Questions for Oral Answer -Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Questions to Ministers

District Health Boards, Auckland—Confidence in Chairs

1. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: When will he express confidence or not in the chairs of the Auckland district health boards, Wayne Brown, Pat Snedden, and Kay McKelvie?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): All chairs and board members retain their full roles and responsibilities for now. The member’s constant refrain on confidence is of limited value at present, for two reasons. One is that the judgment may be appealed. Another reason is that there is legal debate as to whether the judgment is new law. That said, the judgment of serious procedural error has been made and is the current legal position.

Hon Tony Ryall: When was the Minister first told that Dr Bierre had stood down as an active member of the Auckland District Health Board in late December 2005, so that Dr Bierre could bid for the half-billion-dollar Auckland lab contract, and what action did he take at that time?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have no recollection of being told that Dr Bierre had been stood down, but I may have been. Dr Bierre, of course, did not resign from the Auckland District Health Board I think until about August 2006, and that of course was made available to me at the time of resignation.

Hon Phil Goff: What advice does the Minister have on the extent to which Wayne Brown, as chair of the Auckland District Health Board, may have been misled by the advocacy in favour of Dr Bierre by Dr Paul Hutchison, who signed a letter as National’s spokesperson on health—curious indeed—and by the support of board member Dr Jackie Blue, who was also Dr Bierre’s running mate?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard the first section of that question. I could not hear the rest of it. It is a very important issue, and I would ask that members at least in this quarter of the House be allowed to hear.

Madam SPEAKER: I would ask the Minister to repeat his question. If he could do so in a summary form, I would appreciate that.

Hon Phil Goff: What advice does the Minister have on the extent to which Wayne Brown, as chief executive of the Auckland District Health Board, may have been misled by the advocacy in favour of Dr Bierre by Paul Hutchison, who signed a letter on his behalf as the National spokesperson on health?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am pleased to report to the member that Mr Brown at that point was misled to no extent whatever. He did receive a letter from National’s spokesperson Dr Hutchison, who certainly did write to suggest that Dr Bierre should be given some money for his laboratory. Mr Brown would have been aware that another member of his board, Dr Jacqui Blue, was on the same side, because her membership of the National Party was public knowledge. Despite that, Mr Brown’s response was not to cave in to the pressure but to do the opposite: to challenge Dr Bierre directly on his conflict of interest. Three Tories versus Mr Brown—no contest. On the other hand, Mr Brown did make a mistake—that is, he believed Dr Bierre’s response that he had mothballed his practice. Clearly, he had not.

Barbara Stewart: If the Minister cannot express his full confidence in the three chairs of the Auckland district health boards, does that mean they will be replaced at the next opportunity with others whom the Minister can have full confidence in?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I say to the member again that the brightline of confidence and no confidence is of limited value to me, for two reasons. The first is that there may be an appeal to the judgment. We will know that in another 2 or 3 weeks.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s irrelevant to people who want tests.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Well, it is not irrelevant if district health board personnel are to be joined to the appeal. The second reason is that there is legal debate as to whether the judgment is new law.

Ann Hartley: Was the Minister’s decision yesterday to order a focused performance audit on conflict of interest issues based on any known problems that currently exist in this regard at the three district health boards?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not aware of any major issues in the way that district health boards manage their registers, but I need to be sure. There are some unexplained anomalies, but I do not understand their importance. For example, one copy of the Auckland District Health Board interests register in my possession contains a signed declaration from the chair, a signed declaration from the deputy chair, and even a signed declaration from Dr Bierre. But there is no signature, curiously, in respect of Dr Jackie Blue.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister confirm that throughout this period he had a Ministry of Health watchdog attending district health board meetings in Auckland, namely board adviser Graham Aitken; and did Mr Aitken ever advise the Ministry of Health or the Minister that Dr Bierre had stood down as an active board member because he was bidding for the half-billion-dollar Auckland District Health Board lab contract?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I recollect no such advice from Mr Aitken. Mr Aitken was involved very substantially in the service reconfiguration at the Auckland District Health Board, and, of course, he played no part in the evaluation of the contract.

Hon Tony Ryall: Which is correct—because one of two things is happening here—did Wayne Brown fail, under the no-surprises policy, to tell the Minister that one of his board members was standing down so he could bid for the Auckland District Health Board’s half-billion-dollar laboratory contract, or is the Minister misleading the House, because he was told this 6 months before he admitted it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will stand by my statement that when I read the court judgment I was surprised indeed. I did not know that Dr Bierre had been stood down. I did not know when he had been stood down, and I did not know why he had been stood down. I do not recall being advised. I do recall being advised in July 2006—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member asked his question in silence. Would the Minister please be given an opportunity to address the question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I stand by my remarks made many times in this House that I first became aware of the issue on receipt of a question from Dr Paul Hutchison, I believe in July 2006.

Hon Tony Ryall: So how big does a district health board contract have to be before a district health board chairman is obliged to tell the Minister that one of his own board members is standing down from active duty so that he or she can bid for a contract being offered by that district health board—is it a billion dollars?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There are quite a few things Dr Wayne Brown has not told me. He has not told me—and I did not find out myself until very recently—that Dr Jackie Blue in December 2004 failed to sign her conflict of interest declaration.

Hon Tony Ryall: Would the Minister be surprised to learn that one of the senior Auckland District Health Board executives involved throughout the tendering process was Dr Dennis Jury, who was also project sponsor for Dr Bierre’s 2004 MBA thesis on contracting out laboratory services; and was the Auckland District Health Board advised of this close association by one of its senior executives?

Hon Member: That’s awful.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Oh, that is bad, is it? Well, let me tell the member something else. When Dr Bierre approached Dr Dennis Jury in March 2005, asking: “Can I have some public money for my laboratory?”, this same apparently close friend of Dr Bierre said: “No.” He said: “No. Go away and run your own laboratory without bothering the taxpayer.”—and that is a very clear part of the judgment.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will he table all the advice he has received from the Ministry of Health and Wayne Brown on this matter; if not, what has he got to hide?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There is not much left to hide in this, at all. This issue has had the light shone on it about as hard as it can be. The judge made his remarks early in the judgment that he had been presented with 12,000 pages of things to look at—12,000 pages means that there is not much left to hide that I am aware of.

Rodney Hide: Does he understand the concern of Aucklanders who have no choice but to rely on the three district health boards and the chairs thereof for their lives and health when the Minister, who is responsible for the funding of these district health boards, cannot express confidence in the leadership in Auckland district health boards; and if the Minister cannot express confidence in the leadership of Auckland district health boards, what possible chance have Aucklanders to have any confidence?

Hon PETE HODGSON: If I can make it clear in words of one syllable for the member, I would assert that this story has not yet finished being told.

Question No. 2 to Minister

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. While I understand, of course, that the Government has the right to transfer questions of this nature, this particular transfer from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Finance gives me a particular difficulty in pursuing the question. I was particularly interested in the Prime Minister’s views on whether rail electrification in Auckland would serve her stated objectives. I am rather less interested, with all due respect to the Minister of Finance, in his view of whether it will serve the Prime Minister’s objectives, given that I have not heard him articulate those objectives, and given his statement about Auckland—

Madam SPEAKER: I think I understand the point of order, and as the member said herself it is for the Government to decide who addresses the question. Would you please ask the question.

Auckland—Electric Rail System

2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe that a fast, clean, reliable electric rail system in Auckland would be a step towards achieving the Prime Minister’s two goals of carbon neutrality and making Auckland a world-class city?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): There would clearly be some positive impacts, which is why the issue is under my active consideration. However, it is important not to exaggerate the potential impacts of what is not, and probably never will be, a full urban rail system like those in many major cities elsewhere.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that it is not a matter of if Auckland rail is electrified but, rather, when; if so, why is he delaying the decision, when Auckland needs to be able to order electric units as soon as possible, which take some years to deliver, to avoid having to buy even more dirty old second-hand diesels to fill the lengthening gap?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Some diesels will have to be bought in any case. Electrification probably could not be completed until the year 2013. Of course, I am not just going to roll over and say “Charge us whatever you like.” The member has been quoting figures based on electrification costs of $170 million in the Auckland Regional Council document. The latest estimate is $500 million.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he recall telling the House in May 2006: “So far, the proponents of electrification in Auckland, … have not demonstrated that it actually bears any sensible cost-benefit ratio in terms of the outcomes. If it does, then the Government will be prepared to support it.”; if so, now that he has seen the Auckland Regional Transport Authority business plan showing that with sensible assumptions the project achieves a benefit cost better than two, when will he provide Auckland with a timetable to electrify rail?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I have said, the issue is under active consideration. A number of issues need to be considered: the appropriate governance structure; the completion of a number of other infrastructure projects; and, of course, the issue around exactly who will pay for this project. For those who do not have to find the money, this may be a minor matter, but for me this is a major matter.

Peter Brown: Noting that the Minister of Transport has said that the electrification of the region’s rail network was “firmly on the Government’s agenda”, will he tell the House categorically whether it is on the Government’s agenda to impose an additional regional fuel tax; if so, what level of taxation is being considered and when will it be implemented?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is clear that if Auckland and indeed other centres such as Wellington that wish to have further local transport projects under way are going to be able to contribute, some means of making that contribution has to be found. The tolls have disappeared the closer one gets to them. They have turned out to be a kind of funding mirage in the desert of funding for local transport projects. The Auckland Regional Council has specifically backed a regional petrol tax to assist in the cost of providing local projects.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can he confirm that Auckland has already put in funding that roughly matches the $600 million the Government has put into the rail plan, and that the additional funding required to do all the signalling upgrade and the electrification is something like $32 million a year for 10 years, and does he not see that as a worthwhile national investment?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think this is why the member keeps quoting a cost-benefit ratio that is too high. The cost of the track and associated works—in other words, the lines work and associated work on tracks, bridges, station approaches, etc., which is required by electrification, because one cannot just string wire straight over the existing track—is now estimated to be $500 million. That is exclusive, of course, of any other costs in relation to the rolling stock, as well. This is quite an expensive project. In the longer term, it probably realises its full value only if the loop tunnel is also built, which at the moment has what one might loosely describe as a “tail on the donkey” cost of $1 billion.

Keith Locke: How will the Minister respond, beyond what he has said so far in Parliament today, to the sense of urgency demonstrated at a packed public meeting in Auckland last Monday where local body leaders and community leaders all expressed that they saw an urgent need for a timetable for electrification and appropriate financing?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said, this is under active consideration by myself at the present time; we will be responding. I have to note, as a politician, that the term “packed public meeting” can have two meanings, of course.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister accept that a decent transport system is crucial for Auckland to be a world-class city, and that a good step on the way towards that would be the completion of State Highway 20—which runs through the Prime Minister’s electorate; and why cannot we see that, as it would ease congestion right around the isthmus?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is a current project in Auckland that is due to be completed. The Government has committed to completion of the Auckland roading network. I do not see the improvement of public transport, on which we will be spending in the current 5-year period 12 times what was spent in the late 1990s, as an alternative to roading—on which we are spending almost four times as much as we were spending in the late 1990s. We need both, as I have said many times—I am sorry to sound like a cracked record; one cannot transport goods and services, and many other things, on an electric rail system; one actually has to transport those things by road.

Economy—Fiscal Policy

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank that “the Government is a net contributor to resource pressures at the minute through the fiscal story.”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, in relation to the relative change in the fiscal impulse measure. No, in relation to the overall operating balance position, because it is clear we will be running a cash surplus in the current year. That is hardly a loose fiscal policy. Indeed, I have been under attack for the last 4 years from the member opposite and his colleagues for running far too tight a fiscal policy in that respect.

Hon Bill English: Why is the Minister, in his last Budget, planning a significant boost to Government spending, when 2-year interest rates have reached almost 9 percent this week, the dollar is at 72c against the US dollar today, the current account deficit is at near-record levels, and a significant boost in spending could make all of these worse?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The boost this Government will be engaging in this year’s Budget—which will certainly not be my last—is significantly less than what that member was planning by means of very large tax cuts. He would have had $2.5 billion of personal tax cuts in place at last year’s Budget, more this year, and another $1.5 billion next year. I note he has described the business tax changes as something that should not be proceeded with.

Shane Jones: Has the Minister seen any alternative assessments of the impact on monetary policy of the business tax review?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: At this, the mid-point of my career as Minister of Finance, I have seen a report, by Mr English, that characterises it as part of a “wasteful spending binge”. On the other hand, the Governor of the Reserve Bank said that although the short-term effects might be mildly expansionary, the long-term effects will be to lift economic growth.

Hon Bill English: Do the Minister’s answers mean that after years of describing tax cuts as irresponsible and inflationary, he has now decided that when he is being forced to make a billion-dollar tax cut, tax cuts are no longer inflationary nor irresponsible?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have never described a business tax cut as a “wasteful spending binge”, as that member has done. It is those kinds of comments that, once again, will put him back into trouble with the business sector, as he was when he was last finance spokesperson for the National Party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister advise the House as to whether he has received any reports as to whether there are Governments anywhere in the world, of whatever political ilk, that have created fiscal pressure because of their expenditure; and has he received any reports as to whether the National Party has now decided to stop its myopic obsession with support for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, as suggested by the questioner?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen reports from Mr English that attack the Governor of the Reserve Bank for his failure, in Mr English’s view, to manage monetary policy. Actually, the member said that the Governor of the Reserve Bank had not used the monetary policy tools available to him, by which it seems he meant that the Governor should have lifted interest rates earlier, faster, and higher than he did.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree or disagree with the bank’s assessment that his spending plans are putting pressure on monetary policy and that, therefore, interest rates for New Zealand householders will be higher for longer, as he tries to bid for their votes with taxpayers’ money?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That question comes from the finance spokesman of a party that has called, for example, for Herceptin to be funded for 12 months, not 9 weeks, and for the 20 hours’ free childhood education policy to be funded at a level whereby no early childhood centre would receive any less money for an hour’s provision than it does at the present time. There have been calls from that party for increased spending on Treaty of Waitangi issues. Mr English himself has called for large increases in operating grants to schools. Then he says that National will cut spending. Well, he should let us know which teachers, nurses, fire officers, Department of Corrections staff, police, and social workers will be cut by the National Party if it ever gets back on this side of the House.

Hon Bill English: Why is the Minister keen to misrepresent our policy but seemingly consistently unable to explain his own policies when asked in Parliament about, for instance, whether he agrees with the Reserve Bank that the effect of his spending binge in the next two Budgets will be to keep interest rates up higher for longer for New Zealand families?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not misrepresenting the Opposition, at all. I actually take its spokespeople at their word and do not assume that they are being hypocritical when they call for increased spending in their various portfolio areas. What I can assure the member is that over this 3-year term of Parliament, this Government will be running a much tighter fiscal policy than the member was planning at the last election—except, of course, that he did not plan it. Mr Key planned it, and Mr English did not agree with that policy.

Schools—Information and Communications Technology

4. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to assist schools with the costs of software for information and communications technology?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I announced today that the Government will be spending $33 million over the next 4 years on contracts with Microsoft, Apple, IBM, and Novell to ensure the continued delivery to New Zealand schools of crucial software for administration and learning. This is part of the overall investment of $377 million that we have spent on information and communications technology since 2001. That investment supports our school administrators, our teachers, our principals, and our students so as to transform the learning environment into the modern one that we all want to see.

Moana Mackey: What else is the Government doing to ensure that New Zealand teachers and students can make use of information and communications technology to aid learning?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The $33 million announced today builds on the substantial investment over the past 4 years that I mentioned. That has helped clusters of schools to develop new ways of teaching with information and communications technology. It has supplied laptops to teachers and principals, provided videoconferencing facilities, provided fellowships to fund teachers’ research into e-learning, and provided information and practical assistance to schools about the Internet and cellphone safety issues. I suggest that Mr Key visit Tahatai Coast School, which is just one leading example of what our schools are doing in this area. By visiting the school, he could perhaps prepare for his next aspirational attack on our education system.

Crime—Victim Statistics

5. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Why has the proportion of New Zealanders who have been the victims of crime increased to 39 percent in 2005, compared to 29.5 percent in 2000 and 31 percent in 1995?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): If the member had bothered to read past the second paragraph of the executive summary of the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006, he would know that the best-practice changes made in the survey’s methodology make comparisons of the kind that he is attempting to make between this survey and the two earlier surveys factually incorrect and certainly misleading. When adjustments are made for the methodological changes, which the researchers themselves have done—for instance, around the incidence of violent crime—the report actually shows, as opposed to the assertion the member makes, no evidence of an increase in the level of violent crime since the last survey. That point was well made on Television New Zealand this morning by the principal researcher, Pat Mayhew OBE.

Simon Power: How can the Minister dispute the fact that four out of 10 people are victims of crime under Labour, compared with three out of 10 before that, when the police crime statistics issued on Monday also show that although violent crime was stable from 1996 to 1999, since then it has increased by 22 percent to almost a thousand violent crime offences a week?

Hon MARK BURTON: I will try it again, for the member’s benefit. I think, importantly—

Simon Power: No—just change your methodology.

Hon MARK BURTON: Well, the member is asking the House to take his methodology, as opposed to that of the principal researcher, Pat Mayhew OBE, the director of the crime and justice research centre at Victoria University, a woman who is an internationally accepted expert in the field. She said on television this morning that those figures cannot be directly compared. The methodology of this research has been improved to the level of international best practice and, as she predicted, that has increased the quantum of reported crime. I would have thought that the member would welcome more factually accurate information. It is on the basis of that that we are able to fight crime and develop appropriate programmes.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the very page of the report from which Mr Power has drawn his figures state explicitly, in the footnote, that the increase he alleges “was due to methodological changes rather than an increase in the actual victimisation rate”; and would it not have been more honest for the member who asked that question to explicitly acknowledge that?

Hon MARK BURTON: Given that the author of that report is an internationally respected and revered researcher—Pat Mayhew OBE—frankly, yes, I would agree with that. I am sure that commentators and certainly members of the House would prefer to rely on her methodology rather than on Mr Power’s.

Hon Peter Dunne: How can the Minister give assurances to New Zealand families of their security and safety in their own communities, when sexual crime has risen by 9.7 percent and damage to property by 7.8 percent, and when other signs of antisocial behaviours, like violent crime and drug and alcohol abuse, have also risen markedly since 2005?

Hon MARK BURTON: To take the example of violent and sexual crime that the member refers to, I tell the House that researchers have specifically run the methodologies in order to make fair comparison with previous research, and have concluded that in fact the numbers are relatively stable.

Simon Power: No, they’re not!

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the knowledge of that fact is critically important, and I am seriously concerned that a member who purports to have any interest in such a matter would intentionally mislead this House—which that member appears to have done by not bothering to read the very page he quoted from.

Simon Power: Why was the latest crime and safety survey, which contained this bad news for the Government, released yesterday—hardly a slow news day—when last February the Minister announced that it would be released in December?

Hon MARK BURTON: Later in the year I said that the report would be released in the first quarter of this year. If the member is suggesting that a report that was subject to a media conference and immediately put on a website was somehow secretly leaked out, then I shudder to think what his idea of a genuine leak would be.

Steve Chadwick: What has the Government done to improve services for the victims of crime?

Hon MARK BURTON: A number of significant and long-term crime prevention and reduction initiatives have been put in place since the 2005 survey. Those include, in particular, significant support for Victim Support and community support initiatives, and a focus on the long-term support of community-based agencies. I can tell the member that the Government will certainly be making full use of the findings of this research and using them as the basis of further work on effective policy development.

Simon Power: Why did he announce an inter-agency task force on sexual violence last month, when the Safer Communities Action Plan to Reduce Community Violence and Sexual Violence of March 2004 recommended that a sexual violence inter-agency steering group be established by the end of the year 2004?

Hon MARK BURTON: Because it was a positive initiative, and I am surprised that the member does not seem to support it.

Simon Power: Why has he as Minister of Justice previously failed to secure funding for the sexual violence task force, as revealed by a 2005 briefing from his officials—or was the Hon Lianne Dalziel right when she said last year that the Government might have taken its “eye off the ball” when it came to putting the action into the action plan, with all of that occurring while sexual offences, as we found out on Monday, have increased by 16 percent since 1999?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member continues to play with serious issues. The statistics the member is talking about reflect an increase in the reporting of sexual offences. I would have thought that that member would support the increase in the throwing of light on to that dire crime. I simply ask the member whether he supports the initiative.

Economic Transformation—Regions

6. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Minister for Economic Development: What is being done to ensure that regional New Zealand benefits from economic transformation?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): The Government announced today the establishment of two new regional funds to support the growth of more internationally competitive firms. First, is the Enterprising Partnerships Fund. This will focus on substantial regional projects that are commercially driven and generate substantial economic benefits for the region in line with national economic transformation goals. Funding under this programme will be approximately $9 million in 2007-08, $10.5 million in each of the following 2 years, and $11.5 million after that. Secondly, is a new Regional Strategy Fund. That will give 14 regions access to a maximum of three-quarters of a million dollars each, over 3 years, to develop and implement regional economic development strategies.

Darren Hughes: Is he aware of any alternative reports on regional economic development in New Zealand?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, at least two. One supported Government initiatives that provide assistance to regional development. The other considered that the Government was overspending. The first was from John Key. The second was from Bill English.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Television Commercial

7. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: What were the total production and broadcasting costs of the 20 free hours television commercial, which has been screening to promote the Government’s 20 free hours’ policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): As I have outlined in answers to written parliamentary questions to Mrs Bennett, questions 2285 and 2831, the production and broadcasting costs are $267,771.

Katherine Rich: When academic research confirms that mums are the key influencers in decisions about children’s participation in early childhood education, why have 20 free hours commercials been shown during hard-core wrestling shows like RAW, SmackDown!, and Extreme Championship Wrestling, which are shows that are largely watched by young men?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As my World Wrestling Federation fan friend over here, the Minister of Finance, points out, shows like that have a very broad audience.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Could the Minister explain whether a centre that has decided to opt in to the 20 free hours’ scheme on the basis that all its current parents have agreed to pay, say, $60 per week for optional extras can refuse to enrol a child whose parents want to enrol him or her at a later date but refuse to pay the $60?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The rules are clear that centres need to talk with the parents and show them what is being paid for by the 20 free hours and then by the optional charges. The question that is raised here is pretty much a hypothetical one. As the member knows, centres have always had the right to say who they will enrol. A lot of them have waiting lists, for example, and make choices about who to enrol. The essence of the policy, however, is that they must make clear those charges so that a parent has a free and informed choice.

Katherine Rich: When academic research shows that mothers play the key part in researching early childhood education provision, does the Minister think shows like SmackDown!, RAW, Extreme Championship Wrestling, the All Whites versus Costa Rica, the Salford versus Wigan replay, beach volleyball, and David Lynch’s Blue Velvet are good vehicles to deliver an early childhood message?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I imagine David Lynch is someone whose films all intelligent women around the country would like to watch. He is one of the leading film makers in the world. I repeat to the member that I know she may live a sheltered life, but people do watch programmes right across the schedule. She might like to have a go.

Paula Bennett: Would it not have been beneficial when spending over $200,000 of taxpayers’ money on a scheme that cannot be delivered to at least mention basic facts, such as that it is available only to 3 and 4-year-olds?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It may be worth mentioning to the House, in order to remind folks, that this is a $324 million policy. Promotion costs of the kind we are talking about here are relatively small, given those costs. I say to members on the other side of the House that their leader has been at pains to say he wants to see every 3 and 4-year-old child get into this policy. This kind of advertising will help his dream come true.

Paula Bennett: How does the Minister respond to reports that the TV adverts for the 20 hours free myth give the distinct impression that there will be no problem with the scheme, when the reality is that it cannot and will not be delivered as this Government promised, leading up to the last election?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I just hope people are enjoying the ads and getting the opportunity to see the wide variety of programmes that they are inserted into. I have learnt today that at least one member of the House would like to extend her viewing. Maybe this will entice her to do so.

Katherine Rich: I seek leave to table the media schedule for the 20 free hours campaign, which contains the wackiest collection of shows that could ever be put together.

Leave granted.

Paula Bennett: I seek leave to table the editorial comment that states that the TV advertising is “a complete sham”—

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

Herceptin—International Trial

8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Why, with respect to Herceptin, is the New Zealand taxpayer being asked to fund an international multi-centre trial when it is possible that not one New Zealand woman may take part, and on what basis did Pharmac administration get its recruitment rates of 600 patients?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): In answer to the member’s first question—because if it were not an international multi-centre trial, it would not have enough horsepower to get a good result. In answer to the second question—that is the basis of early estimates only.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is argued by Pharmac that this trial is to establish whether a 9-week trial is cost-effective and the best regimen, then how come the results of such a trial will not be known for another 5 years; and where is the efficacy or the ethics in this programme?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member will be aware that the 9-week treatment has already been trialled and has already offered a statistically significant result. But the confidence intervals in such a result will be large because the trial was somewhat underpowered. In order to get a finer grade of the effectiveness of the 9-week treatment, a larger trial is being proposed. It is not yet clear whether it will proceed.

Dr Jackie Blue: If the 9-week multi-centre Herceptin trial fails to attract support from other countries and does not proceed, can the Minister confirm just what will be on offer to New Zealand women; if it is just the 9-week regime, does he agree with New Zealand biostatistician Associate Professor Chris Frampton in last week’s New Zealand Doctor magazine that the 9-week Herceptin regime is unproven and that Pharmac has been misrepresenting scientific evidence and claims about it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I saw Dr Frampton’s remarks in the New Zealand Doctor and saw also a range of activities that Dr Frampton has had in the area. I simply say to the member that Pharmac has yet to make a decision on whether to proceed with offering women 9 weeks’ treatment—though I understand it is due to make such a decision later this month; I am not sure what that decision will be. In respect of the trial, if the trial does not proceed, it will not be through lack of effort from Pharmac and other interests in New Zealand to get it running. It might be due—

Dr Jackie Blue: Other countries won’t have a bar of it.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member says other countries will not have a bar of it. She fails to acknowledge that in Finland, for example, where both 9-week and 12-month treatment is available, oncologists usually go for 9 weeks as a matter of choice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I say to the Minister with respect to his last answer—

Gerry Brownlee: You’ve got to ask the question word.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I beg your pardon?

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I am trying to.

Madam SPEAKER: The member was prefacing the question. Under the Standing Orders we tend to just want to ask the question without previous comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: “If I can ask the Minister” is hardly a preface. Let me start again. I ask the Minister, if that is true, why is it that in every other country this trial has been conducted Herceptin was funded for 12 months’ treatment, giving women entering the trial the choice of a standard treatment of 12 months or the trial, whereas New Zealand will be a country where women who enter the trial will not have an option of 12 months, so to get the proven treatment they will therefore be coerced into the 9-week trial; what sort of ethics is Pharmac now persisting with, and when will the Minister step in, given this thoroughly unethical choice that is being offered to women?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Minister raises two good points. To the best of my knowledge there is no decision that, should there be a trial, New Zealand women would be offered only 9 weeks’ treatment. I am not aware of any such decision. On the other hand, the member raises the question as to why 12 months’ treatment was the treatment of choice across many trials. I think that is a very good question. I do not myself see any logic for 12 months’ treatment other than it being the time taken for the earth to move around the sun once. On the other hand, there is some logic for a 9-week treatment, because it is given with other forms of treatment, namely taxanes, and they are used for 9 weeks. It is thought that there may be synergy between the two.

Sue Moroney: How is the breast-screening programme progressing, and in particular how many lives are being saved each year?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The breast-screening programme is progressing very well, and I am very grateful to those who are providing this good and growing service. The number of women covered has increased by 43 percent in the 2 years to June 2006, and I am advised that this service is now saving up to an additional 32 lives each year.

Heather Roy: Why will the Minister not listen to his fellow Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters on this issue, and would he give Mr Peters’ views more consideration if he was sitting at the Cabinet table and fully involved in the decision?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The views that I am expressing are the views of 23 First World countries; they are not my views. The second point is that the question is obviated by ACT’s failure to perform at the last election.

Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order. It was a response to a comment that the Minister will now address.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I pay careful attention to certain colleagues in this House, and one of them is the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Dr Jackie Blue: I seek leave to table a document in which Associate Professor Chris Frampton describes the 9-week course that Pharmac is proposing as “unproven”.

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

Radio New Zealand—Ministerial Process

9. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Broadcasting: What is the process by which he raises issues of concern with Radio New Zealand, and what issues has he raised recently?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): As Minister of Broadcasting and shareholding Minister for Radio New Zealand, my role is to ensure the board understands and accounts for the interests of the shareholder in terms that are financial and in terms of policy. The general process for engagement with Radio New Zealand is through the quarterly meetings with the chair and with the chief executive. I am currently in discussion, for example, with Radio New Zealand about the business planning process for the 2008 financial year. This interaction is mainly through correspondence between myself and the chair.

Gerry Brownlee: Did he or any of his staff demand that Sean Plunket—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please just ask his question. There was no interjection and no interruption, so please ask the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If there was no interruption, I would not have stopped asking the question and looked at the back of the Chamber to see who was making all the noise. Rules are rules.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Madam Speaker, you have given clear rulings in recent weeks that the issue is whether the member asking the question or the Minister answering it can be heard. The member certainly would not claim to have a light voice. He could be heard extremely clearly. Mr Peters, as the leader of a party, was consulting a colleague. It is quite normal in this Parliament for a leader or a whip to be quietly consulting a colleague.

Gerry Brownlee: We learn something every day! I am deeply appreciative of the interest Dr Cullen takes in my education. Did the Minister or any of his staff demand that Sean Plunket apologise and withdraw his on-air comments about the Minister on 23 March, and was a threat also made that this matter would be raised with the board of Radio New Zealand if no withdrawal and apology were forthcoming?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member is referring to the reference by a host of the Morning Report show, Mr Sean Plunket, when he labelled me a racist. I immediately rang the programme to say that I would like that comment withdrawn, which is the right of anybody to do. I did it in my capacity as Minister of Education, which is what the reference was made to. I also said that, yes, if I did not get this retraction, I wanted to take it up formally. I remind people in the House that all of us—Murray McCully, for example, yells down the phone regularly at journalists—as individuals have the right to take exception. We also have the right to make a formal complaint. We also have the right to go to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. I decided, after I had phoned the programme and it was obvious that they were not going to respond to it, that I would not bother taking it any further.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister think it is appropriate for the Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand to abuse that position by complaining about operational matters to the board that he himself appointed; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think it is entirely reasonable for the Minister of Education to take exception to being called a racist, and I would do it again now.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister aware that his decision to threaten Radio New Zealand with a direct appeal to the board of directors that he appoints sits outside the provisions of section 13(1)(a) of the Radio New Zealand Act; and can he tell us why he thinks it is acceptable in any circumstances for Ministers to use their authority in this manner when there are other channels to be used?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think it is entirely acceptable for any member of this House, including the Minister of Education, when he or she is labelled a racist by a morning radio show host, to ring that programme and ask for the remark to be withdrawn, and if it is not withdrawn, to have open to him or her the option of then formally complaining and going to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. I bet that if any members on the other side of the House who feel deeply about any concerns they have are labelled anything like that, as someone in my position has been—I am the Minister of Education; I take these issues seriously—they would phone the programme, just as I did. I would do it again tomorrow.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister agree that a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority would be acceptable, but that his decision to threaten Radio New Zealand with a direct complaint to the board that he appoints was inappropriate?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I repeat for the member that I rang the studio in the capacity of a Minister of Education who had been told that comments that he had made as the Minister of Education were racist. I have every right, just as that member does, to do that, and to indicate that I would undertake a formal complaint within the 20-day period. I did not go on to say the rest of the things on the chain that could be done, like going to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. But that is exactly what that member, sitting across from me, can do—he can do it, just as I can do it—and I would do it again tomorrow.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that Radio New Zealand frequently runs advertisements advising people that if they have a complaint about any matter, it should first be taken to Radio New Zealand before proceeding any further?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Not only does Radio New Zealand say that; for members of the House who may feel aggrieved at being labelled in the ways that I was on that morning, I say that the first step in the complaints procedure is to complain to the broadcaster concerned. Frankly, that is best done immediately, because then there is some hope that there may be a retraction. Within 20 days a formal complaint should be made to that broadcaster. If, after that, the person is not happy with what is happening, he or she has the right to go to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. I say to the member Gerry Brownlee that if he is ever in the position of being the Minister of Education, and if he has a history, like I do, of standing against racism—literally since I was a child—he would no doubt take great offence at being labelled that, and he would complain, too.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister, given the severity of the situation, like to join me in my suit against Radio New Zealand, whose defence is that it did not mean what it said?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I just reiterate to members of the House that all media, of course, have to be held accountable by people in this House. We all face, day after day, people commenting on and editorialising our actions, and we have the right to comment back.

Gerry Brownlee: Once the Minister had made his complaint to Radio New Zealand, did he threaten to take the matter directly to the board if a withdrawal was not made?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I indicated to it that that was what I would do. That is what one does by making a formal complaint: one complains right to the board of Radio New Zealand. I have explained and explained that. That is what I would do, and I would say the same again tomorrow; if Mr Plunket was to editorialise in that way, I would complain again.

Gerry Brownlee: Has he compared notes about ministerial behaviour with his colleague the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, the Hon Trevor Mallard, who just last week was loudly and rather publicly heard accusing journalists working for State-owned Television New Zealand of political bias against the Labour Party?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: All I can say is that my understanding is that my colleague Mr Trevor Mallard has a wonderful relationship with the media, both here and around the country. In fact, as far as I can see, he is a man known for the warmth and compassion that he conveys to people all over the country.

Identity Fraud—Prevention

10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What progress is he making to reduce the occurrence of identity fraud in New Zealand?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): A good deal. I have introduced a number of measures to reduce the ease with which fraudsters can falsify identity. Those measures include e-passports, which, by the use of a microchip that contains matching bio-data in the front of the passports, make it near to impossible to falsify travel documentation. As well as that I have recently introduced the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill to the House, which, if enacted, will mean that the introduction of new access provisions will reflect more realistically the privacy and security needs of the 21st century, and by doing so will make it more difficult for fraudsters to commit crimes of identity.

Darien Fenton: Do the measures in the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill make the job of competent historians who are writing about 20th century New Zealand difficult, if not impossible?

Hon RICK BARKER: No, not at all. The bill ensures that people will still have access to records, provided they have a legitimate purpose and permission to access those records and to use that information. The primary concern in introducing the bill is about the protection of personal and private information, and a recent survey showed that 52 percent of New Zealanders were concerned about identity theft. As an example of the type of problem that the bill will address, I inform members that 4.3 percent of all adult Americans—over 9 million people—are the victims of identity fraud each year. We know the cost of identity fraud in the UK was £1.9 billion last year, and in Australia identity fraud cost $1.1 billion. In New Zealand the cost of identity fraud is estimated at around $400 million a year, and to our economy this is a very fast-growing type of crime. I am sure that New Zealanders expect the Government to guard information it has on them and to do everything it can to prevent identity theft. This bill is an important safeguard in addressing those concerns.

Carbon Credits—Foresters

11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement on 28 March, in regard to the devolution of carbon credits to foresters, that “It would be a fairly silly forester who took that as a signal to plant trees, when it was a scenario in a discussion document that followed an ‘in principle’ decision, which had yet to be confirmed, and of course was not, in the event, confirmed.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Prime Minister say that the decision in principle “had yet to be confirmed, and … was not … confirmed.”, when the Cabinet record specifically states that the July 2000 decision to allocate carbon credits to foresters was confirmed by her Cabinet in January 2001?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have the minute from January 2001 in front of me. The minute is perfectly clear that it is quoting the “in principle” decision, which it noted, and it further noted that the Government is yet to finally determine its position on allocating additional assigned amount units from specified forest sink activities. It goes on to say what it could take into account if it did. The member has consistently misrepresented this.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Government document Forest Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol, an information document that says that in July 2000 Cabinet agreed and then confirmed that in January 2001.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? I am sorry, members know they identify the document. They do not actually go on to describe all the content—please be seated, I am on my feet. I have noticed several members today have also done that. I just remind them that that is the process and the procedure—identify the document. The member was kind enough to do that. I ask members whether there is objection. There is objection.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Prime Minister confirm that if the carbon credits were to be in the ownership of foresters, surely the carbon debits and a fair percentage of Kyoto Protocol costs would be the responsibility of foresters also, which could, in fact, put the foresters in a position of financial hardship?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: One is assuming that if the National Party wants to devolve credits it would also want to devolve liabilities, and it is not quite clear where the balance of that would pan out, at this time.

Eric Roy: How credible is it for her to be talking up carbon neutrality in agencies such as Treasury, which have a negligible greenhouse gas emission, when the Government’s own State-owned enterprise, Landcorp, is clearing hundreds of hectares of regenerating native bush at Hikuraki Station in Southland—Landcorp’s operation there—without consent, and also clearing vast areas of forest in the central North Island?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: With respect to the central North Island, it is my understanding that Landcorp is actually managing those contracts rather than being the owner of the land. I would have to take further advice on the Southland property.

Hon David Parker: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports recommending devolving liability for carbon emissions to the agricultural sector?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That appears to be being advocated in a number of quarters at the moment, including by Guy Salmon, who advised the National Party on its current environmental policy statement. He wants Fonterra to “carry the can”, in his words, for the agricultural sector’s emissions. The question, of course, is whether this will become National Party policy. I notice in the 30-page report they put out last year they curiously failed to mention carbon credits at all, despite the fact that Guy Salmon advised them on the document.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Prime Minister maintain that deforestation has absolutely nothing to do with the Government’s policies, when records show that since 1951 in every single year New Zealand’s forest estate increased; that in 2003 the Government backtracked on its policy to provide carbon credits to foresters; and that in every year since, there has been significant deforestation; or are we to believe that somehow this is just a coincidence?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There are a number of errors in that question. In the first place, even Mr Dickie has now conceded that there was never a promise to devolve. In the second place, the “in principle” decision of July 2000 was reversed in 2002, not 2003. In the third instance, the fact is that forestry planting and deforestation tend to track forestry prices.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Prime Minister seen any report that indicates that the only guarantee of carbon credit returns to investors was given by Roger Dickie of Kyoto Forestry Association in a prospectus issued in 1995 before Kyoto was ever heard of, let alone ratified by this Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I strongly suspect that the Minister is right and that Mr Dickie has egg on his face because of the way in which he enticed people to invest.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government be adopting a timetable and interim targets to achieve its goal of carbon neutrality; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have been very clear, when answering a number of questions on this subject, that I have set it out as an aspirational goal.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the end of the answer by the Minister of Broadcasting to my supplementary question on question No. 9, the Minister of Broadcasting made a highly insulting and unparliamentary remark across the Chamber. I invite him either to repeat it now or to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): It is long past the time for that point of order to be raised. It should have been raised at the immediate time.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): The remark was somewhat surprising. It would have been inappropriate to make an accusation without checking. Staff who are watching this question time have reported that the words were audible. I think it would be rather odd if the Minister were not prepared to withdraw and apologise.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): If I have caused offence, I withdraw and apologise, obviously.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that when members withdrew and apologise there was no prefacing—that members just get up and withdraw and apologise. The Minister knows that.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): I withdraw and apologise.

Fisheries, Ministry—Confidence

12. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Fisheries: Does he have confidence in his ministry; if so, why?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Yes, I have confidence in the Ministry of Fisheries. I have no information to indicate any reason why I should not.

Phil Heatley: Why does he have confidence when the ministry withdrew its fisheries officer staff from patrolling the coastline on 25 December, 26 December, 27 December, 28 December, and on 1 and 2 January, a holiday period when most of the fishing public are out doing just that—fishing and collecting shellfish?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: If the member wants such a definitive and precise answer he should put it to me in writing and I will give it to him. But let me just say to him that I would like to know whether he was in Parliament on 25 December doing his work here.

Phil Heatley: Will the Minister give an assurance that full patrols will be on the ground over Easter—another public holiday period when recreational fishers are out on the water in large numbers?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As far as I am aware, the Ministry of Fisheries takes its responsibility seriously, in terms of both full-time fisheries officers and honorary fisheries officers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the minutes of a meeting with recreational fishers held at Onerahi during the 2005 election where the member asking the question promised to be the next Minister of Fisheries—

Leave granted.

Phil Heatley: Is it this type of staffing decision that contributed to a massive drop of recreational fishing inspections, from 45,525 in the 2005 year to only 14,873 inspections last year; if not, what did lead to the slashing of 45,000 annual inspections down to 14,000 annual inspections?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have no advice that that is the situation, except to say that under the educative and informative processes that the Ministry of Fisheries is engaging in with the recreational fishing sector, there is clearly much more and better compliance than ever before.

Phil Heatley: Is it still the case that of the popular recreational species, 20 percent of the crayfish catch and half of all the pāua collected are taken illegally; if so, how will a lack of patrols over critical holiday periods address that problem?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It is true that there is an illegal harvest of some recreational fish and some commercial fish; we know that. That is why the ministry is engaged in a significant programme to catch those people who procure fish illegally. They are brought before the courts regularly and prosecuted, and they have much of their equipment and their money confiscated.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tena koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What response does the Minister have to the submission from Te Ohu Kaimoana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to the Ministry of Fisheries that the shared fisheries proposals have “profound implications for the integrity of the deed of settlement”, and that as a consequence he is urged to immediately withdraw the proposals in order to find a way forward that has integrity?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have heard and seen reports of Te Ohu Kaimoana’s position on the deed of settlement. They are, quite simply, wrong.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a memo withdrawing fisheries officer staff for 6 days over the Christmas period—not just Christmas Day.

Leave granted.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the annual report of 2004-05, which states that there were 45,000 fisheries inspections.

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

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the following year’s annual report, which stated that there were only 14,000 inspections.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. Yes, there is objection.

ENDS

© Scoop Media