Questions And Answers - Tuesday, 8 May 2007

Questions to Ministers

Carbon Neutrality—Business Encouragement

1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: What kind of encouragement, if any, does she believe businesses will need to help achieve her goal for New Zealand to be carbon neutral and sustainable?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Putting a price on carbon would be effective encouragement, as it would focus business on reducing emissions. That would not only be good for the environment but it would also be good for bottom lines through the impact of better energy efficiency and conservation.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister agree that the hard part of a carbon trading policy such as was announced this morning is how to allocate the permits, and that the resultant political lobbying on this issue will delay action until well into the first Kyoto period; if so, will she consider adopting as an interim measure the Greens’ proposal, which could lead towards full carbon trading and put a price on carbon by the end of this year?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I agree with the member that the transition issues are big issues, and that they have to be worked through. I am aware of the member’s proposal, and I encourage her to keep talking with the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. I sense that there is a lot of interest in the community, including in the business community, around the emissions trading concept. One hopes there can be a lot of discussion not only across sectors in the economy but across political parties, which might see us make faster progress on these issues than perhaps some pessimists might think is possible.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that her Government, having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, has sat back and done absolutely nothing in relation to New Zealand carbon dioxide emissions, to the extent that those emissions have spiralled out of control, and that New Zealand now faces a liability of potentially billions of dollars; if so, will she be taking responsibility for that multibillion-dollar liability with New Zealand’s taxpayers?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, of course I am not aware of any such thing, as I am aware of a number of policies that were followed to deal with those issues. One of those issues that has now borne fruit is the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, with the very substantial announcement from the East Coast in that direction. A number of new, second-generation policies are being worked on, and will work.

Peter Brown: Will the Prime Minister tell us what her views are on the Australian Labor Party’s ideas of providing of interest-free loans for solar water heating; and, if she thinks that is a good idea, does she think there is any possibility of her Government taking up the idea?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I have seen that initiative, and it is one of a number of possible things that can be done. The Government, for example, is in a programme of supporting the retrofitting of houses for greater energy efficiency. We passed the 30,000 mark in that particular programme a few weeks ago, and we have budgeted for another 12,000 in the present financial year. So all those kinds of initiatives are helpful in getting more energy efficiency and conservation in our homes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister agree with the OECD that New Zealand could make better use of economic instruments to achieve environmentally sustainable outcomes; if so, why is it that none of the options being floated for upcoming business tax cuts include any targeted incentives for sustainability or carbon neutrality?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I think the OECD is right, and that is why the Government is, obviously, exploring very thoroughly the issue of emissions trading, which will need a cap if it is to be effective as a mechanism in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I am also aware of the member’s long-time advocacy of eco-taxes. That is not something on which the Government consulted the business community in the recent business tax review, but I have no doubt it will keep coming back as possibilities for the future.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is Government support parties that are standing in the way of the tax cuts being used to foster sustainability?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Not to my knowledge; it is simply that in the package of measures that were consulted on in the business tax review, those options were not put up for consideration. I certainly would not rule out consideration of them for the future.

Economy—OECD Ratings

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she still stand by her statement last year, with respect to the economy, that “Our job in government has been to stop New Zealand running the race to the bottom, and to aim for the top.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Is the reason the Prime Minister will not give a date for getting New Zealand to the top half of the OECD the same reason she will not give a date for getting New Zealand to be carbon neutral—that is, because under her policies, short of a miracle, neither goal is practicably attainable?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course such goals are attainable, but when New Zealand’s GDP per capita steadily falls from being, in 1950, third in the world, down to around the 20 or so mark over the course of half a century, that is not easily turned round. These things require clear, deliberate policy programmes that are sustained over time. When New Zealand gets mindless policy lurches backward from National from time to time, it does not help.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that the only OECD countries with poorer-performing economies than ours are Korea, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Mexico, and Turkey, which is hardly a stellar line-up, and when will she do something about actually raising the level of the New Zealand economy—not just enjoying the spend-up that she has been enjoying in the last few years?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is somewhat disingenuous to quote New Zealand growth at the bottom of the business cycle—and no one has worked out how to eliminate business cycles—and overlook the fact that New Zealand’s growth under a Labour Government has been above the average for the OECD, when under National it was consistently below.

Darren Hughes: What reports has the Prime Minister seen about the importance of the Government making an effort to contain fiscal stimulus in the economy at this time?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have seen the IMF report out today to that effect, and I note that any suggestion of large-scale fiscal loosening of the type the National Party keeps promising would, in the IMF’s view, make imbalances in the economy much worse.

Peter Brown: Does the Prime Minister recognise that minimal unemployment is a worthwhile goal; if she does, will she tell us where New Zealand currently stands on the OECD scale with regard to unemployment?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Over the course of the last 2 years or so there have been a number of occasions when New Zealand’s unemployment has been at the very lowest level in the OECD. We have been in competition with Korea for that honour from time to time. We are still right down there in the bottom group. Again, as I advised the House last week, under the Labour Government employment growth in New Zealand has been well above the OECD average. Our growth in employment from 2001 to 2005 was 2.6 percent, and the OECD average was 0.6 percent—not a record that National ever managed in the 1990s.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that when she came into office she promised New Zealanders she would lift their incomes to above the average of the OECD, that when she came into office we were 20th, and that we have now fallen to 22nd out of 30 countries; and why will she not start admitting that rather than her raising New Zealand up the OECD ladder, we have in fact fallen? She should she stop arguing that falling is somehow rising; if that is what she calls success, she should leave office now, before she does so in 18 months’ time.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am well aware that the member pumps himself up with that sort of rhetoric, but he is not convincing very many others. There is absolutely no doubt that wealth in this country has risen in the course of the last 7½ years. The reality is that Greece changed the base on which it calculates its GDP per capita. That has had an impact. What we have done is stop New Zealand’s decline.

John Key: On that note, is it not a sign of our declining economy that, relative to Australia, in the last 4 years under Labour the number of people moving across the Tasman has gone from 500 4 years ago to 600, then to 650, and last week it was finally announced that 700 Kiwis a week are leaving for Australia; if her economic management is so strong, why are they all deserting us?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am sure the member fancies himself as knowing something about global trends. Any insight into that tells us that what is happening around world labour markets is a major brain exchange, and we have a net skills gain coming here.

John Key: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the release of yesterday’s labour cost index showed that for the 22nd quarter in a row employees in the State sector received a larger pay increase that those in the private sector, and can she tell New Zealand private sector workers why they deserve to have a lower pay rise than those in the public sector?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am particularly pleased that the member has raised this issue, because what the figures actually show is that central government administrative and defence wages have risen to a level equivalent, over a number of years, to wages in the private sector generally. Where New Zealand public sector wage rates have risen above the private sector is in health and education, where we are trying to recruit, retain, and pay properly very valued people who teach and who provide health services.

John Key: If that is the case, is that the same reason why Child, Youth and Family decided to use its vote to pay a $650 bonus to everyone who belonged to the Public Service Association, and does she describe that as a good use for its vote?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would describe it as collective bargaining, which gives workers strength.

Craig Foss: I seek leave to table the IMF report that the Prime Minister referred to, which, amongst other things, states that fiscal stimulus is being added to a still overheated economy.

Leave granted.

Sedition—Law Reform

3. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Justice: Does he propose to introduce legislation repealing the law on sedition?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes. The matter was signed off yesterday by Cabinet, and I will be introducing a bill to the House following appropriate consultation.

Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Minister concede that the reason that this decision has been brought forward from the original October response date that he announced at the time the Law Commission’s report was released is the call by United Future, the Greens, ACT, and the Māori Party for urgent action on this question; and can he indicate to the House, given the lightness of the timetable of the legislative programme and the fact that the Law Commission has already drafted the bill, precisely when the bill will come before the House?

Hon MARK BURTON: As much as I hate to rain on the member’s parade, I can say that the matter came forward as soon as it was ready. This was a simple matter, and I think the member will recall that on the day the report was tabled I made the comment publicly that the commission had made a compelling case and that I expected the bill to receive wide support in the House. I would anticipate that with the agreement of the Leader of the House, the bill will come before the House quite soon.

Hon Peter Dunne: Why, then, if this is all so urgent and immediate, did the Minister say at the time the original report was tabled that he would be responding in October, which is still many months away?

Hon MARK BURTON: I would be happy to be corrected, but I believe I simply indicated to the House that the Government was required to respond by October. If I said “in October” then I apologise to the member, but I was certainly indicating to the House that there is a statutory obligation to respond within the 6-month time limit.

Keith Locke: Will the Minister’s bill removing the sedition provisions in the Crimes Act also remove the remaining thought crime provision in the Act, that in section 123, ”Blasphemous libel”, which not only undermines the separation of church and State but can also put people in prison for criticising certain religious institutions or practices?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do not have the draft bill with me in the House, but my best recollection is that the matter the member raises is somewhat outside the scope of the bill and the report from the Law Commission.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the joint statement by United Future, the Greens, ACT, and the Māori Party on 24 April, explaining how freedom of expression is compromised—

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

Public Sector Pay—Comparisons

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen figures showing that public sector wage growth has been ahead of private sector wage growth for the past 5 years; if so, what does he consider to be the fiscal and other implications for upcoming public sector pay negotiations?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes; the statistics are being driven mainly by the health sector and, to a lesser extent, the education sector. This has obvious fiscal implications. Core State sector wage growth has been the same as that in the private sector throughout the last 5 years.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that further public sector wage increases without improved productivity—as is the recent track record—will be inflationary and, therefore, will increase interest rates paid by families and businesses?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That, of course, is always a possibility. Therefore, it has always staggered me that the National Party has consistently supported every wage demand that has been made in the health sector over the last 5 years.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister confirm that public sector wage growth over the past 5 years has driven up public sector growth, thus helping to build a higher-wage economy, whereas in the 1990s the policy was to hold public sector wages down, thus holding down private sector wages—creating a low-wage economy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is certainly true to say that there are increasing difficulties in retaining highly skilled staff in the public sector, through a process of trying to constrain wages in the public sector unnecessarily and unfairly. In particular, in the health sector there is a need to compete not just within New Zealand but also in an international arena.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister plan to inform public sector unions about the advice of the IMF released just yesterday, where, in describing his policies, it states “… fiscal stimulus is being added to a still over-heated economy.”, and will he explain to them that this means his planned spending surge in the run-up to the 2008 election will push up interest rates higher for longer?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will continue to explain to lots of people the distinction that the report draws between the fiscal space available owing to the strength of the overall Budget, and the macroeconomic space provided by the cyclical position of the economy. Unfortunately, I will have to start with Mr Key first, who has never understood that distinction.

Shane Jones: Why has the Government invested in improving pay and conditions in health and education?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because we were struggling to retain skilled staff. People demand good doctors and good nurses; we need to pay the appropriate rates to retain them. I note that although Mr English on Radio New Zealand National this morning was criticising such increases, the National Party’s industrial relations spokesperson was on Bay of Plenty’s Radio 1XX encouraging hospital workers to strike for higher pay.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the IMF quotes so-called authorities as saying that fiscal expansion would be contained to the extent possible, and does this mean that Treasury has been telling him to watch his spending because it is causing inflation and higher interest rates, and that is what it is telling the IMF, but he is ignoring its advice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. It does mean that we have not had anything like the fiscal expansion that National was planning for the current term of this Parliament, which by now would be putting $3 billion a year extra of tax cuts into the economy. It does mean, as the IMF stated, that should revenues over perform, as they have in recent years, the 2006-07 surplus will be allowed to increase as an automatic stabiliser. That is, in fact, happening and I anticipate Mr Key promising to spend a lot on Budget night on tax cuts.

Hon Annette King: Can the Minister confirm that if we remove health and education from the equation, from June 2001 salary and wage rates, including overtime, in the public service have increased by 14.8 percent compared with 15.3 percent in the private sector?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that. The labour cost index, which takes into account all the movements, shows the private sector and the central government administration and defence sector tracking extraordinarily close to each other throughout the last 5 years.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister of Finance discussed with New Zealand First and United Future his commitment to policies that are pushing up inflation and, therefore, pushing up interest rates, and in Export Year, which is promoted by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, are also pushing up the exchange rate to record highs; and what did New Zealand First and United Future say to him about that?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have, of course, discussed with United Future particularly, but also with New Zealand First, the issue of business taxation. I am pleased to report that they will be supporting sensible changes in that respect, which Mr English last week indicated to the House he would be voting against.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister at all concerned that he now appears to not be managing the economy at all, when the company tax cuts in the Budget were pushed by United Future, the savings incentives were pushed by New Zealand First, and he is trying to deal with his high-interest and exchange rate policy by shuffling it off to a futile select committee inquiry?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is always good to see an Opposition person rejecting a select committee inquiry as being futile. It is about all one gets to do in Opposition.

New Zealand Sign Language—Recent Announcements

5. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made regarding New Zealand Sign Language?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues): I am very pleased to inform the House that last night I launched the very first New Zealand Sign Language Week. By establishing this special week of recognition of our unique language, New Zealand’s Deaf community now has a central focus point for celebrating and lifting the profile of what has recently become our country’s third and newest official language. I would encourage all members of the House to join in the celebrations and events that are happening around the country this week.

Steve Chadwick: Can the Minister inform the House what progress has been driven by the New Zealand Sign Language Act?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I can. The list of progress is long and growing. A few highlights are that the Office for Disability Issues is working with the police and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that Deaf people have fair access to the justice system, using professional interpreters. Progress in the education sector includes the recently announced launch of the Sign Language curriculum, offering Sign Language as a choice alongside other languages offered in schools. I am also pleased to see the Accident Compensation Corporation taking a leadership role in reducing the barriers to the scheme for the Deaf community, by offering dedicated email and fax lines to their deaf clients, and also targeted information, specialised training, and a DVD of deaf people talking about their injury and the help that is available through the scheme.

Gangs—Government Action

6. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the Government’s response to gangs that “No one has been idle here. People have been very proactive.”?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes, and I also agree with the second part of the Prime Minister’s statement, which the member has chosen to omit, that “if there are ways that prove to be effective, where the law can be strengthened, and practice can be strengthened, of course we will also look at them.”

Simon Power: Why should the people of Wanganui and the rest of the country believe that the Minister’s Government cares about stopping gangs from spraying bullets around our streets, when the organised crimes strategy he promised at the last election was going to be released only in another 10 months’ time—March 2008—and when asked about it last year he replied that the most recent work done on this issue was a report from March 2005?

Hon MARK BURTON: Because, although reports and ongoing strategy work is of course being done, a great deal of practical action has been taken—

Simon Power: Like what?

Hon MARK BURTON: I point out to the member, to name but a few: the strengthening of the Bail Act, the Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, section 98(a) of the Crimes Act, of course, under which some successful prosecutions have been taken—

Simon Power: Some successful prosecutions? Twelve!

Hon MARK BURTON: No—more than 40, actually. I am sorry, the member is unfortunately not possessed of the facts. The member’s own party has voted for some of the legislation, even—the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2004, for instance, toughening up on re-trading. Right before the Parliament right now is legislation that will cut off the money supply to gangs. This Government is determined to be tough on those organised criminals, and it will be interesting to see whether that member helps or attempts to hinder the progress of that legislation through the select committee.

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members that all members are entitled to hear both the questions and the answers. It was very difficult to do so in that instance. I also remind members, however, that both questions and answers are meant to be succinct and to the point.

Jill Pettis: Could the Minister please advise the House what the Government is doing about the problem of gang violence in Wanganui?

Hon MARK BURTON: A multi-agency approach to gang-related issues is currently being led by the police, and I think they are doing a good job. In addition, over the last 12 months the police in Wanganui have commenced an operation based on previous successful operations. This has resulted in over 100 arrests for various offences including firearms and intimidation. In response to the immediate tragic incident and to defuse the situation, police have swamped the area with officers and are undertaking armed patrols. In addition, two iwi liaison officers have also been deployed to the area to assist with community liaison.

Ron Mark: Does he think that the public can be confident that police are equipped with adequate legislative tools to enable them to tackle gangs and gang activities; if so, how does he reconcile this with the statement of Police Association president, Greg O’Connor, who said with respect to gangs: “Every time something happens and hits the airwaves the police say ‘we are on top of this’ and outline things they are doing, which is just crap. The commissioner now is saying it is all right, well it’s bullshit, it is out of control.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: In the end I think the Commissioner of Police is the most credible source of advice. But I have to say to the member in answer to his principal question that a raft of legislative provisions strengthening the tools available to the police have been introduced, further ones are in front of this House, and we have brought together senior representatives across Government agencies that will be reporting to Ministers this week. If there are further measures that can be taken to further strengthen the tool kit for police, we will do it.

Simon Power: How will the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act prevent a reoccurrence of the drive-by shooting that occurred in Wanganui in recent days?

Hon MARK BURTON: That, frankly, is an insulting and ridiculous question. It is an offence to the death of the 2-year-old child, frankly.

Madam SPEAKER: Now we are getting very close to having question time in silence. I ask the Minister to start his answer again, and just address the question.

Hon MARK BURTON: I presume that when the member’s party supported that legislation it did so because it understood that it was one small part of making it harder for organised criminals to deal in stolen goods. There is a much more substantial measure in front of a select committee right now, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. This can have the potential to cut off the money supply to organised crime.

Simon Power: For 8 years you have been promising that.

Hon MARK BURTON: Well, I will be interested to see whether that member’s presence on the committee helps or hinders its progress back to this House.

Ron Mark: Does he recall the statement of his colleague Phil Goff during the debate on the counter-terrorism legislation that “New Zealand is committed on every front to combat terrorism.”, and why is it that this Government is prepared to talk and act tough with respect to international terrorism but when it comes to domestic terrorists it rolls over and admits defeat?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I recall the comment. Yes, I agree with the comment, and as I indicated in an earlier answer—and the member may not have heard it, because of the noise—if there are further provisions that will have an effect on organised criminals and gangs in New Zealand, then the Government will consider them.

Simon Power: Can he confirm that legislation passed by National in 1997 gave police the power to remove gang fortifications, and will he be asking the Minister of Police why she signed off on a statement of intent, which includes that as one of the Government’s key operational practices, when it has consistently refused to say how many times it has removed fortifications, and when are we going to get some real action instead of more reports and ongoing strategies?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have given the member a long list of real actions that have already been taken. If the member wants to put down a question to the Minister of Police, he should of course do so.

Heather Roy: Is not the real answer in dealing with gangs, rather than making new law, enforcing the laws we have now such as prosecuting gangs for building fences higher than by-laws allow, and the Inland Revenue Department investigating gangs rather than chasing productive New Zealanders; and why will this Government not issue to all Government departments a zero-tolerance policy on gangs for breaking any law, no matter how trivial?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member raises a fair question in terms of the extent to which proper use is being made of existing law. That is one of the specific questions that Ministers have put to senior officials, and we will get a report this week. If there are provisions not being adequately used, then we will expect them to be more adequately used.

Simon Power: Does he agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister that getting tough on gangs would only increase their mana and drive them underground, and what would the public see this as, other than a total cop-out from a Government that already has laws in place to deal with these issues but lacks the political will to get on and do the job?

Rt Hon Helen Clark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to a question that attributed a statement to me that was not made. I do not think it is fair to the House for questions to be premised on inaccuracies.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate. [Interruption] All members know that if a member says that he or she did not make a statement, then that has to be accepted. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon MARK BURTON: I agree with what the Prime Minister said, rather than what the member misrepresented.

Simon Power: What did she say?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member raised the question; he should pay better attention. The Prime Minister said, very clearly, that this Government will take actions that will have effect—not just cheap political posturing at a time of tragedy.

Chester Borrows: How can he claim that the Government is doing all that it can to protect the people of Wanganui from gangs, when Mongrel Mob cars, guarding their fort, are able to have rifles prominently displayed in the back seat—or does this just confirm the lack of political will to actually enforce the law where gangs are concerned?

Hon MARK BURTON: Nobody has said that everything possible is being done. That is why we have senior officials providing advice, this week, to Ministers in terms of what is being done and what, if anything, needs to be added to the long list of actions that are being taken. If that member has evidence of a crime being committed, he should report it.

Chester Borrows: Will the Government support my local bill to allow Wanganui to ban gang patches, yes or no?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Government will give careful consideration to the member’s—[Interruption] I have only the member’s word that he is going to introduce a bill. We have not seen any bill. How could we possibly say we will support something that does not yet exist? When the member produces a copy of a bill, the Government will give it fair and proper consideration. If it proved to be an effective mechanism for having an impact on criminal gang activity, then of course we would give it strong consideration.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table Tuesday’s New Zealand Herald report in which Greg O’Connor says that gangs are “out of control”.

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

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table the Hansard of Phil Goff’s speech during the debate on counter-terrorism legislation, where he states New Zealand is committed on every front to fight against terrorism.

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

Diabetes—Type 2 Incidence

7. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: Has he been informed of comments made yesterday by Diabetes New Zealand president, Murray Dear, that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes has rocketed ahead of official predictions, and there will be a severe impact not only “on the suffering of thousands of people with severe diabetes complications, but … across the whole health system as funds are dragged from other areas of need to stem the demands of diabetes.”; if so, what is his response?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health): Yes, I am aware of the comments made, and the modelling, by Diabetes New Zealand, which are a welcome and useful addition to our understanding of the future challenges that the incidence of diabetes will provide to all of the world’s developed nations. Paradoxically, it is important to stress that the increase in the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes is due in part to the fact that our improved screening processes have identified that more people are suffering from this disease than previously, and that they can now receive treatment and lifestyle advice to prevent complications.

Dr Pita Sharples: What plans are in place to ensure the Government will invest an additional $50 million to prevent and treat diabetes, as recommended by PricewaterhouseCoopers, if the country is to avoid the massive future cost of preventing and treating diabetes, such as that involved in heart failure, blindness, circulatory problems, and amputations?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: A range of initiatives is in place that looks particularly at obesity, which is the single biggest cause of about 30 percent of the increase in diabetes. The Healthy Eating - Healthy Action initiative of the Ministry of Health has been applauded by a number of international medical publications, including The Lancet from the UK.

Barbara Stewart: Does the Minister believe that taxpayers got value for money from the recently ended 3-year, $4.26 million Māori diabetes prevention study organised by Auckland University’s Waikato clinical school; if so, why?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I cannot give the member a specific answer to that, but I can say that there has been a 29 percent increase in the Māori “Get Checked” figures—that is, the figures of Māori detected with diabetes in the last 3 years. I think that that is a pretty good, significant result.

Dr Pita Sharples: So what response will the Minister offer to the 15,000 Māori people who are reported to be feeling ripped off and betrayed by the canning of the $4.26 million diabetes prevention study managed by Auckland University’s Waikato clinical school—a project funded by the Ministry of Health, the Health Research Council of New Zealand, and two district health boards—which aimed to respond to the crisis situation that 40 percent of Māori are expected to develop type 2 diabetes, with 5 percent of that number dying each year?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All studies have a beginning and an end, and I cannot comment on the fact that 4 years have gone by with this particular study. But I can say that the incidence of type 2 diabetes is increasing in every developed country as a result of changes in lifestyle and aging populations. New Zealand, however, compares very favourably with other countries of a similar social and economic background. I think that that in itself indicates that New Zealand is up with the play and is doing everything reasonable in this area at the present time.

Dr Pita Sharples: Has the Minister seen comments from Waikato District Health Board member David Gilgen that criticised the failure of the Waikato clinical school’s Māori diabetes prevention strategy, saying that Māori felt patronised and used as second-class citizens; and what assurances can the Minister give that ethical standards will be reviewed to ensure that future research does not exploit Māori for the benefit of the researcher and not for the people, as appears to have happened in this instance?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I have not seen those comments. All I can say is that in my experience of the health system in New Zealand, high ethical standards are maintained pretty consistently.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

8. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the statement of the Southland Kindergarten Association president, Paddy Lewis, regarding the 20 free hours policy, that “If we don’t raise the fees … then we are not going to be viable.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I note that the Southland Kindergarten Association has just issued a media release to clarify its position in which it notes that it is unfortunate it is being used as a political football. It states: “If parents bring their 20 Hours to a Southland Kindergarten they will not pay any fee, they will not pay any optional charges—so any talk over increased fees is irrelevant to them.”

Katherine Rich: How does he feel about being the guy who is, through his 20 hours free policy, turning the once-proud free kindergarten movement into one that is considering charging fees that, in some cases, are 700 percent more than the present donations?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: A whole lot better than the girl who seems to want to undermine a policy that is hugely popular around the country.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Does the Minister accept recent survey findings that the vast majority of early childhood education managers, teachers, and parents support the principles of free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I do, and the Labour-led Government will deliver on this principle. But I also challenge the National Party to come clean with New Zealand families and admit that by the next election it will support this policy, too.

Katherine Rich: The girl has this to ask: what did the Minister mean when he said that after the early childhood reforms are rolled out, “the chances of making a profit” from early childhood education provision will be “very, very low … simply because the sector will over time become more like the compulsory schooling sector and the chances of making a profit will be almost nil.” It looks like he is telling the 1,100 private operators to get out of the business now.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On behalf of this guy, can I say that the policy was never intended to make profits for particular centres. We are, of course, keen that centres make a surplus that they can reinvest in improving their property, or wages, or conditions, or whatever they might want to do. But this policy has never been a profit-making policy.

Katherine Rich: Why should anyone invest in early childhood education provision to reduce the current waiting lists that working parents face, when he, as Minister, has gone out and said that he wants the early childhood sector to be controlled like the State sector is, and that “the chances of making a profit will be almost nil.”—why does he think people invest?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The second part of the question is wrong; I have not gone out and said anything of the kind that the member has indicated. But I would say to anybody who wants to go into early childhood education provision that the Government pays for the establishment of centres; we are, both through Work and Income and through the Ministry of Education, paying for this particular service; we are in the kindergarten area, of course, paying for teachers’ wages; we are paying for enhancement of performance; and we are paying for computers. I say that if I were looking at entering this area at the present time, I would want in.

Katherine Rich: Is the Minister now resiling from his comments to the Sunday Star-Times that for those thinking of getting involved in providing early childhood education “the chances of making a profit” will be “very, very low … simply because the sector will over time become more like the compulsory schooling sector and the chances of making a profit will be almost nil.”; does he not understand that people go into business to pay their bills and make a profit?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think we have a divide between the two parties here. Of course we want to see all early childhood educators in a position to be able to provide high-quality early childhood education. I was pointing out that we are in the middle of a 10-year strategy—we are 5 years in, and we have 5 years to go. As we move through that strategy, for example, we will build a fully qualified, fully registered teaching workforce, and all of its members will be paid proper teachers’ wages. Those are the kinds of things we are focused on; we are not focused on the notion that the member seems to be obsessed with, which is that people should be able to make a profit.

Katherine Rich: When the Minister’s own officials tell him that in the event that his so-called 20 free hours policy is a success—which we all doubt—30 percent of our communities will not have the capacity in terms of spaces, does he think he will somehow provide that capacity through just the State sector, without the assistance of private providers, who invest their own money into setting up these centres?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It seems to have escaped the member’s attention that the State owns none of the early childhood education sector. The sector is either community-owned or privately owned; we own none of it. What we are doing, however, is funding the most massive expansion of early childhood education that the member will see anywhere around the world. On top of that, we are funding the professionalisation strategy, the regulation strategy, the building of these centres, and the equipment of these centres. I am not quite sure what the member wants us to do. But I come back to the point that we do not own these centres.

Katherine Rich: Why did the Minister single out Kidicorp for comment when he made the bizarre statement that the Government would trawl through financial reports to see whether centres were making a profit, then look at whether the Government subsidy was appropriate, when the Prime Minister had opened one of Kidicorp’s centres only a few weeks earlier, thereby endorsing it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I too would go on record as endorsing Kidicorp as a quality provider of early childhood education. But I would single out all providers of early childhood education. We have a system for monitoring how they run their centres. We audit them every year. We do not single anybody out. But, of course, this money is taxpayers’ money and we will make sure it is spent properly.

Question No. 7 to Minister

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I seek leave to table the New Zealand Herald article of 7 May 2007, headed “Diabetes cases soar beyond forecasts”.

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

Dr PITA SHARPLES: I seek leave to table the Waikato Times article of 5 May 2007 headed “Waikato diabetes study ends in failure”.

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

Quality Regulation Review—Second Milestone Report

9. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: Has she received any responses to the second milestone report of the Quality Regulation Review; if so, what did they say?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): Yes, I received a copy of the statement put out by Business New Zealand’s Phil O’Reilly. He welcomed the report, stating that it should be seen as a first step towards a significant and ongoing improvement in the quality of regulation. He went on to say that a key outcome was the strengthening of the regulatory impact analysis process for regulation, which came into effect on 1 April this year.

Maryan Street: Is the Minister confident that the review will produce improvements in the business environment; if so, why?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I am, because the actual proposals have come from the individual businesses that have either participated in the sector reviews or submitted to the Business Consultation Website. This is very much a bottom-up review from the perspective of business. Given that New Zealand ranks No. 2 in the World Bank ease of doing business survey, it is not surprising that relatively small changes make a big difference to small to medium sized enterprises.

Child, Youth and Family—Juvenile Sex Offenders

10. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she have confidence in Child, Youth and Family’s ability to supervise juvenile sex offenders; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): I have confidence in Child, Youth and Family’s approval process and selection procedure for the caregivers of the young people who are in the youth justice system, around 130 of whom are sex offenders. I am very disturbed that the young man who is the subject of public attention currently was able to breach the court-imposed conditions of his supervision order. The department is reviewing the situation to see why that occurred and what can be done to ensure that it does not happen again. I can assure the House that the caregivers involved are very aware of the fact that this situation was unacceptable.

Anne Tolley: Why did Child, Youth and Family not notify Napier police when it moved a convicted teenage sex offender into the district and placed him in a home next door to a vulnerable 5-year-old girl?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It was not a requirement of the court decision for anyone to be informed of that, but in my view—and, actually, in the agreed protocols between Child, Youth and Family and the police—that should have happened. When he was originally put into the community 1 year ago, the police were informed. The police were not informed when he was transferred. That was a breach of the protocols. I have told the department that that is not acceptable.

Russell Fairbrother: What are the key pieces of work that Child, Youth and Family is engaged in that support and rehabilitate young offenders in New Zealand?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A great deal of work is under way. It includes the implementation of the recommendations of the youth justice capability review, which strengthens Child, Youth and Family’s ability in this area; working with other agencies, particularly health and education agencies, at an early stage, such as through the health and education assessment programme; implementing a range of actions under the Youth Offending Strategy; working in partnership with both the police and Women’s Refuge with the new case management system; increasing the number of social workers, and, in particular, the number of registered social workers; and increasing the workforce training and capacity of the youth justice services generally.

Barbara Stewart: Are there other sex offenders under full-time supervision in communities that are also unaware of the danger to their children; if so, what is the Minister doing to ensure that the Napier situation is not repeated elsewhere around the country?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am advised that about 130 young people who are sex offenders are living in the community.

Anne Tolley: How did this sex offender, who has been convicted of four heinous crimes against young children and who is under 24-hour supervision, manage to get away from his three supervisors 14 times in 3 weeks, without any action being taken to remove this predator from the neighbourhood at risk?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It happened because the supervisor, who was paid and required to maintain him under 24/7 supervision, breached that condition of the contract between the supervisor and Child, Youth and Family. That is not acceptable. On the first occasion that the department was alerted to that, action was taken and the young man was removed.

Anne Tolley: Does the Minister realise that two of the supervisors charged with protecting the community from this man were in fact away getting Chinese takeaways when the 5-year-old’s mother discovered this sexual predator with his face pressed hard against the window, staring into her daughter’s playroom?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I certainly have read that report. I am also advised that the primary caregiver did advise the neighbour that this young man was not to leave the property and that he did have significant behavioural challenges, and asked that he be advised. So I am surprised that it took as long as it did for any action to be taken. That does not justify any of the caregivers breaching the requirements of their contract.

Chris Tremain: Is the Minister aware that the person responsible for the supervision of this juvenile sex offender had previously departed under a cloud from Kauri Trust Youth Services in Auckland, a trust responsible for high-risk residential clients, and was this information considered when making the appointment for the Napier contract?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, actually, and having heard the reported comments, I am not sure whether anything at all that that member says in relation to this case is accurate. I am confident about both the approval and the selection procedures that Child, Youth and Family undertakes when contracting with caregivers of this kind.

Chris Tremain: Has the juvenile sex offender in question been relocated in Napier with the same supervisor; if so, what assurances can the Minister give to the Napier mother of the five-year-old girl and the parents of other Napier children that their children are safe from this predator?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The primary caregiver is still the same person—not all the supervisors that are required; the primary caregiver is. The young man will be appearing in court tomorrow, and after that his situation will be in the hands of the justice system.

Beachheads and Incubator Programmes—Support

11. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Has he received any reports on support for the Government’s Beachheads and Incubator programmes?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Acting Minister for Economic Development): Yes, many. One described the Government’s Incubator programme as “very impressive” and “doing a good job”. It also commented that the Beachheads programme was “very promising”. However, an alternative commentator said that the Beachheads programme has “made little impact, had incomplete policy objectives, and a lack of data to provide full analysis.” The first was John Key; the second was Katherine Rich. It is pretty clear that Bill English is not the only one in the National Party whom John Key fails to consult.

Dave Hereora: Has he received any reports on the results delivered by the Beachheads programme?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes. Unlimited magazine has commented that the Beachheads programme is “speeding the growth of some of our brightest stars.” The success of Beachheads shows that this Labour-led Government is enabling New Zealand firms to become world class and internationally competitive.

Health, Minister—Consultation by District Health Boards and Crown Entities

12. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports, if any, has he received regarding problems with consultation undertaken by district health boards and Crown entities under his jurisdiction?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health): The Minister receives many reports on consultation. Consultation requirements are laid out in legislation and policy. District health boards and Crown entities are expected to comply with those requirements. A number of parties, as the member knows, are currently testing or considering testing that issue.

Dr Jackie Blue: Will the Minister explain why his inability to step in to ensure proper consultation has now resulted in an unprecedented number of legal actions, such as the appeal of the Labtests Auckland case, the judicial review of the Waikato and Bay of Plenty district health boards’ community laboratory contracts, the proposed legal action by pharmacists against the district health board pharmacy contract, and now the possible judicial review of Pharmac’s decision to fund 9 weeks of Herceptin?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All those actions seem to me to be within the framework of the rule of law and democratic action that people are entitled to take in this country. I ask whether the member would have us stop them doing that.

Dr Jackie Blue: Why is it that the district health boards, during the pharmacy contract consultation process, treated the pharmacists so appallingly, by stalling, threatening, imposing unilateral conditions, and completely failing to consult; and can he understand why those first-line health professionals feel as though they have been backed into a corner?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All I can say is that as a constituency member I know there has been considerable consultation on the pharmacy contract. The fact that some pharmacists are not happy with it does not surprise me—that goes with the territory—but in the end these are matters that have to be worked out by the district health boards themselves, because our framework requires that they have the authority and delegated responsibility for doing so.

Dr Jackie Blue: Does the Minister believe that the Pharmac board entered into the Herceptin consultation process with an open mind, when half the Pharmac board members are either board members or chairs of district health boards, another is involved in district health board funding, and the observer member is the chief executive of a district heath board; and when, because of the board make-up, the final decision was biased and based purely on budgets and not the scientific evidence?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised that Pharmac consulted on that issue and received 250 submissions. If the member has any specific information on any bias or leanings by members of Pharmac that she believes are outside of the framework required of independent agency members like the members of Pharmac, she should supply them to the Minister or to me, and I will see that they are looked at.

Dr Jackie Blue: Can the Minister see that he has failed miserably as Minister of Health and that the unprecedented number of legal actions is a resounding vote of no confidence in his appalling, arrogant management; and instead of using taxpayers’ money to pay massive legal bills, would it not be better to use that money to improve the health of the people who need it?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: What I can say, after many years in this Parliament, is that our health system is inordinately better than it used to be, and that basically every single member of this House who has to deal with health matters knows that. At a primary, secondary, and tertiary level we are doing much, much better than ever before. If the member wants chapter and verse on that, she should ask me a written question and I will give her a book on it.

Dr Jackie Blue: I seek leave of the House to table two documents. The first is a letter dated 24 April from Chen Palmer and Partners to the chief executive officer of the Otago District Health Board, outlining the concerns the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealand has with the pharmacy services agreement.

Leave granted.

Dr Jackie Blue: The second is the Pharmac board’s interest register dated March 2007, indicating that half of the Pharmac board members are either board members or chairs of district health boards.

Leave granted.

ENDS

© Scoop Media