. Current proposals for new houses include higher levels of insulation of walls, ceilings, floors, and double-glazed windows, which will save homeowners up to 30 percent of their current energy bills. For commercial buildings, both existing and new, proposals include improved lighting, heat ventilation, and air conditioning systems, which will save building owners up to 30 percent of their current energy bills. Homeowners and building owners will also benefit from investment in energy efficiency through the higher capital value of their home or building if and when they come to sell.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister agree with the statement by the Registered Master Builders Federation in the Weekend Herald, accompanied by a picture of a house buried in red tape, that it now costs $30,000 more in compliance costs these days for an average house, and with the comment that it was now a standard joke amongst builders that it takes longer to get a consent for a house than it does to build it; and, with those sorts of statements, is it any wonder that homeownership rates have plummeted under his Government?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, I do not. But I do agree with Mr Burghout when he was reported in the Christchurch Press of 5 October 2006, in regard to energy efficiency polices, as saying that the Registered Master Builders Federation backed the initiative as New Zealand had traditionally lagged behind Australia in sustainable building.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Is the Minister confident that those people suffering the effects of leaky homes are having their problems dealt with adequately, and, as part of that solution, that the problems will be addressed in a manner that will meet the issues discussed in the primary question?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes.

Drugs—Benzylpiperazine (BZP) Regulation

10. JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) to the Associate Minister of Health: When will he put his recommendations on the regulation of BZP pills before Cabinet, and does he believe that this timeline is satisfactory given that people like Ben Rodden continue to suffer life-threatening reactions after taking BZP pills?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health): The consultation process on the possible classification of benzylpiperazine and related substances closes on 23 March. I expect to put my recommendations on any further regulation of benzylpiperazine before Cabinet no later than May. That time frame is based on legal advice and natural justice requirements that, if not followed, would inevitably lead to legal challenge in regard to the administered decision-making process that was followed. I am, of course, concerned about Ben Rodden—I am meeting with his parents in my electorate office this weekend. But it is precisely life-threatening situations like the one he is in that I was warning New Zealanders about in December, when I made public the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that it has assessed benzylpiperazine as having a moderate level of harm, which included the possibility of seizures.

Jacqui Dean: Given the Minister’s delays in announcing a ban and progressing it to Cabinet, is he worried that in the meantime manufacturers are developing and marketing further psychoactive drugs that he admits he knows nothing about?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I admit no such thing, nor have I done so. I am fully aware that an industry that makes $30 million a year by selling substances that many of the people who buy have no idea exactly what is in them will resist any attempt to stop it making that $30 million a year. This Government has an evidence-based and led system of drug regulation. I am bound by law—not that the member seems to notice that—to follow due process. That is exactly what I am doing, and it is the fastest way to get a result. If we followed the member’s advice, we would be in difficulty for years because we had not followed due process.

Sue Moroney: Has the Minister seen any reports on party pills other than the report from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes, I have seen many reports, some of which are in relation to the concern of the member for Otago about the potential harm to young people. In some reports she wants the pills to be regulated, and in some she wants them to be banned—I am not sure which is which. But when the member was given the opportunity to make a difference with regard to the most debilitating drug in this country for young people—alcohol—she voted against raising the purchase age of drink to 20 years.

Gordon Copeland: Will the Minister, beyond 23 March, be asking for an assessment of the health consequences of benzylpiperazine, including having more strictly controlled and regulated party pills, with the dosage and ingredients clearly marked and labelled, versus an outright ban on benzylpiperazine; if so, what does he expect the result of that assessment to be; if not, will he undertake such a comparative assessment?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The increased regulations around benzylpiperazine, or so-called party pills—for example, no sale to those aged under 18 and no electronic or print media advertising—are a result of recommendations that I took to my Cabinet colleagues and to this House. The proposal for further regulation comes as a result of the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to me. After four research programmes that this Government commissioned—and no other research programmes were available anywhere in the world—the committee indicated that in its opinion there are inherently serious and adverse effects from the use of benzylpiperazine-based party pills. That is what the consultation process, which I am bound by statute to follow, is now about. As soon as the results of that consultation come before me, I will be asking officials for advice on that consultation and reporting to my Cabinet colleagues and to this House, taking the most expeditious route that I can possibly manage to take.

Jacqui Dean: Why is the Minister refusing to act swiftly, given that this Government managed to pass retrospective legislation to validate election spending within 24 hours; when will he follow through on his promise to tighten up the controls on benzylpiperazine pills?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I certainly would not have followed the practice of the National Party, which took years not to reclassify methamphetamine. This Government did that in very quick order. We are following the fastest process that we can under the law. The member, of course, has no experience in executive government and therefore clearly does not understand the processes that we have to follow. Hopefully she will never get such experience, so this Government can continue to do the right thing.

Jacqui Dean: Does the Minister agree with Dr John Fountain and Dr Paul Gee of Christchurch Hospital, who question whether it is necessary “to await an outcome such as severe illness, neurological damage, or death before risk of harm is established”; if so, why is he allowing the sale and use of benzylpiperazine pills to continue?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Because in New Zealand we follow a rule-of-law process. But the member might like to reflect on this fact. Cigarettes kill 4,700 people a year in New Zealand. I am awaiting a submission from the member to say that this Government should ban cigarettes tomorrow, but she keeps talking about benzylpiperazine.

Jacqui Dean: How can the Minister reassure young people that when they are taking legal benzylpiperazine pills, they are not also inadvertently taking illicit substances with them, such as methylene dioxy-methyl amphetamine or Ecstasy; what does he plan to do about this new and potentially dangerous development in the drug scene?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Firstly, when asking an old conservative on drugs like me what people should do about drugs, the answer is: “Don’t take them.”, and I say that often. The best use of benzylpiperazine or any other drug is no use at all. But the member may be surprised to know that the manufacture, sale, or promulgation of drugs like Ecstasy is illegal. It is a class B1 drug. People end up in prison for a very long time. Whether people call something benzylpiperazine, a party pill, or a herbal high will not protect them from the law if they deal in illicit drugs.

Jacqui Dean: When is the Minister going to stop wasting time by attacking this member and start attacking the real issue of the growing drug culture in New Zealand?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I will stop right now, by not answering silly questions like that.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an article from the New Zealand Medical Journal dated February 2007 and showing that party pills have not had a major impact on the overdose database of Auckland City Hospital as compared to alcohol, which is responsible for more than half the admissions for overdoses.

Leave granted.

Metiria Turei: In addition, I seek leave to table a Ministry of Health report prepared for the Minister and released under the Official Information Act, which shows that natural justice is needed to make sure that all stakeholders are consulted on any decision to ban these drugs, and that the long-term effects of a ban may well lead to young people increasing their use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal substances.

Leave granted.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Landcorp Properties

11. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What did he mean when he said that “the Crown’s policy is that Landcorp properties are generally not available for use in settlements.”, and in what situations would Landcorp property be available?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Such property is generally not available for use in settlements because the Crown prioritises the use of other assets in settlements, including those held in the Office of Treaty Settlements land bank, specifically for use in Treaty settlements, and of course Crown forest land. As to the second leg of the member’s question, generally the Crown would look to the possible use of such property where existing holdings were insufficient to provide adequate or appropriate redress.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Where is the justice in the people who have lost 10,000 hectares being told they can buy back their land, when the 10-hectare block being offered for sale by Landcorp is worth $4 million, and how would the Crown suggest the remaining 9,990 hectares be purchased when it has offered a total compensation package to Ngāti Kahu of only $8 million?

Hon MARK BURTON: I would not suggest anything to Ngāti Kahu in the course of the debate in this House or through question time, but I would suggest that the junior mandated negotiators rejoin the Crown and continue negotiation. That is the place to engage in negotiation.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What impact will the proposed sale by Landcorp of the Ngātea and Whenuakite properties have on iwi in the Hauraki region, particularly in light of the findings of Judge Wainwright on 9 February 2007 that Ngāti Hei’s claims were generally well founded and that the Native Land Acts ultimately resulted in the tribe’s virtual landlessness?

Hon MARK BURTON: I would suggest to Hauraki that it would be good to move forward to get into negotiation; of course they are currently not in negotiation. I can say to the member that the Crown already has significant assets available with which to enter into a negotiation process and potentially to use in redress.

Christopher Finlayson: What downside to the Crown would there be, were the Crown to make Landcorp properties generally available for use in Treaty settlements, and would not a change in policy be consistent with the Prime Minister’s statement in the House last week that reconciliation between Crown and Māori matters?

Hon MARK BURTON: If the member were to look at the difference between the legal framework around properties held by State-owned enterprises and other Crown-owned properties, he would see there would be complications arising from his suggestion. What is more, there is already in place a protection in section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act that enables, under appropriate circumstances, such property to be used as redress.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Is the Minister aware that as with the foreshore and seabed, all those lands in the Rangiputa Station are still Māori customary land and belong to Te Whānau Moana and Te Rorohuri hapū; and why are the people of Ngāti Kahu being asked to pay market rates for land that the Waitangi Tribunal found the Crown does not hold proven title to?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I indicated to the member in an earlier response, Ngāti Kahu have mandated negotiators. The place to negotiate is face to face with the Crown and those mandated negotiators, and not by proxy by non-mandated persons in this House.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table the directions of the acting chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal, Judge Carrie Wainwright, dated 9 February 2007, which stated that Ngāti Hei’s claims were well founded and that the Native Land Acts ultimately resulted in the tribe’s virtual landlessness.

Leave granted.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would just like to point out that I am Ngāti Kahu myself and as the elected representative of Te Tai Tokerau I am the mandated speaker in this House for the people of Ngāti Kahu.

Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.

Problem-gambling Service Providers—Reports

12. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Associate Minister of Health: What reports has he received regarding problem-gambling service providers since his statement of 24 October 2006 that he hoped “to have a report by the end of next week”, and will he be making those reports public?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): On 3 November 2006 I received an interim report on 12 providers identified as being high-risk, and I am expecting a final report on these providers by 2 March. The Ministry of Health has also been undertaking routine audits of problem-gambling service providers, and I am expecting a report on 7 March. The results of these audits will be made publicly available.

Sandra Goudie: What is the Minister doing about problem-gambling service provider contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, when the Minister and his officials have seen reports showing that providers are falling well short of contracted levels; or is he just waiting for the best time to dump those potentially embarrassing reports, in the hope they will go unnoticed?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Far from it. Three providers will have their contracts terminated, four providers have had their funding reduced, all nine remaining providers are being monitored on a monthly basis, and we are currently negotiating some repayments.

Sandra Goudie: Does the Minister stand by his statement that if these people are not able to meet the targets, then they will be required to give money back; if so, what money has he received back, if any?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not sure whether that member is deaf.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I just heard a member standing to ask a question and being subject to consistently loud interjections from Mr Trevor Mallard while that question was being asked. Yesterday, in dubious circumstances, you threw out one of National’s members, who had interjected on a personal explanation, although that is allowed under the Standing Orders. You took no action in this case, when what the member did is absolutely not allowed.

Hon Trevor Mallard: One of the bases of questions is that there are questions and answers, that members listen to the answers, that they are intelligent enough to take on board what is said, and that they adjust their supplementary questions accordingly. This member seems incapable of that.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not need any further comment. I have asked members to moderate their interjections. If there are several, it does lead to disorder in the House. I would ask the Minister to address the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That does not address the matter that was raised with you. I would suggest to you that, in any reasonable circumstance, you would conclude that Mr Mallard worsened the situation by his extremely pompous and arrogant non - point of order, which you appear to have accepted.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The member did not raise the point of order; Mr English raised the point of order, and it was a perfectly valid point of order. The point Mr Mallard was making was a perfectly fair one. When members get up and ask a question that actually asks the Minister to say what he had just said—which is exactly what she did—then they do invite a certain degree of ribald comment from this side of the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I have asked members to moderate their interjections. I think particularly members on both sides of the House who sit near the Speaker do, in fact, persistently make interjections. They are loud and, unfortunately, they are probably heard more than other interjections. I would also note that, in relation to Mr English’s point of order, I am to rule tomorrow on personal explanations, and I would just ask all members to note that the Standing Orders do not allow interjections on anything, in fact. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: For the second time, we are currently negotiating repayment with some of those providers.

Sandra Goudie: What action will he be taking in regard to contracts with district health boards when targets are not being met—with the Waitematā District Health Board, for example, receiving $172,200 to treat 13 problem gamblers, at a cost of $13,246.15 per user?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I will go through those answers once again. Three providers will have their contracts terminated. Four providers will have their funding reduced. All the remaining nine will be monitored on a monthly basis. Some will have to repay money to the ministry—that is what we are negotiating.

Sandra Goudie: Will the Minister ever release the reports he has received on problem-gambling service providers; if he will, when—or is he worried they will highlight his incompetence?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No and yes.

ENDS

© Scoop Media