Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 9 May 2007

Questions to Ministers

Taxation—Budget Changes to Statutory Tax Rates

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: In how many of his eight Budgets has he reduced statutory tax rates?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I have not delivered eight Budgets.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the Australian Government has reduced personal taxes for the fifth Budget in a row, further increasing the significant gap between after-tax incomes in Australia and after-tax incomes in New Zealand; why did he not reduce personal taxes in the last five Budgets?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There has been a large range of tax reductions over a number of Budgets. They have been particularly concentrated in the business taxation area in order to encourage business investment.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In how many of the Minister’s last seven Budgets has he put in place economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability; if there were some, what were they?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There were no specific incentives in those areas. They would be, I think, amongst the most difficult tax incentives to design, and would require a great deal of thought before being worked through properly. Obviously, as I think all members understand, any tax incentives also create opportunities for tax avoidance and evasion, and the Government has been mindful of that.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that a policy of consistent and affordable tax reductions has been one of the significant factors behind the fact that the Australian after-tax average wage has grown by 33.6 percent in the last 6 years and the New Zealand after-tax average wage has grown by 18.9 percent in the last 6 years?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly tax changes will have been a factor, but also, generally speaking, wage increases have been higher in Australia than in New Zealand, even when the growth rate has been lower. Of course, until recently Australia had a much more heavily regulated labour market than New Zealand’s, which gave the trade unions more bargaining power.

Shane Jones: What reports has the Minister seen on the effect of the tax wedge on the average New Zealand family?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The latest OECD report on taxing wages shows that for a single-income family with two children on the average full-time wage, New Zealand now has the second-lowest tax wedge in the OECD, at 2.9 percent compared with the OECD average of 27.5 percent. That is a reduction from 13.6 percent in 2000 down to 2.9 percent, and the 1 April 2007 Working for Families extension will reduce that even more.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell the House and the public why he did not follow the path the Australian Government has followed—namely, that when inflation was low and surpluses were big, it set out on a programme of consistent tax reductions—and why did he not do that when he could have done so?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government has a range of priorities in areas such as education, health, and superannuation. I welcome the confirmation from the member that he believes in cutting education, health, and superannuation.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister now wish he had followed that path, now that New Zealanders are increasingly impatient that all the benefits of the growing economy have been used by Labour for Labour’s purposes rather than on expanding the capacity of the economy to grow, and given the fact that many New Zealanders believe that the Australian Government has made better decisions than this Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What a great deal has gone into is firstly, a massive increase in spending on infrastructure, in both land transport and public transport, which was significantly ignored under the National Government; secondly, a massive increase in expenditure on education to invest in our human capital and skills for the future; and, thirdly, massive reductions in key areas of business taxation, notably through depreciation, changes in fringe benefit tax, and related matters, which are also investments in future growth and production. But what the member has to explain is why he has been arguing for some weeks that we should have a tighter fiscal policy, and suddenly today he is once again arguing, after the Australian Budget, that we should have a looser fiscal policy. To put his mind at rest, I will say the coming Budget will be slightly tighter than the Australian Budget in the first year, and slightly looser in the second year.

Hon Bill English: Will the Minister, in his Budget or somewhere else, explain to New Zealand why he gave up the opportunity that Australia took—namely, to use the chance of a growing economy to reduce personal tax rates and enhance the capacity of this economy to grow without the high inflation and high interest rates that New Zealand families and businesses will now have to pay because he made the wrong call?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member remains obsessed with the notion that cutting tax rates, especially on higher incomes, is the sole route to growth. This Government has concentrated on infrastructure, on human capital, on the business taxation area, on offshore investments, and on continuing to address those kinds of issues as much higher priorities for stronger growth in the New Zealand economy.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister insist that there was no alternative to what he did, when the Australian Government has demonstrated it can increase the spending on public services, increase the investment in infrastructure, reduce taxes, and still have lower inflation and interest rates than New Zealand has?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I noticed that after the last Australian pre-election Budget, interest rates rose twice after the election. I noticed that the immediate commentary on the Australian Budget from The Economist was that it has increased the probability of interest rates rising in Australia after the election.

Gangs—Consorting Laws

2. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: Is the Government contemplating reintroducing consorting laws to limit the ability of criminals, particularly gangs, to meet and plan their crimes, given his answer to my question in the House yesterday stating: “If there are further measures that can be taken to further strengthen the tool kit for police, we will do it.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): As the member himself pointed out in this House in March this year, the National – New Zealand First coalition changed the law around consorting in 1997 through the introduction of section 98(A) of the Crimes Act. By 2002 only two convictions, both from guilty pleas, had resulted. Consequently this Government strengthened the law, resulting in significantly more convictions. However it is still, in my view, excessively complex. That is why I have instructed officials, in consultation with the police, to review this section of the Crimes Act in order to further improve its effectiveness.

Ron Mark: Specifically what aspects of a law that would remove the ability of criminals to plan crimes against our society—by allowing police to arrest them if two or more are found together—cause the Minister concern; and is he prepared to consult with the police and the public to test the merits, or otherwise, of such a law?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I indicated in my primary answer, the legislation that was introduced by the then Government in 1997 was an attempt to improve consorting legislation—as the member himself indicated to the House. I think that it was a worthy attempt but it proved to be difficult. In 2002 this Government strengthened the legislation, and right now I have officials looking at how we can further improve it and simplify it, and also looking at a range of other options to improve the tools available to the police.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. One part of my question asked what parts cause the Minister concern. Could the Minister—through you—expand on the particular part?

Madam SPEAKER: Does the Minister wish to expand on that part of the question?

Hon MARK BURTON: The parts that give me concern with the current legislation are those that are unduly complex. The issue I have specifically charged officials with is that of how the legislation can be simplified to make it more effective and offer greater utility for the police.

Martin Gallagher: Aside from the review of section 98A of the Crimes Act, what other legislative initiatives is the Government undertaking to combat gangs?

Hon MARK BURTON: Work is currently under way in a number of areas, including anti-money-laundering legislation to address organised crime, and provisions to address juror intimidation. This Government has also introduced the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill to Parliament. This bill will mean that the authorities can more easily strip away the proceeds of criminal activities from crime gangs.

Nandor Tanczos: Will the Minister commit not to make any hasty new policy decisions in the heat of the moment, but rather agree to take a breath, look at all the options, gather evidence, and talk to other agencies and other political parties about how best to reduce the negative impacts of gangs and gang culture?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can assure the member that any action will be taken after careful consideration and as much consultation as possible. But it is important that if measures can be taken to improve the tools available to the police to deal with organised crime, we make those available.

Chester Borrows: How can the Minister claim he is doing all he can to fight gangs when his Government’s record on trying to stop young people turning to a life of crime includes the failure of the $12 million Reducing Youth Offending Programme to actually reduce offending, the failure to resource youth justice for 5 years after Mick Brown’s critical report in 2001, the failure to set up a truancy database after promising it for three elections, and the failure of the Minister’s group on youth offending actually to meet for 3 years?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I indicated to the member yesterday, the Government is undertaking a wide range of action now. It has introduced significant changes to the Sentencing Act, the Bail Act, and the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. I invite the member to ensure that the bills currently before the House are advanced as quickly as possible, with his cooperation.

Hon Peter Dunne: Why has it taken so long to develop effective anti-money-laundering legislation and almost 3 years to get the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill before a select committee; and when does the Minister expect that both of those initiatives might finally be passed into law so that they can be put into effect?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member himself knows better than most members of the House the complexity around money-laundering legislation. As to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, I tell him that it required updating to make it compliant with international requirements. It is in the hands of members of the select committee to assist the rapid progress of that bill, and I hope we see that cooperation.

Ron Mark: Is the reason we are having this continual problem with domestic terrorists not due to the fact that since 1994, when an innocent woman was shot in the chest in Addington in a drive-by shooting, until today, when we are witnessing the funeral of a 2-year-old baby girl shot in a gang-land shooting, we have continued to pause, take long breaths, have hui, order inquiries, and not address the core problem—that is, that we condone and permit criminal organisations that are nothing more than domestic terrorists to exist in our communities?

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that questions should be asked, not statements made.

Hon MARK BURTON: This is not about pausing; this is about making further changes. This Government has made a long list of effective changes, but as the member himself knows and as I indicated in my principle answer, when in Government he moved to try to make an impact in this area. He has the evidence of how difficult that proved to be. This Government has improved on those measures and will make further improvements.

Martin Gallagher: Has the Minister seen any further reports about the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I have. I have seen two reports. The first states: “We have to say it’s about time.”, and “It’s a good thing.”, and I agree with that. The second report states: “One thing I do agree with the Minister on, in respect to the process around this bill, is that we need to hit the gangs, in particular in the pocket, if we are to have any impact on their activities.” The first quote came from Ron Mark and the second from Simon Power. I appreciate their support. I hope it is reflected in the work of the select committee.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister not agree with New Zealand First in saying that although those pieces of legislation are important and will be effective, they are peripheral to the core problem—the core problem being that we allow criminal organisations to exist to conduct business and to flourish in our communities—and that what the Government needs to do now is enact a suppression of gangs bill that seeks to make gangs illegal organisations, and anyone who is a member of them a criminal and imprisoned for being so?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do not agree that those matters are peripheral. Some are more directly relevant than others, but I have to say to the member that the most directly relevant is the bill I referred to before—the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. This bill is about cutting off the money supply to organised criminals, and I urge the House to advance it as quickly as possible, because the most effective thing we can do is to cut off the money supply to the crooks.

Gangs—Wanganui Mongrel Mob and Police Action

3. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Police: Has she been advised of reports in the Dominion Post that Mongrel Mob members in Aramoho, Wanganui, were earlier this week “guarding their fort” and that “a Ford Falcon circled the area with a rifle prominently displayed in the back seat”; if so, what actions did police take?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): Yes, I have seen the report, and so have the Wanganui police. However, the Wanganui police tell me that they received no report of anyone at the time the car was said to be circling “the area with a rifle prominently displayed in the backseat.” If such an incident had been reported to the police, the police tell me they would immediately have investigated. As it is, however, the police say that the only vehicles they are aware of carrying arms in the vicinity of gang houses in Wanganui are, in fact, police vehicles.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister telling the House that the two reporters who have said they are prepared to stand by their statements are wrong, and that the police in this case are right?

Hon Member: Why didn’t they report it?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. They did not report it, because the police were not too far from where they are, and they thought they could see it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because they’re soft on crime.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I take exception to the member for Nelson saying that the police are soft on crime. I take exception to that. He is a silly little man and makes these comments often.

Madam SPEAKER: I say to all members in the House that these abusive comments thrust across the Chamber at each other lead only to disorder.

Gerry Brownlee: How can New Zealanders feel safe, and believe the Minister and the Prime Minister when they talk tough about getting tough on gangs, while existing powers such as the power to disarm gangs when they openly flaunt illegal weapons in public are not even being enforced; before she tells us that they are, how on earth did the gangs come by a weapon that enabled them to kill the 2-year-old?

Hon ANNETTE KING: This Government has not gone soft on law and order or on gangs. In fact, it has been quite the opposite from this Government. I also say to the member that as far as the police were concerned about a gun in a car, it came up at a press conference as an anecdotal piece of evidence, and no evidence was given to the police. If any reporters in New Zealand knew of a gang member driving around with a gun, they had a duty to tell the New Zealand police, and they did not. In fact, the police contacted the editor to ask for the evidence—to be given the information. They have not got the information, but I have no doubt that if they received it, they would investigate. To imply otherwise is an insult to New Zealand Police.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister now telling the House that the gangs in Wanganui do not have illegal firearms, have not ever had illegal firearms, and are not likely to have them in the future—is that what she is saying to the House, and is that what the police really believe; if that is the case, how can members of the public have any confidence in the police when they are told in their newspapers that gang members are driving around town intimidating people, with rifles clearly displayed in their cars?

Hon ANNETTE KING: First of all, the newspaper report did not say anything of the sort; the member is making that up. Secondly, gang members are not allowed to have weapons. They were never allowed to have weapons. I wonder whether the member raised this issue in 1996 when an innocent woman was killed in a drive-by shooting in Christchurch—in his own patch. Did he ask then whether the gangs should have guns? The answer would have been, of course, that they should not have guns. When the police find the gang members and arrest them, they will not have guns. However, those that do commit crimes are likely to have guns, and also other contraband that they ought not to have.

Gerry Brownlee: What does it say about the police capability and public safety when the media can observe gang members blatantly carrying firearms around the town; and just who is in charge of things in Wanganui—the law or the lawless—because the public are seeing the police standing by, effectively allowing one gang to protect its patch against invasion from another—where is the law being exercised to the advantage of the residents of Wanganui in that situation while we have the police effectively protecting their local gang?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That member has not a scrap of evidence for the nonsense he has just put into this House. In fact, he made it up. I can tell this House that the police in Wanganui have not been soft on gangs. They have been hard on gangs—the exact opposite. In the last year in Wanganui they have made 100 arrests of gang members; they have had 30 search warrants of just gang members; and they have had dedicated staff, with training, working with gangs in Wanganui. They have worked very hard on the gang issue. I think what that member is doing is trying to put a little bit of spite into it in order to spite the local member Chester Borrows, because he is doing far too well and is making that member look a fool over law and order issues.

Tim Barnett: Further to those comments, can the Minister confirm that in the past year Wanganui police have made around 100 gang-related arrests on charges including firearms and intimidation?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can confirm that, and I just wish the National members who grandstand on these issues had passed one piece of legislation when they were in office from 1996 to 1999 to deal with gangs, so interested were they. I would just tell them to look at what the police do day in, day out for 24 hours a day. Chester Borrows knows what the police do in Wanganui. He supports their work, and I bet that he is not in favour of that member coming into the House and trying to insult and bag the police for not doing their job. New Zealanders know that they do, and I am proud of the work they do.

Gerry Brownlee: If it is true that the police in Wanganui have made arrests for the possession of illegal firearms by gang members in the last 12 months, why did they not use the powers they have now to turn all the gang headquarters, living spaces, and other such places upside down so the gun that shot the 2-year-old last weekend was taken from gang members—as the law currently provides?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Until we know the outcome of the inquiry we do not know that this gun was even held in Wanganui. The member makes a lot of assumptions. I will leave it in the hands of the police to do the investigation into this tragedy. I would certainly not be prepared to grandstand on this to try to get a few votes through the media by pretending, as a party, that one is tough on law and order, because National is not. It did nothing about the gangs when it had the opportunity. We have taken the opportunity in many respects to toughen the law to ensure we have more police and to ensure we put an emphasis on gangs. So when it gets to going soft, that member can certainly talk about going soft.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister now suggesting that this gun may well have been put in a car somewhere else in New Zealand, driven through the streets of Wanganui, and used for this shooting; if so, why does she not accept that the two Dominion Post reporters did see gang members with guns displayed visibly in the back of their car, intimidating the residents of Wanganui—what is so hard about it when one can mount one use as a defence and the other as being a reason or a cause?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Until the police carry out their inquiry into this tragedy we will not know the circumstances. I am not making any assumptions. I think the experts will tell us that, and Gerry Brownlee is no expert on anything.

Student Loans—Interest-free Policy

4. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he received indicating support for the interest-free student loan policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I have seen numerous reports indicating support for this policy, and I was surprised, but delighted, to see a report today also indicating support for the policy from the National Party. I welcome National’s conversion to yet another policy of this Labour-led Government, even if it has not yet been consulted on by the National Party caucus.

Moana Mackey: What reports has he seen suggesting an alternative assessment of this policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen reports from the same source describing the policy that is now supported as ill-considered and poorly designed, and “an irresponsible election-year bribe”. But given flip-flops over KiwiSaver, Working for Families, 4 weeks’ annual leave, income-related rents, and climate change, nothing should surprise us, even when none of it seems to go near the National Party caucus first.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Would it not be fairer to the taxpayer if student loans had a consumer price index interest rate so that students would be required to pay back the real value of their loans rather than being given a monetary handout that the interest-free policy effectively provides?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I think what we now have is a scheme that is fair to all and that serves to encourage involvement in tertiary education, particularly in those higher-cost courses at the upper end of the system.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What investment will the Minister make towards reducing student debt, particularly in light of the 2006 report of the UN special rapporteur, which stated that the “Māori students in tertiary education of Aotearoa complained to the Special Rapporteur that a limitation to their progress to higher programmes in tertiary education is the high burden of student debt and decreasing public funding to support Māori students.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is certainly not decreasing public funding to Māori students; I am not surprised the UN special rapporteur managed to come to that conclusion—he managed to come to a number of conclusions that I do not find justified by the facts.

Early Childhood Education—ABC Learning Centres and Kidicorp

5. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his reported statement that his officials told ABC Learning Centres and Kidicorp that if the Government saw a line in their annual reports showing a return to shareholders, that would make the Government question whether it was paying those chains too much in subsidies; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I note that the member is not quoting directly from me, but, yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed in the question.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister accept any responsibility for causing a near 17 percent drop in Kidicorp shares the day after his ill-judged comments. and can he explain the process that followed in which he was forced to approve an embarrassing back-down in a formal statement before the NZX?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not agree with the member that these comments were anything other than the policy of the Government—that is what I was expressing. I note that Kidicorp’s share price is as it should be.

Dianne Yates: In what way does the Minister see 20 hours’ free early childhood education as being closely associated with the policy of no interest on student loans?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I would observe that both policies benefit ordinary New Zealand families by reducing the costs of education. Also, I would note that both policies have been attacked rather hysterically by the National Party, but given its U-turn on student loans, which was announced recently, I am now looking forward to its concession that free early childhood education is also on the National agenda.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister know that, according to official reports, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has a major shareholding in Kidicorp and also an interest in ABC Learning Centres, and so his ideological opposition to making a return from education provision seems to be directly at odds with his own Government’s superannuation strategy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am comfortable with the rules that surround the Superannuation Fund and its investments.

Katherine Rich: Has the Minister discussed his comments about Kidicorp, the reaction of the markets, and his panicked back-down with the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member whom the member is referring to was in the House yesterday; that is the discussion we would have had.

Paula Bennett: Does the Minister think his statements threatening the profits of Kidicorp show a level of commercial naivety on a par with the Prime Minister’s comments about Air New Zealand in 2001, and does he accept some responsibility for the subsequent drop in share value that resulted from his comments?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member seems to be getting a little mixed up. I have no problem with services running a surplus that they reinvest in the quality provision of early childhood education, but I am concerned when taxpayers get into a position where they are funding a service in the education sector—or, indeed, any other social service area—that is making high returns to shareholders. If the member’s policy is for New Zealanders to make high-dividend returns to shareholders, she should go right ahead and campaign on it.

Paula Bennett: Does the Minister intend to meet with Kidicorp, explain his comments, and apologise?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Coincidentally, Kidicorp is coming to see me today; there will be no apology.

Madam SPEAKER: It is very difficulty to hear with all the private conversations going on.

Katherine Rich: I seek leave to table the Minister’s comments, which, unfortunately, had to be included in a formal statement before the NZX—

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

Paula Bennett: I seek leave to table the Sunday Star-Times article in which the Minister of Education issued a blunt warning to the country to—

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

Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill—Government Support

6. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Will her Government support the passing of Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, given that 83 percent of New Zealanders have consistently opposed it?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): The Government supports the bill as amended. I am not aware of any polling on the amended bill.

Rodney Hide: Now that John Key is supporting Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, why will she not allow her MPs a free vote on the bill and suggest John Key does the same—or is she concerned that the majority of MPs in our Parliament are against Sue Bradford’s bill, as indeed is the country?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is up to individual parliamentary parties in the House to determine how they deal with these issues. From the Government’s point of view, we consider it a matter of policy to push for the very safest environment we can have for children in homes throughout the country. I draw the member’s attention to the information published by the United Nations children’s agency, Unicef, which reported that among developed countries New Zealand ranked 24th out of 24 as being the least safe for children in respect of the rates of death from accident and injury.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister believe that this bill demonstrates that when political parties work together it is possible to produce outcomes with enduring political value, and does she agree that New Zealand needs more of that, not less, particularly on issues such as climate change, poverty, and sustainability?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I agree with the general sentiment, but, of course, all parties are aware of areas where there are quite fundamental differences between them. That is why we have different parties—because we express different points of view, have different philosophies, and represent different constituencies. But I do think that in the case of the bill on section 59, the overwhelming majority of our Parliament has come together, not only to send a very strong message about not wanting the violence that causes death and injury in our homes but also to send a strong message of support to good, decent parents, who should not be marched off to court for matters that are so inconsequential it would not be in the public interest to have them there.

Rodney Hide: If indeed it is the case that the majority of Parliament has come together on this bill, why will the Prime Minister not allow a free vote; and what does it say about our parliamentary democracy, and indeed the accountability of MPs, that she and John Key are dictating how MPs can vote on this bill, when it is so controversial?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat, for the member’s benefit, that it is up to each party in Parliament to determine how it deals with this issue. In this respect I can speak only for my own party, but my own party has determined that this is a matter on which the Government should speak as a whole because of the importance of trying to lower the appalling rate of death and injury of children in homes in our country.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister accept that if she and John Key did not whip their MPs to vote for Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, the bill would then fail; and, if she does not accept that, why will she not allow a free vote and test the will of this Parliament?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not believe for a moment that what the member says is true. I can only repeat that in respect of how parties determine a position on these matters and whether it will be a party vote or an individual vote, that is for individual parties in the House to determine. I have made it clear why the Government has taken a position. The Government has taken a position because of its great concern about being bottom in the developed world in relation to the rate of death and injury of children in our homes. We are absolutely delighted that Parliament has been almost unanimous in taking a stand on these issues. We believe that that will be good for children and families of our country.

Carbon Neutrality—Greenhouse Gas Emissions

7. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: How can the Government achieve the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality, when the latest official figures on New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions show an increase of over 8 million tonnes or 11.7 percent since Labour became Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Over the long term carbon neutrality can be achieved with the steady pursuit of sensible solutions to climate change. A range of factors can come into play: ensuring New Zealand houses are adequately insulated, rewarding those who plant forests on erosion-prone land, making sure long-term economic settings are correct, and greater use of biofuels. A whole range of policies will be required over a long period of time.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that Labour’s climate change policies have failed, when Pete Hodgson, in a news release while in Opposition entitled “Labour firmly committed to substantial CO2 reductions”, states: “Labour’s policy is to achieve a 20 percent reduction in emissions by 2005.” and our official figures for 2005 show not a 20 percent reduction but a 12 percent increase; if Labour cannot achieve a 20 percent reduction, why would anyone believe it can achieve carbon neutrality or a 100 percent reduction?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, that target has not been met. A range of factors come into play—factors such as high dairy prices, low timber prices leading to large scale deforestation and conversion of land to dairy farms, the high rates of economic growth throughout that period, and the failure of Parliament to agree on a range of measures that might have led to earlier reductions in carbon emissions. Let us hope that we learn from that and are able to achieve something of a consensus, moving forward, around some of these issues. [Interruption] I know we will never get consensus from Mr English. He is so bitter that he will not agree to anything this Government proposes.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What reports has the Minister received on other goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I was very interested to receive a report from television last night, indicating that Mr Key is determined to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from livestock. Given that livestock do not emit carbon dioxide, that may be one goal he will be able to achieve.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can he and the Prime Minister excuse New Zealand’s 12 percent emissions growth between 2000 and 2005 on the basis of strong economic growth, when both the UK and Australia over the same time period achieved similar growth but without the surge in emissions, and when between 1993 and 1998 in New Zealand—under National—we had economic growth of the same amount but half the growth in emissions; why is it that emissions have gone up so fast under a Labour Government in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Firstly, there was no rampant dairy industry expansion in that period. Secondly, of course, the year the member is choosing—2005—was an exceptionally dry year, with an exceptionally large use of thermal generation within New Zealand. Australia already largely uses thermal generation, so it can scarcely increase that. One can get different numbers by choosing different base years. If we take 1990-2005, New Zealand’s growth in emissions, at 25 percent, is slightly less than Australia’s, slightly less than Canada’s, half of Spain’s, and so on.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Government sought to blame the weather, the farmers, and economic growth for those bad emissions figures, when the data actually show that the largest increase by far comes from Government-owned electricity generators; and, given that this Government built a new oil-fired power station in 2002, has trebled the amount of power produced from coal, and has blocked renewable energy projects like the Aqua and Dobson projects, need it look any further than the mirror in order to work out who is responsible for ballooning emissions?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To deal with the last part of the question, I say, first of all, that the Government did not block Project Aqua, but, certainly, the local National Party candidate deeply opposed that project when it was being proposed. It was the local National Party candidate who opposed an upgrade of the North Island transmission line, which would help renewable production. The member had better start to look at other National members before picking on the Government.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister clarify whether the emissions trading system that he has indicated he will outline in detail in September will, to any degree, provide for international trading, or will it simply be a stand-alone New Zealand scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What the Minister outlined yesterday was a timetable for making decisions around a particular emissions trading system. One of those decisions will be whether it is a New Zealand system or an international system. I doubt very much whether it will be anything other than a broad international system of trading.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that although carbon neutrality may take a little while to achieve under the Government’s new proposal for a “cap and trade” emissions trading system, the only way New Zealand could even meet its Kyoto responsibilities without a bill going to the taxpayer in 2012 would be to set the cap on emissions at 1990 levels; if so, will he be seeking the National Party’s support for such a cap?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member’s calculations in that respect are correct. Clearly, to move back to 1990 levels of emission within a very short space of time would do very significant damage to the economy. The important thing over the next few months is to make decisions that are right for the long term, in terms of reducing our carbon footprint.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Minister, having stated on 6 November 2006: “You asked me what date would New Zealand be carbon neutral. We haven’t picked a date yet. You will find it becomes clear in 6 months.”, make the situation clear, now that those 6 months have passed, as to when New Zealand will be carbon neutral?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have such a date, but I can assure the member that it will be announced under a Labour-led Government, not under a National-led one.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If the Government will not use our existing commitment to the Kyoto targets to set an emissions cap, then what will it use—or will it just be the result of the intensive lobbying that will now begin to set the cap as high as possible?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, the virtues of a “cap and trade” system, if one is approved, is that the cap can be lowered progressively over time, and therefore one can meet long-term targets with minimal short-term damage to economic activity and, therefore, to people’s employment. There will obviously be a lot of argument, as discussions unfold, around what should be done, and I am sure there will be a great deal of nimby-ism from all sorts of people. What is clearly quite silly is the suggestion that seems to be coming forth from the National Party that one has a trading system without any cap. At that point there is no purpose in the exercise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why should any credence be given to the Government’s latest announcements on climate change, when previous policy announcements on the flatulence tax, the carbon tax, negotiated greenhouse agreements, and projects to reduce emissions have all been dropped, when the Government’s proposed reductions in emissions, its improvements in efficiency, its increase in renewables, and credits from Kyoto have all proved to be wrong, and when the Government said in December last year that emissions trading would not be considered until 2012, but now, miraculously, 6 months later, it will be in place next year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is clear that if we are able to take strong action in those areas, it will require Parliament to approve legislation. The measures required to be taken cannot be done simply by administrative fiat. Therefore, of course, it will be important to create a parliamentary majority. This is a chance for the member to outstrip his deputy leader and show some maturity about cross-party issues.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table both my letters to David Parker, the Minister of Energy, in December of 2005 and February of 2006.

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

Children—Health Services

8. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent investment has been made into the health of our children?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health): The Minister of Health has recently announced that $68 million over 4 years will be invested in the fight against pneumococcal meningitis with the vaccine Prevnar being added to our children’s immunisation schedule.

Darien Fenton: How was this announcement received, and why?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Not surprisingly, Fiona Colbert, the manager of the Meningitis Trust, said: “ ‘This is a proven life-saver … We applaud the government for its support and that it has recognised the benefits of this vaccine. This is a major step forward for the health of our children.’ ”

Barbara Stewart: Would the Minister concede that his statement about pneumococcal vaccine that “This type of ‘herd protection’ may result in direct medical savings in terms of reduced hospital stays and treatment costs,” could apply equally well to Gardasil, and can we expect some action on that front; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As someone who has come through a fair few epidemics in the history of New Zealand, I can say that immunisation is clearly a very beneficial programme for all New Zealanders, and the more of this kind of protection our young people can get, the better it will be. I am sure the Government is aware of that, and the Minister will make progress just as soon as he possibly can.

Dr Jackie Blue: What is the Government’s target immunisation rate for Prevnar, and how confident is he that that is achievable, when our current national vaccination rate is lower than that of Niue, Tonga, Samoa, the Cook Islands, Fiji, and most of the Western World?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I cannot give the member the exact date of that, but I will check it out and make sure that I can supply her with the information. Let me just say that in terms of comparing vaccination rates, the vaccination rates in New Zealand during the term of the previous National Government were incredibly low—much lower than they are now—and this Government has made enormous progress and invested vast sums of money, which National previously never even contemplated. New Zealand’s children are much safer under the Labour Government and its support parties than they ever were when National was in power.

Beneficiaries—Sickness and Invalids Benefits

9. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he stand by the statement of his predecessor, the Hon Steve Maharey, who, in May 2005, said of the $127.8 million to be invested into new services to help sickness and invalids beneficiaries get back to work: “While we understand the reasons for growth in numbers on these benefits, we believe with this strong investment and support and incentives we can reverse this trend”?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The member has the amount of investment wrong, but, yes, this Government does believe in investing in the well-being of New Zealanders. That investment in people certainly appears to be paying off. The latest statistics from Work and Income show that over the month of April this year alone, the total number of people receiving the invalids benefit fell by 103, the total number—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member has asked a question. The Minister is responding. Please let all members in the Chamber hear the response.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The latest statistics from Work and Income show that over the month of April this year alone, the total number of people receiving the invalids benefit fell by 103, the total number of people receiving the sickness benefit fell by 848, and the total number of people receiving the unemployment benefit fell by 2,167. In fact, all main benefits saw reductions, so that in total, in 1 month benefit numbers dropped by 4,176. That is a reduction of 2 percent in just 1 month. As the members opposite have historically had some difficulty understanding these facts, I have taken the liberty of preparing a graphical representation to explain the matter. If I could explain this graph—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member did give me notice that his reply would be of some length—not too much longer, I hope—and we will now hear it in silence.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Madam Speaker, I—

Madam SPEAKER: Please—you have displayed the graph, so it can now be removed. There is not a policy of displaying them all the time. You can display it, but then you must remove it.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Madam Speaker, I do need to explain what the graph represents.

Madam SPEAKER: No. I have given my ruling. [Interruption] I have given my ruling—the member will be out of the House. Now will the member please finish his reply to the question succinctly.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: That representation shows quite clearly that from 1996 to 1999, during the dying years of the National Government, there was a consistent increase in the total benefit roll. For Ms Collins’ and others’ benefit, I point out that “total” means all benefits. Since that time, benefit numbers have dropped from the range of around 400,000 under National to consistently just above the 250,000 figure.

Judith Collins: If the Minister can spend an extra $128 million—from his own figures—to get sickness and invalids beneficiaries back to work and end up with thousands and thousands more sickness and invalids beneficiaries in just 2 years of that programme, how many more does he think he can get on to that benefit after another 2 years of such assistance?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I would be delighted to repeat those figures of the drops in sickness benefit and invalids benefit statistics in the last month, but the most important part of the factual response to the member’s question is simply that in the year following Mr Maharey’s announcement the reduction in benefit numbers in the 2005-06 year achieved savings of $850 million against forecasts.

Judith Collins: If one quarter of all sickness beneficiaries are saying that they can work, then why are they not working, especially once he has spent $128 million to try to reduce sickness benefit numbers and they just keep going up?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am happy to assure that member that as long as Labour is in Government she and her colleagues will able to access the sickness or invalids benefit should they be unfortunate enough to need to. But those numbers are reducing, thank goodness—and we should all be glad for that—because of the level of support this Government is putting into people in our community.

Judith Collins: Why has the number of unemployment beneficiaries jumping to the sickness benefit increased by over 8,500 in the past year alone—from his figures—and how does that square with his plan to get more sickness beneficiaries into work?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: First of all, let me remind the member that access to sickness and invalids benefits is by way of the medical profession. If that member is prepared to accuse members of the medical profession of unethical behaviour, then I challenge her to either name them in this House or provide me with the information so that I can investigate.

Judith Collins: Why has the $128 million not helped those 16,000 people who have been on the temporary sickness benefit for more than 2 years, or even those 6,000 people who for more than 4 years have been temporarily unwell?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I think it is rather a sad reflection on that member and her party that we have this constant attack on people who are sick or in need of support because they are on an invalids benefit. What I would say is that it is quite clear that that very significant investment in New Zealanders by this Government is why in the last month every benefit figure has reduced.

Judith Collins: In what way can a temporary benefit be temporary, when not only have 6,000 people been on that benefit for over 4 years, but 1,000 people have been temporarily unwell for now more than 10 years?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I suggest that the member ask exactly those questions of the medical professionals who sign those authorisations.

Hon Annette King: Has the Minister been provided by the member who is asking these questions with the names of any doctors who are ripping off the system by providing incorrect certificates for people who are sick or on an invalids benefit—because that is the way in which people get those benefits—and if he has not, then does he believe that the member is really genuine in her questioning about this issue?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Sadly, I can confirm that I have had no such communication or information from that member. I will repeat my invitation to her to raise the matter with the representatives of the Medical Council, or to name the doctors she is accusing of behaving unethically, either in this House under privilege or by providing that information for me so that I can have it appropriately investigated.

Judith Collins: I seek leave of the House to table a document showing that $128 million was promised by this Government to reduce sickness and invalids benefit numbers—

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

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I seek leave of the House to table the graph I displayed earlier, which displays exactly the value of the—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. I just remind members that those who interrupt during the seeking of leave will leave the Chamber.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I seek leave of the House to table the employment statistics for the months of March and April, which show the net reduction benefits that I referred to earlier.

Leave granted.

Broadband Network—Funding

10. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister of Communications: Has he received any recent reports on financing improvements to New Zealand’s broadband network?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): Yes, I have seen it reported that Mr John Key indicates he is happy to use taxpayers’ money to fund broadband infrastructure, when private profits in the sector run into many hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Mr Key is clearly pre-emptively rushing in to privatise the profits and socialise the liabilities.

Question No. 11 to Minister

Madam SPEAKER: I am moving to Question No. 12, since Question No. 11 has not been asked—I have called it.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga): I am sorry; there was so much noise. Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: Be seated. The member of course could not hear because his colleagues, and colleagues on this side, were making too much noise. We will hear the rest of question time in silence.

Leaky Homes—Government Policy

11. BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Are the Government’s policies for fixing leaky homes working quickly and fairly?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): Yes, I believe they are. People can pursue liable parties—those who designed, built, inspected, and signed off these leaky homes—through either the court system or the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Service has been revamped, and the doors opened just over a month ago. The changes have streamlined the resolution process and established a new independent tribunal, with members controlling proceedings and adopting a more investigative approach through compulsory pre-hearing conferences and time-limited mediation. The old service was being gamed by lawyers and experts; the changes will cut the opportunity for lawyers and experts to game the system. Finally, I will quote from the head of the Leaky Homes Action Group, John Gray, in reaction to the new Weathertight Homes Resolution Service system. He said these changes are “more good news for leaky home owners” and “just part of a suite of changes which will continue to be rolled out”.

Bob Clarkson: Is the Minister aware of the case concerning Mrs Colin Dicks, who won a case against the Waitakere City Council for $251,000; and in his opinion did she get a fair deal?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I will correct the member. I think the lady’s name was Colleen, not Colin. I am aware of the judgment and settlement that Mrs Dicks received. I am also aware that Mrs Dicks’ legal costs are currently the subject of negotiation between the parties. As such, I would not want myself or any other member in this House to make comments that would prejudice her position.

Bob Clarkson: Is the Minister aware that Mrs Dicks’ lawyers’ and consultants’ fees for the case total $281,000, meaning that after 3 years of struggle to get her house fixed, she is $30,000 out of pocket and still has a leaky home that she cannot live in?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, I am aware of that—

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members that we are having questions and answers in silence.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —and the member will also be aware that Mrs Dicks pursued her case through the courts with a lawyer, not with the Government-revamped or former Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. I would be concerned if Mrs Dicks had not been made fully aware, by her lawyer and legal experts, of the costs she was going to face. If the member is saying that perhaps a giant bill has now been dropped on her by her lawyer, then the question is whether that bill was over the top and whether the lawyer exploited Mrs Dicks at her most vulnerable. The remedy in that respect—for a lawyer in the courts system—is to pursue a review of the bill through the Law Society.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister know how many leaky homes have been patched up and then onsold to unsuspecting buyers; and does he acknowledge the serious concerns of Kiwi home owners regarding the lack of accountability on this issue shown by builders and councils?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: To the latter point, yes. That is why the Government, under the new Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act, requires, in any case placed before the service, a note to be placed on the land information memorandum, so that consumers know what they are getting in cases where somebody on-sells without repair or concluding the case. Indeed, I say to the member that I am very aware of the angst in the community from those victims who were dealt to by shonky designers, shonky builders, and, often, shonky building inspectors.

Bob Clarkson: Does it not show that there is no justice under this Government for leaky home owners, when Mrs Dicks is held up as being a successful test case but ends up being $30,000 out of pocket and with no house fixed, and the only winners are consultants and lawyers?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I have the utmost respect for Mrs Dicks. Her case shows that she received a judgment in the court, not in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. In putting in place a revamped Weathertight Homes Resolution Service we have given consumers the choice to go to that service or to go through the courts. The reason we revamped the service was to stop the very gaming by lawyers and legal experts that may have been exhibited and put upon Mrs Dicks by her lawyer in that particular case through the courts.

Bob Clarkson: Does the Minister recall that in 2002 his Government told leaky home owners that its policy would provide speedy, cost-effective, and just resolutions to their claims, yet after 5 years only 10 percent of the claims have been resolved, millions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers, and lawyers and consultants are having a field day at homeowners’ expense?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I do recall that, and that is why last year the Government revamped the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. It did not permit legal costs to be claimed, because gaming by lawyers and others was holding up claims in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. But I say again to the member that this case was before the courts. I also recall a National Government doing two things: deregulating the building industry in the 1990s so there were no rules, and abolishing the Apprenticeship Act so we would not retain or train young people to become true building professionals—and that member should remember that.

Bob Clarkson: The Minister tended to criticise Mrs Dicks, but how can he criticise her for going to the High Court rather than the Government’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service when she went to the service initially but was told she would have to wait 3 years for a hearing?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I want to make it very clear to this House that in no way did I, or will I, ever criticise Mrs Dicks. She is the victim in this. I have been on record as criticising the dodgy builder and the dodgy building inspector who signed off Mrs Dick’s house as being weathertight, when there was a big thing called the sun coming through the roof because a big chunk of the roof was missing—and that member with his history, and his party, were party to that, ultimately, with their so-called deregulation.

Madam SPEAKER: That is out of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just realised that we should mention these things at the first opportunity. In replying to Mr Clarkson, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove misled the House with two of his answers. Firstly, in respect of his answer about deregulation of the building industry, I say that it is not the case. Secondly, in respect of the ending of the apprenticeship scheme, I say that that also is not the case. What is our remedy? It perhaps could be that we write to you and go through the process of determining whether this is a breach of privilege, etc. It would be simpler if the Minister just apologised for misleading the House in the way he did.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Firstly, in 1991 the Building Act was passed, which substantially deregulated the building industry and led to subsequent problems. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: This is a point of order!

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Secondly, the National Government repealed the Apprenticeship Act. That is a fact of life. Mr Birch repealed the Apprenticeship Act, which led to a subsequent massive decline in the number of apprentices. [Interruption] It is not a point of order, anyway, because it is a debatable matter.

Madam SPEAKER:. Would the member please be seated. That is the point, and that was obviously the response. It is a debating matter. There is a general debate coming up in a moment.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the speech made by George Hawkins, in which he said that National had no right to claim credit for deregulating the building industry, because the work was all done by the Labour Government prior to that.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection. I just remind members that we will hear the next question and its answer in silence.

Energy Efficiency—New Homes

12. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What measures have been proposed to improve the energy efficiency of new homes?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): Changes to the building code and to compliance documents will make new homes warmer, drier, healthier, cheaper to run, and ultimately worth more in capital value. Tougher insulation requirements, including double glazing in most areas, will result in new homes using 30 percent less energy to achieve healthy average indoor-air temperatures. Homeowners will save between $760 and $1,800 per year on average, which will allow for reduced power and gas bills, thus quickly making up for additional upfront costs of between $3,000 to $5,000, on average. New rules making it easier to install solar water heating systems will cut the cost of installation by as much as $500. These are the most significant steps in improvements in energy efficiency for 30 years.

Russell Fairbrother: Has there been any response to these proposals; if so, what are they?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The New Zealand Herald columnist Colin James stated of the policies: “... energy efficiency measures for buildings … were significant and timely.” The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable—

Hon Bill English: He’s the expert!

Madam SPEAKER: The member will please leave the Chamber. We are hearing this in silence. The member’s answers are long. They were not pejorative; they were just long. I am sorry about that. Would the Minister please continue, but remember that answers have to be succinct. He is not giving a speech.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask you to reconsider your decision there. Mr English is the acting Leader of the Opposition in the House today. That is one very significant point. Secondly, the answers that have been given by Clayton Cosgrove are extremely provocative, and the House has to express some sort of view when he tries to say that his energy efficiency moves are widely accepted and then starts quoting Colin James, a political columnist, as though he were some form of expert. Of course that will get some sort of mild response. But I do think the fact that Mr English is in the role of acting Leader of the Opposition today should be considered in this matter.

Madam SPEAKER: I think that is a fair point. I have been listening to the Minister’s answer, which is why I have cut him off before when he does in fact make pejorative comments that, quite legitimately, will get a response. Will the Minister please succinctly address the question. In respect of the fact of the position that the acting Leader of the Opposition has, he may remain.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development “congratulated” the Government and stated the changes “are a great step towards healthier homes and offices, which, while they might cost more initially, will cost less to run and have the potential to cut hundreds of millions off the nation’s health bill”. Finally, the Green Building Council states the changes are “encouraging” and “will benefit both users and our environment in the longer term”.

Question No. 9 to Minister

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I seek leave of the House to table a transcript of an interview with Christchurch doctor Alisdair Webb, who has reported that Work and Income is sending people along to get benefits when it should not be.

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media