Thursday, 22 March 2007
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers

1. Māori Customary Rights—Water
2. Laboratory Services, Auckland—Conflict of Interest
3. Māori Youth—Employment
4. Auckland District Health Boards—Deputy Chairman
5. Sexual Violence—Government Response
6. Laboratory Services, Auckland—Consultation
7. Daylight Saving—Government Policy
8. National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Qualification Format
9. Annual Leave—1 April 2007 Changes
10. Corrections, Department—Confidence
11. Wellington Inner-city Bypass—Time Savings
12. Housing New Zealand Corporation—Subletting of State Houses

Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers

Māori Customary Rights—Water

1. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for the Environment: He aha ngā kupu tohutohu kua whiwhi e ia mai i ngā rōpū Māori whiriwhiri kaupapa me Te Puni Kōkiri, e pā ana ki te mana tuku iho o te Māori mō te wai?

[What advice has he received from Māori reference groups and Te Puni Kōkiri regarding Māori customary rights to water?]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: Mō te Minita o te Taiao, kāre anō i whiwhi i ngā whakaaro a Te Puni Kōkiri mō tēnei kaupapa. Mēnā ka whakaarohia taua mema ki ngā mahi a tētehi komiti Māori nā te hiahia o ngā kaiwhakahaere ā-iwi i whakatū kia whakamārama i ngā mahi a te Sustainable Water Programme of Action. Kua whiwhi ō rātou whakaaro i tētehi hui i te 31 o Hānuere. Kei ngā Minita i nāianei, mā rātou hei whakaarohia e ngā whakautu.

The Minister for the Environment has not yet received specific advice from Te Puni Kōkiri officials on this matter. The member will be referring, perhaps, to proposals by a Māori technical advisory group set up by iwi to facilitate engagement with Māori under the Sustainable Water Programme of Action. These proposals were passed to officials at a meeting of chief executives on 31 January earlier this year. They have been passed on to Ministers, who will be considering them in due course, at which time a Government response will be provided.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. If the Sustainable Water Programme of Action is about sustainability only, why is the Government promoting it with the slogan: “Four million careful owners”, thereby misinforming the public that water is owned by the Crown on their behalf, when the very clear advice from the Māori reference groups and Te Puni Kōkiri is that Māori customary rights to water still exist or are, at the very least, contestable in court?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Government has been very clear on its position and approach to water—that is, that water is a public resource. A lot of views are currently being considered. The best way for that to be done, proactively, is through the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.

Charles Chauvel: What discussions with Māori have taken place on the Sustainable Water Programme of Action?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In addition to the latest proposals, I can advise that extensive consultation has already taken place with Māori. Key issues raised by Māori include the need to act to improve poor water quality, and the need for more robust environment bottom-lines in water allocation processes, more public awareness of the importance of freshwater resources, better incorporation and understanding of Māori knowledge in management processes, better capacity for Māori and local government to work together on decision making for water resources, and no privatisation of water resources. Those issues are currently being raised by Māori and are being considered by this Government.

Tariana Turia: Tēnā koutou. What is the Minister’s response to the statement that the deliberate Government campaign to blur the issue of water ownership is to create the illusion of Crown ownership of water for the public good so that the Government can be free to sell off water rights to overseas conglomerates as it is doing with chunks of foreshore and seabed, prime coastal properties, and farmland?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I can state categorically that the Government’s position is that water is a public resource that the Government and local authorities will continue to manage on behalf of all New Zealanders. Importantly, water is precious to us all and I can advise the member that this Government has no intention of privatising water.

Metiria Turei: If the Government is so committed to the concept of water being a public resource managed by the Crown on behalf of everyone, what then is the point of an extensive consultation to get advice from Māori about what it might mean for them, both under their Treaty obligations and under tikanga, and is it simply that these apparently extensive consultations are a sham, when in fact at the end of the day all of that advice will be disregarded by the Government as it makes its decisions based on its already committed view that water is a public resource and is not in the hands of Māori at all?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That is certainly not the starting position of the Government. It is acknowledged that water is a public resource that is precious to us all, and because it is precious to us all we have to find ways to reconcile how that resource can be utilised for the benefit of everybody.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is the Minister aware that Wakatu and Ngāti Rārua - Ātiawa Iwi Trust had jointly applied for rights to take water from the Motueka Plains aquifer, and does he support claims made by Wakatu chief executive Keith Palmer that landowners should have the first right to the precious resource of Motueka groundwater; if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I am sure the Minister is considering the views of Wakatu at this moment.

Laboratory Services, Auckland—Conflict of Interest

2. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: When did he first become aware that there may be conflict of interest concerns over the greater Auckland district health boards’ consideration of changes to community laboratory services, and what action did he take?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Madam Speaker—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh!

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have at least pleased Dr Smith today! The Minister of Health replies that he became aware that there might be a conflict of interest in terms of the Auckland laboratory tender on 16 July 2006, when Dr Paul Hutchison asked him a parliamentary question. He was advised by the ministry, which had spoken directly to the Auckland District Health Board, that Dr Tony Bierre, an Auckland District Health Board member, was a shareholder in Labtests Auckland. He was also advised that Dr Bierre had stood down from all board business 6 months prior to the issuing of the community laboratory request for proposal. The Minister provided that advice to Dr Paul Hutchison. However, Judge Asher’s judgment states that Dr Bierre actually stood down on 21 December 2005, some 18 days before the issuing of the request for proposal.

Hon Tony Ryall: What other action has the Minister taken to satisfy himself as to the handling of the conflict of interest?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Minister relied on the information that was provided at the time by the Ministry of Health. He believed in good faith that the information provided was the correct information. What the Minister could not bargain on was that Dr Tony Bierre was prepared to mislead not only the chair and deputy chair of the district health board but all members of the district health board, in terms of his actions.

Heather Roy: Does the Minister stand by the statement in his letter to me, dated 19 July 2006, regarding the tendering of laboratory services: “Those processes need to be transparent and open.”; if so, why did he steadfastly refuse to do his job and take proper oversight of the tendering process in Auckland, a process that he knew on 16 July—3 days earlier than that letter—was an inside job riddled with conflict of interest?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Of course the Minister believes there ought to be transparency in tenders. That is what is expected, but it is just not possible for the Minister of Health to oversee 16,500 contracts or tenders. No Minister of Health whom I am aware of has taken personal responsibility for tenders and contracts. Those Ministers did not do so under a National Government and they have not under a Labour Government.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister now regret defending to the hilt last year the new provider, in light of the huge public disquiet at the time about both Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest and his proposed slashing of Auckland lab testing services, such as when the Minister told Parliament in October last year that the new provider was “building a high-quality laboratory service for Aucklanders”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Minister regrets that the appropriate processes that he believed ought to be followed were shown by the judgment not to have been followed.

Hon Tony Ryall: What assurance or advice on the conflict did the Minister seek from each of the three district health board chairs in Auckland, Mr Brown, Kay McKelvie, and Pat Snedden?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Minister received information via the Ministry of Health, which contacted the Auckland District Health Board to ask about the allegations made in the question by Dr Hutchison. The Minister was then assured that the conflict of interest had been dealt with.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that a conflict of interest was evident when the chairman of the Auckland District Health Board made very disparaging remarks towards the staff of Diagnostic Medlab; if he does accept that, then why does he not take a leaf out of Dr Cullen’s book and advise the chairman that ethics won, he lost, so he should eat that, and that Wayne Brown should be the recipient of his own advice and go and drive a taxi?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think the member is being a little harsh, in terms of decision making. There are more people than Wayne Brown on the district health board. Responsibility rests with the board for the decisions it has made—that is, not with just one member but with the board.

Hon Tony Ryall: Further to my previous supplementary question, is that all the Minister did?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Until the Minister was made aware of the conflict in the High Court judgment that came out, he believed he had received the appropriate information from the Ministry of Health. However, if he had received the copy of Dr Hutchison’s letter that was provided to Mr Brown, he may well have been a little confused. I happen to have the letter that Dr Hutchison wrote to Mr Brown. It states: “I enclose a copy of the letter from Dr Tony Bierre, a pathologist for whom I personally have great respect. Dr Bierre is well respected nationally. Clearly, he has a conflict of interest in being a member of the Auckland District Health Board. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if you would look at this letter carefully, as I believe having choice is very important. The service is to be tendered on an open-book basis. Thank you for your consideration of this application.”

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister saying to this House that conflicts of interest were raised not only in a written question on 16 July but also in a question in the House later in July, that there have been numerous newspaper reports of concerns about a conflict of interest in this case, that the Minister has received a large amount of correspondence on this issue, and that all he did to satisfy himself was to ask his ministry officials to make a phone call?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, there was not a question in this Parliament on 16 July. On 16 July a written question was received from Dr Hutchison. A reply was received and given to him on 20 July, and the Ministry of Health provided that information from the district health board. It was a year after Dr Hutchison wrote the letter that he actually asked the question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is the Minister telling the House that Dr Paul Hutchison knew of a conflict of interest and yet, despite that, instead of recommending to the board that it did not accept any approach from Dr Bierre, passed that approach on and supported the good character of Dr Bierre?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I certainly can confirm that. In his comments, Dr Hutchison has made it clear he is the good guy in this because he said that clearly there was a conflict of interest. However, he did go on to say: “I would be grateful if you would look at this letter”—Dr Bierre’s letter—“carefully, as I believe having choice is very important. The service is to be tendered on an open-book basis.” Now Dr Hutchison was, in fact, writing in support of the letter that was attached to his letter, which I also happen to have, and I am prepared to table both.

Hon Tony Ryall: So now that the High Court has turned over a half a billion - dollar contract and has found that her hand-picked district health board chairman disobeyed every common principle of handling a conflict of interest, is the fact that 1.25 million people have no certainty of lab contracts all Dr Paul Hutchison’s fault?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Obviously it is not all Dr Paul Hutchison’s fault. In fact, Dr Paul Hutchison is a very honourable member, and he would have written that letter in good faith for his very good friend Dr Tony Bierre. The point I am raising is that there is more to this than has been put out by the National Party, which is prepared to play politics with pathology services in order to make a few political points. For example, in National’s singling out of Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan, members would think those two men have never received appointments from a National Government. In fact both of them were appointed by National, when it was in office, to high positions. That included Ross Keenan was made a director of Counties-Manukau Health in October 1999. He was good enough to be appointed by a National Government, but suddenly those two men have become Labour Party lackeys. How did that happen?

Hon Tony Ryall: Having read the judgment of the High Court, does the Minister think that Mr Brown, Kay McKelvie, and Pat Snedden should have signed the Labtests Auckland contract, knowing that Dr Bierre was actively involved in the formation and development of so much of this process, and in light of the High Court saying that that contract should never have been signed?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Minister stands by the judgment made by the judge and released earlier this week.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If, in future, members of Parliament are aware of this sort of conflict, would the Minister of Health prefer that the matter be brought to his attention rather than be covered up? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Contributions across the floor are getting out of hand again, and we cannot hear what is being said.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, the Minister would prefer that to happen. However, it took Dr Hutchison a year from when he wrote the letter to Mr Brown—which I will table in a moment—to raise a question. I also have to ask what knowledge Dr Jackie Blue had, because she was also a board member, elected on the same ticket as Dr Bierre, and Dr Bierre has said he was a close friend of Dr Jackie Blue. I would be interested to know what knowledge she had and what she passed on to the National Party, in terms of knowing about that conflict of interest, when she became a member of this House.

Hon Tony Ryall: What action does the Minister think Wayne Brown should have taken upon receipt of Dr Hutchison’s letter, and does she agree with the High Court that Wayne Brown did not take the appropriate action and should never have allowed Bierre to make a bid in this area?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Minister believes that Mr Brown, at the time, took the right action. He, in fact, wrote a letter on 8 July to Dr Tony Bierre, in which he stated: “I must record my disappointment”—and this is in the judgment—“that this letter is the first time I was aware that your company was involved in negotiations with ADHB. I am advised that you should now be excluded from considerations on lab testing and the current regional process. I draw your attention to the obligations under the Crown Entities Act. Both Acts—the Public Health and Disability Act and the Crown Entities Act—set out very clearly the handling of conflicts of interest.” Mr Brown wrote that letter to Tony Bierre, who then said he was mothballing any laboratory project he had. He did not do so, and continued to mislead Mr Brown. I do not understand why the attack from the National Opposition is against Mr Brown and National is very carefully shielding Dr Tony Bierre.

Peter Brown: Can the Minister explain why, after the tender process had been approved, Wayne Brown said that Diagnostic Medlab staff “can either work for the new company … or drive a taxi.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I cannot explain the words of any person. That would have to be explained by the person himself.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a copy of the High Court judgment in this case, which states: “If Mr Brown had checked he would have found that Bierre had not abandoned his attempts”.

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

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table Dr Paul Hutchison’s full letter to Mr Wayne Brown.

Leave granted.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table the letter that Dr Tony Bierre sent to Dr Paul Hutchison seeking his support, and a letter that was forwarded on by Dr Hutchison to Mr Brown.

Leave granted.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table Mr Brown’s letter to Dr Tony Bierre, where he sets out that he was very disappointed to find out, for the first time, that Dr Bierre’s company was involved in negotiations.

Leave granted.

Heather Roy: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson, Minister of Health, to myself, dated 19 July 2006, in which he said it was important that laboratory tendering processes were transparent and open—that was 3 days after he knew there was a blatant conflict of interest in Auckland.

Leave granted.

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald report that quotes Wayne Brown as saying: “They can either work for the new company … or drive a taxi.”

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

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table the ruling from Justice Raynor Asher, in which he points out that the letter I sent to Wayne Brown was both clear and careful.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. I am really tired of members intervening on points of order, as I cannot hear above the normal chatter in the Chamber.

Māori Youth—Employment

3. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: He aha ngā ripoata kua whiwhi e ia mō ngā whakatutukinga mahi e pā ana ki te hunga rangatahi Māori e whai mahi ana?

[What reports has she received on the performance of Māori youth in employment?]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs): Kua kite au i tētahi o ngā ripoata e kī ana e kaha e ngā rangatahi kia whai mahi. He mea tino pai rawa atu tērā.

[I have seen one of the reports stating that Māori youth in employment is strong. That is really wonderful.]

I have been advised that the household labour force survey shows that the number of Māori youth aged between 15 and 19 years in employment increased between 1999 and 2006 by 25 percent. This is a greater increase than the overall change in this age group. Also, these statistics show that the rate of unemployed Māori youth aged between 15 and 19 years decreased by nearly 20 percent over the same period. This shows a strong commitment by this Government to getting young Māori people into work, further education, training, or employment.

Moana Mackey: What reports has the Minister seen on progress to reduce the number of Māori young people receiving the unemployment benefit?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Unlike this Government, the previous Government did not seem to care about young people. In 1999, when Labour came into Government, the number of Māori aged between 18 and 19 years who were on the unemployment benefit stood at nearly 6,000, and now there are only 875 Māori aged between 18 and 19 years on the unemployment benefit. There is a good story.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has a relatively strong voice and she is talking quite loudly, but I am having trouble hearing those figures. Can she be asked to repeat them, please?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I was having trouble at the end, too. The point is that if members make throwaway comments about others that have no relevance to the question, then they can expect to get a response in this House. I ask all members to stick in future to asking and answering them without superfluous comment.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: This Government is making a difference in ensuring that young Māori are actively engaged. In fact, the employment statistics show that when Labour came into office in 1999 the number of unemployed young Māori aged between 18 and 19 stood at 6,000, and now it is 875. That is a good story that shows that more young Māori are in work, and more young Māori are being encouraged to stay in education, or get further training, and get a job.

Auckland District Health Boards—Deputy Chairman

4. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Why was Mr Ross Keenan appointed deputy chairman of the three Auckland district health boards, and does he have confidence in him in those three roles?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Mr Ross Keenan was appointed by the previous Minister of Health because of his considerable experience in, and knowledge of, the Auckland health sector, including his being a member of what was Counties-Manukau Health from 1999, and also being the chair of the Counties Manukau District Health Board until 2004. He was appointed to carry out the very important task of pulling the three boards together to work collaboratively for the good of the Auckland region.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister refused to answer the question about whether she has confidence in Mr Ross Keenan, and I wonder whether she would like to complete her answer, with your indulgence.

Hon ANNETTE KING: In fact the member asked two questions, and I have the right to answer one. But I am happy to say, on behalf of the Minister of Health, that he has confidence in the role of deputy chair of those three district health boards that Mr Keenan has carried out from 2004. In fact, the National Party urged that there be closer cooperation between the boards, and one of the reasons the previous Minister looked very carefully at having one experienced person in that role across the Auckland region was to help bring those boards together.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister have confidence in Mr Ross Keenan?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have confidence in the work that Mr Ross Keenan has done as deputy chair. If the member is asking whether I have confidence in Mr Ross Keenan in relation to the contract that has been overturned, then the answer is the same one I gave yesterday. I believe I will have confidence in the board when I see the services that are provided on 1 July.

Hon Tony Ryall: Did Mr Keenan make any enquiries as to Dr Bierre’s conflicts of interest when Mr McKernan raised the matter with him in June 2005, or was Mr Keenan too eager to have Dr Bierre involved, as the judgment says, because Mr Keenan thought Dr Bierre’s presence as a board member would support a management view of dealing more aggressively with Diagnostic Medlab?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am unable to answer that question directly. I believe that the report indicates that Mr Keenan was aware of the conflict of interest, which was raised in around June, but he too believed that that conflict of interest had been handled. He obviously, like Dr Hutchison, had a lot of faith in Dr Bierre, his reputation, and his ability to serve as a board member. He too was, no doubt, influenced by the international and national reputation of Mr Bierre.

Hon Tony Ryall: Would the Minister have expected his appointee, Mr Keenan, to express to board members his concern that Dr Bierre was involved in the Labtests Auckland bid, in light of Mr Keenan’s ongoing correspondence and detailed discussions with Dr Bierre during the formative stages of the laboratory services contracting in Auckland?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There is no doubt that Dr Bierre managed to hoodwink not only Mr Brown and the rest of the board members but also the deputy chair of the three district health boards, because in July 2005 Dr Bierre said he had mothballed any proposals he had. He was taken to be a man of honour and integrity, and as such his word was taken that he had mothballed such proposals. I believe that the chair and the deputy chair had the right to believe that a man’s word was his bond. In this case, it was not.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister received any advice on what action his predecessor, Annette King, took to prevent a situation where poor performance by her appointees has resulted in an unprecedented court judgment setting aside a contract worth half a billion dollars, and highlighting the mismanagement performance of her appointees?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is interesting that the inappropriate behaviour in this case was not from an appointee of the previous or the current Minister of Health, but from a member of a district health board who was elected on a Citizens and Ratepayers ticket—which is the National Party, as everybody knows. I am amazed that Tony Ryall would be pointing the finger at a member who was elected from his own party.

Sexual Violence—Government Response

5. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Women's Affairs: What is the Government doing to address sexual violence?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs): This week the Government agreed to establish a ministerial group to address the issue of sexual violence. This group will be supported by an expert task force, comprising senior Government officials, non-governmental organisations, and the judiciary. The terms of reference for this group will include providing advice to the Government on how to reduce the incidence and impact of sexual violence.

Sue Moroney: Has the Minister seen any responses to the announcement; if so, what do they say?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have seen reports in which groups who work with the victims of sexual violence say they are pleased that the Government is setting up the task force to deal with this issue, and a number of them will be joining this weekend’s hui on sexual violence organised between the interagency Sexual Violence Project Team and the non-governmental organisation National Network Ending Sexual Violence Together. Progress will be made this weekend on a range of issues, including looking at the provision of services to victims, prevention initiatives and programmes to reduce offending, criminal justice system responses to sexual offending, and how victims are supported through the criminal justice system.

Laboratory Services, Auckland—Consultation

6. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Health: Has he seen the finding of Justice Asher that the Auckland regional district health boards had a duty to provide “an informative and explicit outline” of proposed changes to diagnostic laboratory services in the region as a basis for consultation with affected parties, and what explanation has he been given for their failure to do so?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, I have seen the paragraph 289 of Justice Asher’s judgment, in which he concluded that the district health boards are not able to present self-imposed time problems as an excuse for a compromise consultation process.

Hon Murray McCully: When did the Minister become aware that behind the district health boards’ public assertion that they could make $15 million in cost savings was a plan to, in fact, cut services—for example, the plan to change the turn-round time for results of routine lab tests from 12 hours to 48 hours; and does he approve of the board’s contracting for changes of that sort without telling the public?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is important that district health boards, or any Government agency, undertake consultation in the manner that has been established. It goes right back to the loss of Air New Zealand v Wellington International Airport, which set out how consultation ought to be undertaken. Those principles are established in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and the Crown Entities Act 2004, and it is the Minister’s expectation that consultation will be carried out in the manner that has been established.

Hon Murray McCully: When did the Minister become aware that part of the $15 million in alleged savings under the lab test proposal involved a plan to shift 50 percent of tests to general practitioners and primary health organisations without compensation—a plan the primary health organisations were unaware of—and does he approve of boards embracing changes of that sort without telling either the public or the affected professionals?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is clear from the judgment that the board had an obligation to ensure that it consulted properly. However, in terms of the member raising issues around cost cutting, and so on, it certainly has been one of the issues in terms of the price of services, to the extent that his colleague Dr Hutchison said on Morning Report that having two contracts would actually keep the price down. So price obviously is an issue for members of this House and taxpayers.

Hon Murray McCully: How could directors appointed by the Minister have decided to change the turn-round times for results for a routine lab test from 12 hours to 48 hours, and tell one of the bidders for a half-billion-dollar contract so that he could pitch his tender accordingly but not tell the other bidder?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I am not able to explain—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Well, what a silly man! He sits right opposite me and we have this constantly.

Madam SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. We will now hear the questions and the answers in silence. This chipping backwards and forwards across the Chamber means that the rest of us cannot hear. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. While you were on your feet giving that ruling, Nick Smith interjected again. I would just ask how we can be expected to obey your rulings when he will not even listen to them in silence.

Madam SPEAKER: If the questions and answers on this question are not heard in silence, members will be leaving the Chamber.

Hon ANNETTE KING: To continue—I said no, I was not able to answer the question the member has raised, at this point. But I am sure the Minister of Health would be happy to answer it next week, the week after, or whenever the member puts it down.

Hon Murray McCully: Does the Minister accept that just as the High Court has found that the district health boards had an obligation to be honest and factual in telling the public about plans relating to their laboratory services, the Minister too had an obligation to ensure that the public was treated honestly in those matters; and can the Minister explain how the Minister, having had that information, failed to share it with affected members of the public?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am not aware of any Minister of Health who may have information regarding a contract—whether it is a contract to build a hospital or a contract to provide services—who would go out and disclose information when it was not the Minister’s right to do so. The contracting of services is not done by the Minister of Health, and I cannot think of any occasion when that member was a Minister of any sort where he went out and disclosed a contract that rightly belonged to an agency that should be disclosing it.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister have confidence that the same Government appointees who have presided over this massive conflict of interest will suddenly be able to fix this mess and deliver a functioning laboratory service for 1.5 million Aucklanders by 1 July?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will be looking at what the three boards come up with and my confidence in those three boards will hinge on the ability to provide a reliable service by 1 July.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister agree with his appointee Wayne Brown when he stated in the Dominion Post today: “I’ve done nothing wrong. … I’ve had the most exceptionally successful career … I’m certainly the most experienced in the country.”; and was that the level of assurance that the Minister accepted to satisfy himself that the conflict of interest was being dealt with appropriately by the district health board?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, it is quite obvious from the judgment that that is not what Mr Brown accepted. He accepted the word of an elected member of a district health board, Dr Tony Bierre, who—

Madam SPEAKER: I said that this question and answer was to be heard in silence. All those members who were shouting out and making comment, please rise and leave the Chamber. Thank you.

Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr Jonathan Coleman withdrew from the Chamber.

Madam SPEAKER: I have asked members on all sides of the Chamber to identify themselves. Members have. I have to take their word for it, otherwise I will be identifying them next time. Now can we please continue.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have answered it.

Daylight Saving—Government Policy

7. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Prime Minister: Does the Prime Minister’s statement that she supported extending daylight saving at the end of the summer represent Government policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Not yet, but in my experience a statement of prime ministerial preference is often a good indicator of likely policy.

Hon Peter Dunne: What assurance can the Prime Minister give that when the Government returns from overseas, the 42,000 people who have signed this petition will have their wish for extended daylight summer hours honoured?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that the Prime Minister returns on Sunday afternoon. I do not expect the process of Government policy development or consultation to be complete within that space of time.

Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Prime Minister working towards having New Zealanders enjoy longer daylight saving in the coming summer; if so, notwithstanding the fact that she is overseas at the moment, when can a decision be expected?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Obviously, there is a process to be gone through, in terms of both internal consultations and external consultations. There are a range of issues to be considered, but I would certainly hope that any decision could be made in time for the coming summer season. The main barrier, I understand, is the Deputy Prime Minister, who is concerned about the impact of darkness at 6.30 in the morning in late March on his going out on the golf course.

R Doug Woolerton: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the engine room of our economy—namely, the primary production sector—will be properly consulted before any extension to daylight saving is considered by the Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, indeed. I think it is fair to say that this time round, compared with some previous rounds, the farming sector—including the dairy sector, which is probably the sector most affected—has shown much less concern than has been the case in the past.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Qualification Format

8. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Why is he “leaning towards” listing “Not Achieved” on National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) students’ qualifications?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yesterday the Minister reported that 168 recommendations from the 2005 reviews of NCEA had already been addressed, though he is still considering further changes to the design. One of these is reporting the standards that students have attempted and failed to achieve. The Minister is expecting a report on possible changes, including in respect of this issue, this weekend.

Katherine Rich: When did the Minister have his road to Damascus experience that led him to lean towards reporting “Not Achieved” on a Record of Learning, because in September 2006 he dismissed the idea, saying: “There’s no place on such a list for the things that people have not yet attained, or perhaps not even attempted.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that externally assessed standards already carry a “Not Achieved” on students’ results notices. The information now is that that should be extended to internal assessment. What has emerged in the interim is a concern that if there is not a clear listing of “Not Achieved” then employers in particular, and others, do not have any idea about what standards people actually are not capable of achieving, as opposed to those that they have sat and achieved.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister believe that a school that offers the full range of NCEA subjects but also allows selected students to sit up to two Cambridge International Examinations papers at year 11, or one paper at year 12, is demonstrating a rejection of the NCEA system, as suggested by a recent New Zealand Herald article?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, clearly that is not necessarily a rejection at all of NCEA but merely an acknowledgment that there are other purposes for which one might want to sit a limited range of the Cambridge International Examinations. It is worth reminding ourselves that the name is somewhat misleading. This has nothing to do with the old entrance examinations for Cambridge University. The sort of elitism that is now being applied to this qualification is completely misplaced in terms of its standards and content.

Katherine Rich: How credible was he when last September he said that failure had no place in the reporting of standards-based assessment or on the Record of Learning, yet last night he said he was leaning towards deciding to put such failure on a student’s Record of Learning?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Of course, one of the elements of standards-based achievement is that sometimes one can resit and achieve the standard.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister believe that the decision to include unit standards in NCEA credits, which was not in accordance with the original proposals, has enhanced the credibility of NCEA assessments in the eyes of the public, who are, after all, the ultimate users of NCEA?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, and I am particularly aware of the contribution that member has made to a discussion on the development of the whole NCEA system, which was, of course, begun—let us recognise—under the previous National Government, and most of the changes introduced were, in fact, in response to concerns about a dumbing down of the system.

Katherine Rich: What has made the Minister change his mind on the fundamental issue of reporting failure, because it looks like he has crumbled in the face of political pressure?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said before, students’ results notices already carry a “Not Achieved” for an externally assessed standard. The question is whether it goes on the Record of Learning, as the member rightly implies. I think what has happened is it is very clear that there is a degree of public concern if the “Not Achieved” element is able to be entered on the Record of Learning. Therefore, the acceptability of the system, which is a very good system and much better than the Cambridge International Examinations system for New Zealand purposes, needs to be looked at.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is panicking and ringing up schools to ask what it will take to stop further defections; if not, why are not his officials keeping him informed?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot confirm that. Perhaps the member should note the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is not responsible for the design features of NCEA; it is a Ministry of Education responsibility.

Katherine Rich: How credible is it to talk about increasing the reporting of failure, when the Minister’s officials hand out information to principals asking the question whether they are avoiding predictable failure where possible, which is code for avoiding kids sitting external exams?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, it is not.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it is.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is rather akin to suggesting there is not much point in Dr Smith sitting an examination on literacy, because he is doomed to fail.

Annual Leave—1 April 2007 Changes

9. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Labour: What changes are being made to annual leave on 1 April this year?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): I am very pleased that as of 1 April New Zealand workers will be entitled to a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave. This extra break will give New Zealanders more time to spend with their families and friends, and to enjoy a well deserved rest. I am advised that 820,000 workers will benefit from this Government policy—a policy that I note the National Party opposed.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister seen any other proposed changes to New Zealanders’ annual leave?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, actually, I have. I have seen a report that states: “He’’—referring to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen—“should be reeling in talks of union-friendly changes to the Employment Relations Act and dumping the looming election bribe of an extra week’s paid holiday.” That statement was from John Key in 2004. But he now says that he will let workers keep their extra week of holiday. With yet another flip-flop from the current leader of the National Party, it is hard to imagine how anyone could trust him.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

10. 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: Why does the Minister continue to stand by his claim that corruption amongst prison staff is not widespread and is not rife, when Barry Matthews said yesterday: “We’ve got a big problem … at Rimutaka, but we’ve got some indications we could have it wider than Rimutaka,”, when he has asked managers to do some “sniffing around”, and when he cannot “give any absolute guarantees that everywhere else is hunky dory,”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Any accusations of corruption are a big problem, and we treat them very seriously. We have an investigation under way at Rimutaka Prison. We have stood down some prison officers. We will continue to take such action wherever we have indications of such inappropriate behaviour.

Peter Brown: Noting the Minister’s answer to the principal question and in the light of recent events, can the Minister advise the House whether the degree of improvement that is required is more than, less than, or about the same as, when he first answered this question some weeks ago?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I think more improvement is always better.

Simon Power: How can the Minister’s chief executive, Barry Matthews, reject claims that his department is a shambles when Mr Matthews admitted to the media yesterday that there have been instances where the first a probation officer knew that a prisoner was being released into the officer’s area was when the prisoner turned up at the officer’s door and said: “Hi, I’ve just been released from prison.”; and what other word would the Minister use to describe a department that relies on the goodwill of prisoners for it to do its job?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The chief executive has advised me that no one on parole was in this position. He is aware of one situation, more than 2 years ago, when one low-risk offender, released on conditions, was not met by a parole officer. Since then, we have tightened up considerably, including having better liaison between the probation service and the prisons.

Jill Pettis: What are the Minister and his department doing to investigate claims of corruption in New Zealand prisons?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We move immediately on any such claims. We have appointed a head office internal investigation team to chase down any allegations of suspected corrupt activities. We have eight new corrections intelligence-gathering units as part of a new crime prevention information capability. The Government is looking at possible amendments to legislation to strengthen the hand of the Department of Corrections in dealing with contraband. This may include greater penalties. We cannot afford to have our hard-working and dedicated staff tainted by the actions of a few.

Simon Power: Why did Barry Matthews deceive his staff when he emailed them in May last year, stating that the review of head office was “not about cutting costs or reducing staff numbers”, in spite of an internal memo earlier that month stating that one of the aims was to outline where staff numbers could be reduced, and when he confirmed yesterday, through a press release, that some staff will lose their jobs—and will he be first on the block?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Barry Matthews does not deceive staff. The review of head office is to better align the responsibilities between all the different areas of the Department of Corrections to ensure that there are no gaps and that we minimise any opportunity for mistakes.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that this is the third time in less than 2 months that he and Barry Matthews have disagreed publicly, with disagreements including a public disagreement over whether there should be an investigation into corruption by guards at Rotorua District Court and another about whether the Burton fiasco required changes to the Parole Act?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Although Barry Matthews and I might disagree on occasions, we are both very clear on the responsibilities we have in this area.

Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House last week that consultation with Barry Matthews and his department regarding the Prime Minister’s changes to parole were “taking place at this moment”, after Mr Matthews had previously stated he was not aware of any changes to the Parole Act; if so, why was the department that manages parolees and the services of the Parole Board consulted so late in the piece, if it were not for the fact that the Prime Minister has given up on the department and this Minister?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Decisions around parole are not the sole responsibility of the Department of Corrections. Those decisions have to be made following consultation. It is the department’s responsibility to carry out changes if and when they occur.

Wellington Inner-city Bypass—Time Savings

11. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Is she confident that Transit New Zealand’s projected 7 to 9-minute peak-hour time savings will be delivered to motorists when the Wellington inner-city bypass opens this weekend; if so, why?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): Transit New Zealand has advised me that while the second phase of the inner-city bypass will be open this Sunday, there is ancillary work to be done to complete the project and ensure delivery of its full benefits.

Sue Kedgley: Is it not true that Transit used wildly inflated estimates of 7 to 9 minutes at peak time, including in sworn testimony to the Environment Court, to beef up the cost-benefit ratios and justify building the bypass, but now that it is built, it is frantically backtracking and refusing to say whether there will be any time savings at all; and will she therefore agree to an independent post-construction audit as to whether the projected time savings promised by Transit have materialised; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I cannot confirm any of the things the member has said, and I have no evidence that it has backtracked from anything. The point I have just made is that Transit has said that on Sunday when it is opened there will still be ancillary services to be completed. The member may be interested in some of those services. For example, the provision of dedicated pedestrian and cyclist facilities is something the Greens wanted included in the bypass. Also, dedicated bus routes are part of the bypass. All of those innovations are there to help the flow of traffic. They will not be completed until May.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the evidence that the Minister did not seem to think she had, where a Transit expert in traffic analysis said to the Environment Court that a journey across the city would save at least 6 minutes and up to 15 minutes in the busiest time, and from the former of Minister of Transport Pete Hodgson—

Leave granted.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In my answer I was not talking about what was in the application. The member made accusations about what Transit had said subsequent to that. I said that, no, I could not confirm the accusations the member was making.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; it is a clarification.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a statement by the Transit project engineer for the bypass, in which she says: “I’m not going to say it will save x number of seconds or hours, but it will make driving in New Zealand more efficient.”

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

Darien Fenton: What recent decisions taken by the Government’s Land Transport funding agency benefit Wellington commuter rail?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Land Transport New Zealand has approved funding for a considerable rail network in Wellington, including 58 replacement electric multiple units. It made that decision in December, and a further decision was made in February for another 12 units. There has been a lot of investment into the Wellington region in terms of building up passenger transport. This Government can be proud of the fact that there has been a 750 percent increase in funding into public transport since Labour became the Government.

Hon Maurice Williamson: How can the Minister have even a shred of confidence left in Transit when her own advisory group said that additional costs for the project it evaluated were not fully justified, that information provided does not demonstrate a robust process of evaluation for the additional expenditure that Transit was spending, that decision making in relation to scope and project definition had not always had the robust scrutiny that one might have expected, that value for money was not even identified as a key objective in any of the Ministry of Transport’s statements of intent, and—my personal favourite—that the change in project evaluation criteria away from using a benefit-cost ratio means that Transit New Zealand now has less incentive to contain project costs?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That was the view of the ministerial advisory group set up by the Ministry of Transport. It is one view. I think there are other members—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. When the member asked his question it was heard in silence. He is now interrupting constantly, so we cannot hear the answer. Would he please just enable the Minister to address the question.

Hon ANNETTE KING: The ministerial advisory group set up by the Ministry of Transport has provided one view. There are some very good points made in it. As the member is aware, I have established a review of the Ministry of Transport, Transit, and Land Transport New Zealand. I think it is appropriate to look at the next steps, because the Government is keen on getting value for money, and the taxpayers are keen on value for money. It would be unfair to say that Transit has not, in general, done a good job—particularly in meeting the needs of local communities. Some of those local communities, including members of this House, have had some responsibility in terms of projects and how they have turned out.

Darren Hughes: Can the Minister of Transport tell the House what she will be doing on the Kapiti Coast on Saturday in order to assist with peak-hour time savings for the region?

Hon ANNETTE KING: First of all, I acknowledge the efforts of the member for Otaki and my colleague Winne Laban in their advocacy for the opening we will have on Saturday, which is Mackays Crossing. It will make traffic move more smoothly up the Kapiti Coast and it is welcomed by many people who live in that area. I also note, however, that there are members in the Opposition who criticised the project.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister agree with the chair of the Wellington Regional Council transport committee, Terry McDavitt, that the bypass is causing, and will continue to cause, traffic chaos on Te Aro flat and that there is no way of fixing this, because of inherent problems in the design of the bypass; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I cannot agree with those comments, and I will not be prepared to agree with them until I see the problems he has identified at this stage—when part of the project is open—continuing into the fully operational project. Then there would be an issue to be raised. But it is not fully operational and will not be fully operational until May.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table something from the Transit New Zealand website that states: “People travelling across the city will save 7 to 9 minutes during the busiest peak hours—”

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document in which Terry McDavitt warns that the snarl-ups and problems on the route will not be able to be solved.

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

Housing New Zealand Corporation—Subletting of State Houses

12. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf yesterday that “the subletting of State houses is not tolerated … Where there are allegations of it they are investigated and appropriate action is taken.”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes.

Phil Heatley: Why does the Minister stand by that statement, when the Housing New Zealand Corporation told the Social Services Committee that 48 cases of alleged subletting were reported to it in the first part of this financial year but only 25 cases were investigated; why were only 50 percent of the cases investigated?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: First of all, that has to be put into context. The Housing New Zealand Corporation participates in 66,000 tenancies. The number that the member has referred to is, in proportion to the total, very tiny. None of the 48 cases he has just referred to are the same, and they cannot be compared with each other. Some of them are cases where tenants have moved out, others are cases where tenants have gone into prison, and there are some other circumstances. It is not as simple as subletting.

Lynne Pillay: What process does the corporation follow when it receives allegations of subletting?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Cases where Housing New Zealand Corporation staff have a reasonable suspicion that subletting may be occurring are referred to the corporation’s investigation team for a formal investigation to establish the facts. Between 1 July 2005 and 28 February 2007, nationally there were only 23 cases in which, as a result of a formal investigation process, the corporation concluded that subletting had occurred. I remind the House again that we have 66,000 tenancies.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Further to the statement made on the Minister’s behalf yesterday that the Housing New Zealand Corporation allocation policy “… should look after the needs of New Zealanders first,” why is the principle of looking after New Zealanders first nowhere to be found in the Housing New Zealand Corporation principles pertaining to the allocation of housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Could I ask the member to expand a little bit more on his question?

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member like to do that, please?

Pita Paraone: Yesterday my original question alluded to the fact that New Zealand First was not quite sure whether tenants of the Housing New Zealand Corporation were likely to be New Zealanders or non - New Zealanders; the question was whether, in fact, New Zealanders were given special preference.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: No tenant of the Housing New Zealand Corporation can be a non - New Zealander. A tenant can be either a resident of New Zealand or a citizen. Our refugee intake each year is put into Housing New Zealand Corporation houses, but, of course, those people get a residence stamp when they come to this country.

Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question today was if that is the case, why is reference to New Zealanders being housed first not included in the list of principles articulated by the ministry?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: It is absolutely implicit, because a person has to be a resident or a citizen of New Zealand to get a Housing New Zealand Corporation house.

Bob Clarkson: How can the Minister have the confidence to say that subletting rorts are extremely rare, when Housing New Zealand Corporation staff are not picking up such scams during routine inspections, and are investigating only half of those that are dobbed in?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: If the member can come up with any cases that we have not picked up, I would be very grateful for that.

Phil Heatley: Can the Minister give us the details—as he is keen to break his own privacy rules on the scam involving subletting for 4 years—of the South Auckland tenant who rented out a State house for 2 years and the Hutt Valley tenant who rented one out for 15 months, both of whom were eventually evicted? How much money did they make, and what other details are there around them?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am delighted to hear the member acknowledge that the Housing New Zealand Corporation has removed the tenancies of the particular individuals he has just mentioned. Should he care to put a written question down to me, I am sure that question can be answered.

Phil Heatley: Does the Minister regret last year describing the pursuit of subletting scamsters as a wild-goose chase and a waste of his staff’s time, in light of revelations that, by the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s own admission, dozens of State houses are being illegally sublet for cash for months and years at a time; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member seems to have a very strange view of quantities. I remind the House again that between 1 July 2005 and 28 February 2007 only 23 cases, out of 66,000 tenancies, resulted in tenants losing their tenancies.

Phil Heatley: Who is telling the truth: the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which told the Social Services Committee that it has investigated only half the scams dobbed into the corporation; or the Minister, who says that it investigates all the scams dobbed into it?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I remind the House again that this member has a record of distorting the words of officials. Again, subletting has to be seen in context: some tenants just leave, others go to jail, and some die. We do not pursue in the courts people who have died.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table Social Services Committee documents wherein the Housing New Zealand Corporation states it has investigated only 25 of the 48 cases of alleged subletting—

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

Pita Paraone: I seek leave to table a copy of the Housing New Zealand Corporation principles pertaining to the allocation of housing wherein there is no reference to looking after New Zealanders first.

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

© Scoop Media