Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 14 March 2007

Questions to Ministers

United States, President—Discussion Topics with Prime Minister

1. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Prime Minister: When she discusses trade, Afghanistan, and instability in the Pacific with George W Bush at the White House next week, will she also be raising climate change, the United States’ human rights record, and the war in Iraq?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): The time for such meetings is always limited, and my intention is to focus on progressing areas for cooperation. I have made it clear that Iraq is not on my agenda to raise. I have participated in discussions involving President Bush around energy, security, and climate change in APEC within the last 4 months, and I would observe that raising human rights issues is a two-edged sword.

Keith Locke: What will she say to George Bush about the United States’ barbaric treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, and the American Government’s practice of rendering prisoners to torture in third countries?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is not on my agenda to raise issues of that kind with the President. As I have already observed, raising human rights issues is a two-edged sword.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Given the reference made by the Prime Minister to a two-edged sword, what kinds of human rights issues might the United States President raise in relation to New Zealand?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is the practice of the US State Department to issue each year a report on human rights practices in other countries. The one for New Zealand, released just recently, drew attention to the level of violence against women. It drew attention to the poor socio-economic status of indigenous people, to attacks on Jewish cemeteries in our country, and to other issues. I observe that once one opens up issues, then the comeback could be interesting.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will she be telling George W Bush about her aspirations for New Zealand to become carbon neutral, which I think have been stated since the APEC meeting 4 months ago, and will she be asking him to meet the challenge put forward by the European Union by committing to reduce his country’s greenhouse emissions to 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to help tackle climate change?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am perfectly happy to advise the President of what New Zealand is doing with its aspirations to be truly sustainable and carbon neutral in time. I would observe that the President contributed fully to a discussion at APEC around issues of better energy efficiency, more energy security, and investing in the sorts of technologies that would be helpful over time.

Heather Roy: When she is meeting the President of the United States of America, will she reinforce the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ statement that Iraq would slide into total chaos if United States troops were pulled out, or will she say that was the personal opinion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that her Government’s position is different, or will she not be mentioning the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his policies, at all?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I refer the member to the first answer that I gave when I said that Iraq was not on my agenda to raise. With regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I would note that he has already formed a very good working relationship with the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and I am absolutely certain that that good relationship will be referred to in the course of my visit.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has she observed in her time as a Prime Minister or as a parliamentarian that when one spends all one’s time criticising one’s host, the opportunity for the host to have any regard for one’s views is severely limited?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is a highly common-sense observation in my opinion.

Keith Locke: When the Prime Minister says that raising human rights issues is a double-edged sword, is she saying that the human rights violations committed by the United States at Guantánamo Bay and in the rendition programme are in some way comparable with the human rights issues raised in the United States report on New Zealand, and should not New Zealand take the high moral ground in an exchange of human rights standards between the two countries?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am sure that if New Zealand had had detainees at Guantánamo Bay, as other friendly countries such as Australia or the United Kingdom have had, the issue of Guantánamo Bay would be on my agenda. It is not because we have not.

Peter Brown: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to impress upon the President that the solution to the World’s climate change problems depends more on the largest nations, including the USA, doing their very best, and that New Zealand with its very limited population can do little more than be a good global citizen?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said I have participated in a discussion around these issues in a forum with the President present and fully participating. It is my belief and it is the Government’s view that we do need the major emitters on board to make a real difference, and that our contribution, although of course important to us because we want to be seen as a good international citizen—and to be one—is critical. I am mindful that even a large industrial economy such as the British one contributes only around 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and so we really are looking over time for the United States, China, India, and other large economies with a lot of emissions to come in.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a European Parliament report just issued on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners.

Leave granted.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a document Close Guantánamo—Symbol of Injustice, a recent Amnesty International report.

Leave granted.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table two documents, as evidence of Mr Keith Locke’s support of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and his support for the heinous Pol Pot regime.

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

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table a report in the Scientific American of the European leaders’ resolution to slash greenhouse gases with very much more stringent targets.

Leave granted.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table a news report from Brussels from the Environment News Wire of the European Union members’ decision and debate on that matter.

Leave granted.

Corrections, Minister and Department—Confidence of Prime Minister

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Corrections and his department; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): As I told the member in response to exactly the same question yesterday, yes, because the Minister is hard-working and conscientious. Although the department clearly has room to improve, I am confident that with its current leadership, that will happen.

John Key: If the Prime Minister has confidence in the Minister of Corrections, why was he not allowed to front up to the media on the release of the three reports, and why was he not allowed to front up the debate in Parliament yesterday?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I also addressed that issue in response to questions yesterday. The issue cuts across three Ministers’ responsibilities. It cuts across those of the Attorney-General, who appoints the Parole Board, it cuts across those of the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for criminal justice policy, and it cuts across the portfolio of the Minister of Corrections, who is responsible for operations. That is why I, as Prime Minister, decided to speak last week, and that is why the Deputy Prime Minister spoke yesterday.

John Key: What does it say about the Minister of Corrections that yesterday in Parliament he was almost thinking of apologising to the family of Karl Kuchenbecker because the tragic death of their son was being debated in Parliament, but that he frankly could not be bothered to actually apologise to them for the fact that their son died with the responsibility lying with his department?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am advised that when the Minister and the local member of Parliament met with the family, the Minister said to them, in person, that he was very sorry for what had happened. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member will be heard.

John Key: If the Minister of Corrections is so keen to have his apology transmitted to the family, why does he not say it in Parliament then, rather than just in private?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because he is not a grandstander, unlike the member. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: If members on the Government benches do not be quiet so that the member can be heard, they will be leaving the Chamber, too.

John Key: Has the Minister of Corrections offered his resignation to the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, and nor would I accept it.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister recall in 1994 that she stated, in relation to the Michael Joseph Savage team: “He knew the answers lay in the Government taking responsibility. Nothing has changed. That is still the right answer.”, or is that just another example of the “Maharey principle”: what one says in Opposition does not quite work when one is in Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the member had bothered to complete his historical research, he would have found that in the term of the first Labour Government, the concept of a Minister being set out as responsible and not to blame was fully articulated.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Implementation

3. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received regarding the implementation of the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): This week marks the beginning of an information campaign with television ads and the launch of an information line for parents. There have already been more than 500 calls from parents keen to get more information about this very popular policy. At the same time, the Ministry of Education has been running face-to-face workshops with early childhood education providers in order to work with them on how the scheme applies to them specifically. The reaction has been extremely positive. Feedback from the workshops found that 90 percent of attendees clearly understood the policy and felt confident about how they would apply it to themselves.

Lesley Soper: What other reports has the Minister seen regarding the policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen a range of reports. One stated: “The 20-hour entitlement will be welcomed by all families,”. Another report stated an intention to scrap the scheme, and another suggested a replacement with a tax credit. Other reports championed the scheme, arguing for higher funding rates and an extension to all under-5-year-olds, and another argued there should be no campaign to inform parents. Amazingly, all of those contradictory statements come from members of one party—the National Party—which shows that they understand nothing about this policy. But I predict that they will fully support it by the next election.

Paula Bennett: Will the Minister avoid all smarmy words, such as “may be eligible” or “could potentially access 20 free hours”, and tell New Zealand parents right now how many children will actually receive 20 free hours of early childhood education come 1 July; if not, why did he and the Prime Minister promise it to all parents before the election?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I have told that member numerous times, the policy clearly talks about 92,000 young people being eligible for this policy on 1 July. What members would like to know from that member is how she intends to pay for her promise made in the House last night to extend the scheme—despite not liking it—to every single child under 5 years of age. That policy would cost over $1 billion for a tax-cutting party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why on earth is the Minister not paying greater regard to the views of the last questioner, given that when the leader of the National Party made a speech about the “underclass” he put that underclass in the charge of Paula Bennett; and, more particularly, what on earth did that group do to deserve her?

Madam SPEAKER: That last comment was not necessary.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the essence of the question concerned what people had done to deserve the National Party’s policies.

Madam SPEAKER: No. I did indicate that that part of the question was out of order. The Minister is not to address that part.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The first part of the question was whether the Minister thought it was in order to pay more attention to the question. So does that mean that Mr Peters would like Ms Bennett to repeat the question so that the Minister can give us an answer?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: As usual, Hansard will record that I did not say that, at all. Gerry never gets it right.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, either. The Minister was asked to comment on something that was within his ministerial responsibility, but not to comment on the member personally. Would the Minister please address that part of the question.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Just so I stay within the Standing Orders, I say that my interpretation of the question was what people had done to deserve National Party policies. I have to say that if those policies are the answer, then people are asking the wrong question.

Madam SPEAKER: No. That is out of order.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister explain why he is worried about the cost of Ms Bennett’s statements, given Jacqui Dean’s explanation that National would not need to borrow the money but just get it from overseas?

Madam SPEAKER: I cannot quite see how that question falls within the Minister’s ministerial responsibility.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: All I can say in answer to that question is, of course, that it is always—

Madam SPEAKER: The member will please be seated.

Parole—Corrections Department Investigation

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by the statement in his department’s investigation into the management of Graeme Burton’s parole that the failure to undertake a home visit scheduled for November 2006 was “not considered material”; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): The report identifies areas where mistakes were made and makes clear recommendations. I am in the process of implementing those recommended changes.

Hon Bill English: Why did his department conclude that the failure to conduct the November home visit did not matter, when police asked the Department of Corrections that day whether Burton could be recalled because he did not seem to be living at home, only to be told by the department that if there was food in the fridge, that was good enough for them to believe he was living at home?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I understand that the home visit should have been completed in November, but when the police did call at the end of November—on 30 November—they concluded he was still living at the address.

Hon Bill English: How can the failure of his department to visit Burton’s home in November be considered “not material” when Burton had already been warned for not being there on 10 October, when in November he had failed to report on time, when he had two non-association orders issued against him, and when it was not just the police but the armed offenders squad that searched his house on suspicion of possessing firearms?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: As I have indicated, the report does identify areas where mistakes were made. We are moving to make changes to ensure that those mistakes cannot be made again.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the mistakes he is referring to include a failure to act immediately over Burton’s second breach of parole on 12 December when the probation officer was on leave; that another mistake was the failure to conduct a home visit; and that the department knows that both of these mistakes are exactly the ones that occurred in the management of William Duane Bell’s parole just before he killed several people?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I accept that they are mistakes that were made. That is why we have made changes that are already under way—firmer guidelines for probation officers when breaches or suspected breaches of parole occur. There will be changes and more appropriate and timely responses when information is received regarding a parolee’s behaviour. We will ensure the transfer of responsibilities when staff take holidays. A number of changes will result from these reports to prevent this from happening again.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that one result of the tragedy of the Mount Wellington - Panmure Returned Services Association murders was a zero tolerance register set up by the Department of Corrections, which includes requirements for home visits, and immediate action for repeated parole breaches; and, in light of the fact that the department failed on both counts to carry out its own guidelines for the zero tolerance register, what is the point of a zero tolerance register for serious offenders on parole?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There was a requirement for immediate action to be undertaken when parole officers were in receipt of information that might have identified a breach. The fact that they then took too long to action that is a mistake, it has been acknowledged in the report, and it is something that will be changed.

Hon Bill English: When will the Minister finally understand that the public believes that the Government failed in its duty to protect the public in the case of Burton and in the Liam Ashley case, and that the public believes that when there is no accountability for that sort of terrible failure it is almost certain to happen again because that is the record of this department?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There is clear accountability for the lessons to be learnt from any mistakes or failures in the system. The accountability is with the Ministers and the people involved to make the changes to ensure that such mistakes cannot occur in the future.

Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill—Alternative Medicines

5. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Minister of State Services: Why have the complementary medicines and natural health products sectors been included within the scope of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): Complementary medicines and natural health products are included within the scope of the agreement with Australia and not within the bill itself, which will ratify the agreement. New Zealand’s existing therapeutic products law is outdated and unsustainable, and does not adequately manage the public health risks associated with the use of complementary medicines. Serious side effects of complementary medicines, including three deaths, have been reported to the New Zealand centre for adverse reactions monitoring. Complementary medicines have been found to be adulterated with pharmaceutical medicines—such as Viagra—or to contain dangerous amounts of heavy metals, such as lead. It is, therefore, important to regulate those products so that consumers are assured that their health and safety is safeguarded.

Hon Peter Dunne: Who, or what, led the Minister to change her mind and include these sectors, when earlier she had indicated that she was prepared to exclude them and to look to some form of opt-in regime?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Negotiations with Australia took place over a number of years. It was raised with me on a number of occasions that what we needed was for Australia to mutually recognise our complementary medicines sector. When I raised that with our Australian counterparts, they made it clear that it is not possible to have mutual recognition with a country that does not have a regulatory framework or regulatory regime. There is nothing to mutually recognise with, when it comes to complementary medicines, so we would need to regulate within New Zealand. We have gone for a First World system, not a Third World system.

Darien Fenton: Is it true—as Tony Ryall claimed yesterday—that the Government has ratified the treaty with Australia, against the wishes of this Parliament?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, that is not true. The treaty has not, in fact, been ratified. It will not be ratified until the passage of legislation in both countries.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that once the proposed agency is operational and the transitional period completed, an effective traditional remedy or dietary supplement that is not on the approved list will be illegal and not be able to be sold in New Zealand, even if it has been safely used for centuries and has had overseas regulatory authorities’ approval, such as that of the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA)#?

Hon ANNETTE KING: One of the big issues in terms of this regulator is to ensure that we could have some mutual recognition with other overseas countries. What we will not have now is an agency like the FDA agreeing to anything being safe in New Zealand, because there is nothing for it to be able to acknowledge. What we are trying to stop, however, is that in the future we have a country like the United States and its regulator the FDA making decisions for us. What we want is a joint regulator between two friendly nations, in a situation where we are looking at most countries having to make decisions for other countries because the others are unable to have the quality assurance within their own countries.

Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister given any assurances to the Australian Government about the likely fate of this bill; if so, what are they?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The only assurance I have given to the Australian Government is that we will introduce the bill in the form that members have seen it, and that we will allow the public of New Zealand to have submissions and make their views known on this bill. Out of that a bill will emerge. It will then be at the will of Parliament to decide whether that bill goes forward.

Peter Brown: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand’s two largest producers of complementary medicines in support of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill are in fact Australian owned, and that the third-largest producer, Comvita—which I understand served on her advisory panel—is totally opposed to the bill, although it would support the regulation of complementary medicines under separate legislation?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No; I can certainly say that some in Comvita would prefer not to have those products regulated in New Zealand. But, interestingly enough, most of its products are in Australia now and they meet the standards already. I can tell the member that 75 percent of the products available through the normal retail outlets in New Zealand are already on the shelves in Australia, and their producers have the advantage of being able to make a therapeutic claim—something that is illegal in New Zealand at present.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A major part of my question was to ask the Minister whether the two largest organisations in this country were Australia-owned.

Madam SPEAKER: Does the Minister—

Hon ANNETTE KING: I said no, I could not. I then went on to talk about Comvita.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister understand why New Zealanders are so strongly opposed to her plan to cover natural health products when the Government’s own papers state that 60 to 65 percent of the products that are currently on shop shelves now will be wiped from those shelves under this proposal and when the advice of one of New Zealand’s leading natural health products companies is that the cost of regulating a product will go from $2,700 to $64,000 under her plan—a plan that she has mucked up completely?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I would much rather have had the opportunity to do something positive than to sit where that member has for 7 years doing absolutely nothing but whinge. To answer the member’s question, he has totally misinterpreted the consultation document on fees and charges, and I am happy for officials to give him a personal briefing. But this is not the first time the Opposition has misinterpreted an official document. Another example of misinterpretation was that of the Australian regulatory impact statement. Those members opposite got that wrong as well, and they were shown to have got it wrong. The member got this wrong, as well.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table correspondence that shows that the Minister of Health said handing a set of overheads to a National MP was consultation.

Leave granted.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table two documents from an Australian consultant for Valio and Chr. Hansen, one pointing out that the indicative cost to register a new natural product would be A$52,000, and another one pointing out that there was a 28 percent increase in product annual charges and a 20 percent increase in application fees last year for the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Leave granted.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a point of clarification. I have never claimed that handing out overhead transparencies is consultation. Mr Ryall said that I said it was consultation. Certainly, there had been overhead presentations to something like five health spokespeople. I cannot help it if they keep changing them.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr Brownlee?

Gerry Brownlee: No. When the Minister has finished making her ministerial statement, I am happy to respond.

Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the Minister confirm—

Madam SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary question or a point of order?

Steve Chadwick: It is a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, that is not a point of order; it is a question.

Parole Board—Application of Parole Act 2002

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied with the way in which the Parole Act 2002 has been applied by the Parole Board; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I am satisfied that the Parole Board has generally operated within powers provided in the Act. However, the Government is making further amendments to the Criminal Justice Reform Bill, currently before the House. These will deal with the board’s right to receive information, its power to call evidence or witnesses, and its right to receive direct applications from the police for recall where they believe there is a risk to public safety. This will ensure that the Parole Board can make full use of all available information.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that section 28 of the Parole Act states that the Parole Board should release offenders only if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that they do not pose an undue risk to the community; if so, why did the Parole Board fail to meet that basic duty in the case of Graeme Burton?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member knows, I cannot comment on individual cases; I do not have that responsibility. But I can confirm—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You cannot accept that from the Minister. Earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister stated that the reason she has been involved in this case, the reason the Deputy Prime Minister has been involved in this case, and the reason other lesser Ministers have not been involved in this case, is that there is cross-ministerial involvement in it. For the Minister now to say that he is not going to answer that question because he does not deal with individual cases flies directly in the face of the advice the Prime Minister has given this House.

Hon MARK BURTON: The Prime Minister’s advice was clear—that there was multiple ministerial responsibility: the Attorney-General for the appointment of the Parole Board, the Minister of Justice—myself—for the policy of the Parole Board, and the Minister of Corrections for operations. The member’s supplementary question has moved on to an operational matter around a certain case. I am happy to complete my answer, however, and comment on the area of policy the member has raised—but not this specific case.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please complete the answer to the question.

Hon MARK BURTON: The member’s reference to the Parole Act, I believe, is correct, but I would add that the Government already has legislation with a select committee that further strengthens the provisions of the Parole Act—in particular, ensuring that public safety will be the sole criterion for release on parole, after a minimum of two-thirds of a sentence has been served.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister read the guiding principles of the Parole Act of 2002, particularly section 7(1): “When making decisions about, or in any way relating to, the release of an offender, the paramount consideration for the Board in every case is the safety of the community.”; if he has read that, can he tell the House whether he believes that the Parole Board’s recent decision to put Mr John Clarke, who is a recognised high-risk sex offender, back on home detention despite the fact that the last time he was on home detention he breached all its terms and conditions, was a sensible decision?

Hon MARK BURTON: My recollection is that the member’s quotation is correct. As I said to the previous questioner, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I say that one of the driving purposes of the legislation the Government already has before Parliament is to ensure that the safety of the community not only is paramount but becomes the sole criterion to ensure that community safety is properly protected.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister at all concerned by the way in which the Parole Board had already come to a pro forma decision or view that Graeme Burton should be released subject to an updated psychological assessment, when it was that assessment that outlined the allegations that Burton had beaten at least three prisoners, had been segregated for hits on guards, and had continued to rate as “high” for high risk of reoffending, consistent with the five prior psychological assessments?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member knows that I cannot comment on individual cases, but as I have already pointed out to him, the Government is moving to further strengthen legislation already before this Parliament, to ensure that for the Parole Board in future there will be no doubt about the full range of information it can and will have available to it, and will take into full consideration.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister not recall, in this House in 2005, the concerns expressed by New Zealand First to the then Minister of Corrections, Paul Swain, about Mr Clarke, who was a man convicted of kidnapping, raping, beating, and leaving for dead a 15-year-old child—a man who was released on home detention into a social services centre where he made victims out of a staff member and a client—and our concerns that he should be recalled to prison, and does he not recall that Mr Clarke was subsequently recalled to prison from home detention; so what has the Minister now to say to the Parole Board that has put Mr Clarke back on home detention, from which he has again absconded, resulting in a manhunt to recapture and re-imprison him?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I do recall that; and no, I do not have ministerial ability to comment on that individual case. It is not appropriate for me to do so.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Parole Board came to a pro forma view about a prisoner suggesting that prisoners should be released, subject to an updated psychological assessment, when that assessment stated the prisoner had beaten at least three prisoners, had been segregated for soliciting hits on guards, and continued to rate as “high reoffending probability” and had done so in five previous psychological reports, would the Parole Board be operating inside his policy by releasing such a prisoner?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have made clear to the member that whilst I am not commenting on individual cases, this Government has already moved to toughen and strengthen the parole legislation. It will introduce a further Supplementary Order Paper, which I look forward to the member supporting, to ensure that all information is available to the Parole Board and will be taken into consideration.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked about a situation that could exist. If the Minister does not want to answer a question on the basis that it is hypothetical, then I guess that is a way out, but some of us would like to know how policy does actually operate inside his department in this particular responsibility.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question. He does not have to respond to hypothetical ones.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that in addition to ignoring the psychological reports indicating that Burton was at high risk of reoffending, the Parole Board released him in spite of the submission from his victim’s sister who was also concerned about his lack of remorse and his risk of reoffending; and does not this make a sick joke of victims’ rights provisions in the Parole Act, when there is no direction to take their views into account?

Hon MARK BURTON: Without repeating the obvious from my earlier answers, I point out that the Government is already moving to put in front of this House a further Supplementary Order Paper in addition to the legislation—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s what they said after Bell.

Hon MARK BURTON: The legislation is in front of the select committee. If the member opposite who chips and chips wants to support it he should do so. I look forward to that member and his party providing the support for this legislation to ensure that victims of crime are indeed well protected, because that is precisely what this Government’s legislation will deliver.

Gerry Brownlee: Is it the case that against all the best advice, the Parole Board decided to release Graeme Burton knowing that he was at high risk of reoffending, why are those same people still sitting in a position that sees them releasing the likes of Graeme Burton, Kevin Neal, and John Clarke to wreak havoc and tragedy on the communities throughout New Zealand, and why has not the Minister sacked them?

Hon MARK BURTON: Had the member paid attention earlier in the afternoon to what the Prime Minister actually said, he would know that I am not the Minister who appoints the Parole Board, and therefore I simply do not have the ministerial responsibility for the issue he raises. The member really should ask the questions of the appropriate person.

Afghanistan—Level and Nature of New Zealand Assistance

7. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What is the level and nature of assistance that New Zealand is contributing to security and reconstruction in Afghanistan?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): Cabinet decided on Monday to renew the commitment of our provincial reconstruction team to Bamian on the basis that it has done a hugely impressive job there in contributing to both stability and reconstruction, and that it is warmly welcomed by the community. The total deployment of the provincial reconstruction team will again be around 120 people, in and around Bamian. That deployment will be supplemented by five staff officers working with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul and a couple of NCOs helping to train the Afghan National Army. There will also be a new deployment of two medical specialists to help the Multinational Medical Unit in Kandahar, and, for a short period, a redeployment of the frigate in the Arabian gulf as part of the maritime interdiction operation.

Dianne Yates: Is this an adequate level of assistance, given the call for additional efforts in this area?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, it is. Of the 37 nations providing military contributions to Afghanistan, New Zealand ranks, on a per capita basis, in the top half. Of the non-NATO nations, we have the second-highest per capita contribution. We have spent something like $30 million in financial contributions this year to support that deployment, as well as for development assistance. That contribution also needs to be seen alongside the very significant contributions we are making in other areas, such as the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste.

Dianne Yates: Has the New Zealand Defence Force’s contribution made a difference in Afghanistan?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Absolutely. The New Zealand provincial reconstruction team is regarded by the Afghan people themselves, and by other contributing forces, as a model for others to follow. It has worked closely with local authorities and the local community. It has built up an excellent rapport with the people there. It has helped to ensure stability. It has made a major contribution to both physical and social infrastructure. In fact, it has done such an impressive job that other countries, such as Singapore, have made application to provide further troops to work under the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team in Bamian.

Cancer Patients—Radiotherapy Waiting Times

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What are the current radiotherapy waiting times in the six regional cancer centres for category C, which includes patients diagnosed with breast and prostate cancer?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): The waiting time for category C patients is generally within 8 weeks, though some patients are waiting longer. Where that is the case, the centres are taking action to reduce the waiting times. I think it occurs mainly in the Auckland and MidCentral district health boards at this time. More urgent patients are also getting their treatment within the clinically appropriate time frame.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister’s speech to the Labour Party asking: “Why are cancer patients waiting so long for radiotherapy that their cancer is dangerously progressing? I have a friend who waited for 3 months and still does not know for sure whether that wait will have proved fatal.”; and in light of information from the Auckland District Health Board today, and from other district health boards, that shows that numerous cancer patients are waiting in excess of 3 months to begin their radiation treatment, why are those patients waiting well in excess of the 4 weeks that the Prime Minister’s Government says is the best time in which to start radiotherapy treatment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member will be well aware that the 4-week guideline sits on the ministry’s website, but the ministry—and, indeed, the oncology community—has long held the view that waits of up to 12 weeks for category C patients have little or no effect on the cancer outcomes. Indeed, in some cases they are suggested to be of value to patients, because patients need to prepare for the radiotherapy. The long and the short of it is that this Government has increased the number of radiotherapists by more than 30 percent, and has increased the number of radiotherapists in training by more than 100 percent.

Maryan Street: Has the Minister seen the report in today’s New Zealand Herald that the Auckland District Health Board advises a waiting time of 14 to 16 weeks for category C patients, and that a letter to this effect was made available to the New Zealand Herald as proof?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I have seen the report in the New Zealand Herald, which says that a letter was made available to the New Zealand Herald by Mr Ryall. Mr Ryall assured the New Zealand Herald that the letter was current. It is not. The letter is out of date. The current letter advises that the waiting time is not 14 to 16 weeks, but 8 to 12 weeks. Importantly, the letter handed to the New Zealand Herald had no date on it. Again, Mr Ryall has sought to maximise mayhem, and, again, he has been caught.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the Minister thinks it is so good for patients to wait 12 weeks for treatment, why, then, have 89 women from Auckland and 55 women from the MidCentral region been sent to Australia for treatment, to avoid that 12-week waiting period, which he says is so good for women with breast cancer?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not saying it is good. I am saying that—

Hon Tony Ryall: You did say it was good.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I wonder whether I could be heard.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, order, please.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I did not say it was good. I said that a very substantial meta-analysis said that it did little harm. Sometimes there are cases where patients set out to wait, perhaps because they need to have chemotherapy ahead of their radiotherapy, or for whatever reason. But the long and the short of it is that I am proud that our district health boards are so keen to make sure that they can deliver radiotherapy to our citizens in a timely manner that they will expend extra time and effort on sending some patients to Australia if that is what those patients want.

Dr Jackie Blue: Is the Minister aware that under Labour, despite the population increasing by 8 percent, the number of functioning linear accelerators in New Zealand has increased by only one, and does the Minister consider that this is a factor in cancer patients waiting longer and longer for care?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member needs to be careful. She needs to reflect on how many extra patients have received radiotherapy. What she might have inadvertently just done is point to an increase in productivity in the New Zealand health system.

Dr Jackie Blue: Does the Minister not realise that doubling the number of radiation therapist technicians being trained, and calling this a solution, is meaningless when the graduates cannot find a job in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is far better for this country to have a mild excess of radiotherapists than an extreme shortage. Under National, we did; under National, there was a substantial shortage of radiotherapists, and that is why, at the beginning of the term of this Government, there were waiting times that were really excessive. That situation has now been brought under control, because my predecessor, Annette King, made sure that we had people trained up.

Dr Jackie Blue: Is the Minister aware that growth projections for future radiotherapy capacity are based on data that is up to 13 years out of date, and does he not think that this is evidence of a Government that has been hopelessly negligent in its planning for an ageing population and an increasing cancer burden?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Now it seems that the member wants still more linear accelerators. I am sorry to advise the member that that is what we think, too, and there will be a gradual increase in linear accelerators. What is more, there will be a further increase in the productivity of their use. In fact, only on Monday linear accelerator use in Auckland was extended by a further shift.

Dr Jackie Blue: I seek leave of the House to table a document that shows that in the past 7 years, despite the population increasing by 8 percent, the number of functioning linear accelerators has increased by a total of only one.

Leave granted.

Dr Jackie Blue: I seek leave of the House to table a document that shows that the growth projections for radiotherapy planning are based on data that is up to 13 years out of date.

Leave granted.

Hon Annette King: Can the Minister confirm that when Labour became the Government the number of radiotherapists being trained per year—that is, under the previous National Government—was 16, and that that had meant that National had had to send patients to Australia to receive cancer treatment; and that this Government has taken cancer treatment seriously and has invested money in training and services, to improve those services?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I can confirm that that is precisely the case, as it is in many other areas of health. Do not forget that, under the previous Government, not only was radiotherapy training trimmed right back but dental therapy training was cancelled altogether!

I seek leave to table a sample letter that goes out to all Auckland District Health Board radiotherapy patients today—the current letter—which states that the average waiting time is approximately 8 to 12 weeks, not 14 to 16 weeks.

Leave granted.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows the record numbers of patients sent to Australia under this Labour Government, compared with the numbers sent in any other time in history in New Zealand.

Leave granted.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table for the benefit of members the Prime Minister’s speech where she asked why cancer patients are waiting so long for radiotherapy, including her friend who had had to wait 3 months, which is now quite common.

Leave granted.

Electricity Act 1992—Review

9. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister of Energy: Is the Government reviewing the Electricity Act 1992, which allows for remote parts of the electricity network to be cut off from 2013?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): Yes. Section 62 of the Act, as passed when National was last in Government, presently allows remote areas to be cut off from electricity networks from 2013. This does not seem a fair outcome, so Labour is cleaning up after National by reviewing section 62 to ensure that one way or another the lights stay on.

Dave Hereora: Has the Minister received any reports on misunderstandings of the section 62 review process?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. I have received a report that Gerry Brownlee has demanded the review of section 62 be called off. He asserts that he is trying to protect rural users. Sadly, Mr Brownlee has it completely wrong. As it stands, remote rural areas could be powerless after 2013, and the review is needed to ensure the lights stay on. He obviously does not understand the current law. Again National has it completely wrong, as it does with so much of its climate change and energy policy.

Gerry Brownlee: If his Government is so concerned about preserving the networks—or those who are on the end of network—beyond 2013, why does he not just announce that he will change the law rather than go through a review process that leads everyone to believe that he actually wants to cut those people off?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I again reinforce to the member that that is the effect of the current law—the law that we are reviewing. I would like to quote from the Major Electricity Users Group newsletter last week, which does get it right. It notes that it is a complex issue—I admit that it is a complex issue; the member obviously does not get it, but it is a complex issue—but the Major Electricity Users Group agrees that it is better to conduct a review. I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a press release from last week from the befuddled Gerry Brownlee, which states: “This review is completely unacceptable—

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister knows better. Just make the point of order straight without any comment about the member.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table a press release dated 6 March 2007 from Mr Brownlee, which states: “This review is completely unacceptable.”

Leave granted.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table a report from the Major Electricity Users Group that acknowledges that the issue is complex, but states that it is probably better than any other review now.

Leave granted.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): My question is to the “Minister for Deforestation”, and asks: does he stand—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I have just asked members to please stick to the script and not edit or interpolate. It is the Minister of Forestry, please.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Speaker, I note that 17 times National’s leader has been referred to as the co-leader and you have taken no action, so why have you suddenly taken offence to the “Minister of Deforestation”?

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I did take action. Would the member be seated. Now please just ask the question as it is on the Order Paper.

Carbon Credits—Forestry Owners

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Forestry: Does he stand by his statement that the argument that forestry owners have a right to the carbon credits for forests “is not worth a cup of cold water”?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry): Yes. Kyoto Protocol sink credits are the result of Government to Government agreements, in which benefits and liabilities rest with Governments. It was a National-led Government that negotiated and signed the Kyoto Protocol, and it was a Labour-led Government that ratified the protocol, not the forestry industry. Forest owners have no more right to carbon credits than farmers, motorists, or households in New Zealand have a personal financial liability for their emissions.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: If that is the case, why did the Cabinet minute in January 2001 state: “It is agreed in principle that some portion of the carbon credits would go to those undertaking sink activities.” and: “All or most of the sink credits derived from sink activities would be tradable by those that had them.”; why did Cabinet, in January 2001, agree to just that, when the Minister now says that that is wrong?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I could just answer that that was looking to the future—where the member never looks. The Government, of course, is currently consulting on a proposal to allocate carbon credits to those who plant new forests from next year. That is entirely consistent with the in-principle decision taken by Cabinet in 2000. If the member is referring to trees already in the ground before Kyoto was ever thought of, then I suggest he reflect on the fairness of retrospectively allocating a windfall gain to people who planted trees to grow wood, while at the same time granting a windfall loss to those such as farmers, who can do little about the emissions of their stock. The Government, I say to the House, is developing climate change policy that will assist the entire economy to transition to a carbon-constrained future. We are not proposing retrospective windfall gains for a few, at the expense of farmers and taxpayers. Instead, we have a forward-looking policy that will, over time, move to have the costs and benefits lie where they fall.

Steve Chadwick: Can the Minister tell the House who owns the forests that generate carbon credits?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: A large number of Kyoto forests that generate carbon credits are owned by large corporate overseas investors, such as the Japanese-owned Pan Pac Forest Products, Singaporean-owned Earnslaw One, and American-owned Blakely Pacific. Even the Roger Dickie syndicates were heavily subscribed to by wealthy individuals from North America, Asia, and even Switzerland. So the National Party’s latest flip-flop on how to give away carbon credits for forests already in the ground represents a large transfer of wealth from New Zealand taxpayers to foreign investors. Perhaps the member, or the leader of the National Party, would like to tell the House what assurances he gave—or those members gave—about how many hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of carbon credits from the pockets of ordinary New Zealand taxpayers the National Party would give to those investors, when he met yesterday in Wellington with the managing director of one of those foreign-owned companies.

R Doug Woolerton: If forestry owners were to receive carbon credits, would it be reasonable to assume that they would also own carbon debits; if so, what would the likely costs of those be to forestry owners?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: That is a very good question. Of course, if the credits were allocated to forest owners, they would also have the liabilities. We always hear from the proponents of this about the credits; we never hear about the liabilities and all the problems that those would create. They should start to do some thinking about the counterfactual here.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Prime Minister state last week that there was never any promise to the industry that the credits would be devolved, when the Government document entitled Forest Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol, signed by Pete Hodgson in 2001, states on page 10: “Cabinet confirmed that … the benefit from sink credits would accrue to those undertaking the sink activities.”, and on page 12 gives an example of a Mr Pine planting trees after 1990 and states: “He will therefore be eligible for sink credits proportional to the carbon stock increase between 2008 and 2012”—or is that just another example of the Prime Minister being economical with the truth?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Prime Minister is reflecting the exact objective fact about this policy. There are 168 countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, including key trading partners such as countries in the European Union and Japan. Of those 168 countries, New Zealand is the only country in the world that has a policy to devolve Kyoto sink credits. In New Zealand’s case, this is a permanent forest establishment under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, which enjoys the unanimous support of this House. The member seems to forget that he voted for it. Furthermore, the Government is presently consulting on a range of options to encourage afforestation. One option proposed is to devolve credits to those who plant new forests from 1 January next year for normal rotational harvesting. That is completely in accord with all the Cabinet decisions that have been made and with the statement of the Prime Minister.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister believe that in order to protect the best interests of foresters, more information on the private ownership of carbon credits is required, and that hasty decision-making could cost foresters in the long term?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: A lot of farm foresters, for example, have been stirred up by a few people who have a very significant financial interest in this matter. I can assure the House that in almost every case, those farm foresters will not be caught in this kind of deforestation issue, because the compliance cost of dealing with less than, say, 100 hectares of farm forest will not matter. Almost all of the people who have been going to the meetings and being stirred up by people like Mr Dickie are not caught up in the great catastrophe that they have been told they are caught up in. The consultative process we are going through is eliciting submissions from the people whom we have been consulting with—all of the stakeholders—and they will inform the basis of some solid policy, going forward. That might be a complete revelation for the National Party members across the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has not one Minister nor any member of the Government fronted up to the 16 public meetings on the Government’s forestry and land-use policies, which have been attended by over 2,000 people,—or when the going gets tough, does this Government simply pay expensive flunkeys to take the stick for its broken promises and policy botch-ups?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think it is really quite instructive for this House to hear from someone who aspires to be in executive Government refer to highly qualified and principled public servants as “expensive flunkeys”. That member has quite a reputation for attacking the Public Service. This Government has empowered and rebuilt the Public Service since it came to office. The reality is that these meetings are not for political grandstanding by Mr Dickie or by the member who is shouting across the Table; these meetings are to elicit—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please be seated. The Minister has been asked a question; he is addressing it. Would those members who ask questions please have the courtesy to listen rather than answer them for the Minister. The Minister is attempting to answer the question. Constant and repeated interruptions do not assist that process. Will the Minister please answer succinctly, if possible.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: These meetings are to elicit information from the Government advisers on this policy; that is what the meetings were set up for. When I hear that people like Mr Smith are going to them and orating at them, I am very pleased I am not present.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I assure the Minister that the public members there welcomed me. They gave me almost universal applause.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member just ask the question, please.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that the “Minister of Deforestation” is a fairer description of his role—

Madam SPEAKER: I have asked the member to please use the Minister’s correct title rather than the “Minister of Deforestation”. [Interruption] I know Wednesday is members’ day, but would the member please just ask the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it not a fairer description of the Minister’s role to be the “Minister of Deforestation”, given that he is the first Minister to hold the portfolio when there has been overall net deforestation, that at public meetings organised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry from Invercargill to Whangarei there have been unanimous motions of no confidence in him as Minister, and that even the very moderate New Zealand Timber Industry Federation on Monday stated: “For some time the federation has been sceptical of Mr Anderton’s commitment to the success of the forest industry.”?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Having motions of no confidence moved in me by Mr Dickie and seconded by the member who has just spoken is an absolutely positive honour. I am pleased it has happened.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the accusation that I second motions of no confidence, I have to assure the House it was totally unnecessary for me to do so. Over a hundred members of the public at the meeting were fighting to be able to second the motion.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the Cabinet minute from January 2001, in which the Government said that a portion of the carbon credits from forests would be allocated to landowners.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table a document signed by Mr Pete Hodgson that was also distributed. It is titled Forest Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol, and states that foresters will receive the credits for their Kyoto—

Leave granted.

State-owned Enterprises—Management

11. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Finance: E mātau ana ia kei te tukua te whakahaere o ngā hua me ngā taunaha a te Karauna, pērā i ērā katoa a ngā hinonga Kāwanatanga i te wā nei, mā tētahi huarahi whakakaha ake ai i te wāriu o ngā haumi a te Kāwanatanga, meinā āe, he aha ai?

[Is he confident that the management of the Crown’s assets and liabilities in the case of all State-owned enterprises is currently delivered in a way that enhances the value of the Government’s investments; if so, why?]

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): In a financial sense, yes. In the 12 months ending 30 June 2006, State-owned enterprises earned nearly $1.5 billion in profit and saw equity growth of nearly $2.7 billion, or over 30 percent. Of course, individual issues of one sort or another will always arise.

Dr Pita Sharples: What explanation, then, does the Minister have for the following comment made by the Prime Minister on Monday: “It has come as something of a surprise to many of us that Landcorp was disposing of land at the rate that it was, particularly land in sensitive areas.”; and would the Minister agree that the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit’s management is less than satisfactory if even the Prime Minister is unaware of the business operations of that State-owned enterprise?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not directly responsible for the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit. That unit is the responsibility of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. In any case, the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit is not responsible for the decisions made by a State-owned enterprise; it is responsible for oversight. In terms of the member’s original question, that issue, of course, is not one about the value of the Government’s investments being enhanced; it is about whether some of those investments should not have their value enhanced in a financial sense but be used for other purposes.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s management of Whenuakite Station, which has recently been described as patches of woolly nightshade, ragwort, half-sprayed gorse, and cattle carcasses of skin and bones rotting in the paddock, is an insult to the Hauraki iwi who have fighting to get that land back in good working order, or does he see it, as most people do, as being symptomatic of a Government that has no genuine consideration for the Māori partner to the Treaty settlement process?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I completely reject the latter assertion. Of course, no specific claim has yet been lodged by a mandated group over Whenuakite Station. The issue here is that land with potential value was being disposed of, particularly coastal land, without Ministers being made aware of it. Quite different processes are now in place to deal with that kind of issue.

Dr Pita Sharples: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s comments at her press conference on Monday that Landcorp is not just any other commercial farmer, and that the Crown has entrusted its land to Landcorp to use properly; and why did it take the actions of Ngāti Kahu at Rangiputa Station, of Tūwharetoa at Taurewa, and of Hauraki iwi at Whenuakite before the activities of Landcorp were brought to the Prime Minister’s attention?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I know the member will find it hard to believe this, but the actions of the iwi at Whenuakite did not cause Cabinet’s reaction. Cabinet’s reaction was around the potential disposal of very high-value coastal property in a very sensitive area in terms of coastal values. This highlighted the need for both a review of the processes and also a review of the total landholdings of Landcorp where some of those landholdings might be better situated within other agencies such as the Department of Conservation.

Child, Youth and Family—Confidence

12. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she have confidence in Child, Youth and Family Services; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes; but there is always room for improvement.

Anne Tolley: Why, after removing a 7-year-old boy found in a P lab during an armed offenders squad raid by 40 police, did Child, Youth and Family in Tauranga not advise the police or the courts that it was placing the child with his grandmother, before his drug-dealing parents were bailed to the same address later that day?

Hon RUTH DYSON: In instances like that it is a requirement for all Child, Youth and Family staff to follow the accepted procedures. If, at any stage, that has been breached, that will not be supported by me as Minister. But, too often, the member has made allegations in this House that have been totally disproved on the slightest shred of investigation. Nothing that the member says in accusing any Child, Youth and Family staff member has much credibility.

Anne Tolley: How bad is it that a child who is taken out of a P lab to protect him from his P-addicted parents then ends up in the same house as his parents, because nobody has been told; what is the Minister going to do to make sure that it never happens again?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I said in reply to the previous question, very little that that member accuses Child, Youth and Family staff of doing has, on any investigation, turned out to be correct. If there are breaches of appropriate, professional social work practice, I will not support it.

Russell Fairbrother: What are the key pieces of work that Child, Youth and Family is engaged in that contribute to the well-being of New Zealand children?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A great of work is under way, actually—too much to list here—but it includes helping to raise awareness in the community about caring for our children and preventing abuse; implementing the differential response model to ensure that all families receive the right support from the right agency; responding faster to increased notifications and completing investigations in a timely way; increasing the number of qualified social workers, and, in particular, the number of registered social workers; and increasing the workforce, training, and capacity of youth justice services.

Anne Tolley: Why did Child, Youth and Family take weeks and weeks to adhere to a court order to return an 11-month-old baby to its parents, as it did with the Carter family as seen on Close Up last night?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Because before returning Joshua to the care of his parents, the department needed to be assured that no harm would come to that child.

Anne Tolley: What is her response to the serious concerns raised publicly by an experienced British social worker recruited to Child, Youth and Family, who claimed that the standards of Child, Youth and Family social workers fell far short of what was expected, they used unethical practices, they acted like police rather than social workers, they broke families apart unnecessarily, they were inexperienced, and they were not properly trained?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I absolutely agree that it is very traumatic, particularly for an inexperienced social worker, to be party to the removal of a child from his or her family. That would be traumatic for anyone, let alone someone who is very new to the New Zealand environment, but we do have very high standards of social work practice, backed by statute in legislation, and in my view our primary consideration of the safety of the child is the best.

Anne Tolley: If this British social worker’s claims were important enough for the Prime Minister to pass on to the Minister herself, why did she not take them seriously enough to meet whistle-blowing Mr Ward, as she promised the public she would?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yet again the member is misrepresenting the facts. I made no promise at all to meet Mr Ward. I gave him a commitment that senior officials in the department would meet him to listen to his concerns, and that promise was delivered. Mr Ward himself, when I responded and said I wanted officials to meet him, said: “Great. How do we go about arranging it?”. The meeting was arranged and did take place.

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table a story published in the Bay of Plenty Times detailing the case of the 7-year-old Tauranga boy who was uplifted from his parents in a P lab.

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

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Close Up programme shown last night, in which the British social worker describes standards falling far short of what he had expected in Children, Youth and Family, and unethical behaviour.

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media