Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 23 May 2007

Questions to Ministers

Sky City Entertainment Group—Shareholdings

1. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Finance: What, if any, are the current market values of holdings in Sky City Entertainment Group held by the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Earthquake Commission, the National Provident Fund, and the Government Superannuation Fund, and how, if at all, have these holdings changed since 31 July 2006?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The Earthquake Commission does not invest in New Zealand shares, for fairly obvious reasons, I think. The remaining entities hold around $115 million worth of shares, or about 5 percent of the total Sky City Entertainment Group shares on offer. This has reduced by around $10 million since 31 July 2006.

Sue Bradford: When will the Government divest its shares not only in Sky City Entertainment Group but in Exxon Mobil, which is into climate change denial; United Technologies, Northrop Grumman, Finmeccanica, BAE Systems, Boeing, and EADS, which are involved with nuclear weapons; and L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, which make cluster bombs?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government does not direct the Crown financial institutions where, how, and when to invest in particular companies. They are subject to statutory constraints. If we had the opposite situation then no doubt these institutions would be subject to political whim from day to day, which would then detract from their primary purpose.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister agree that investing in Sky City Entertainment Group is unethical, given that this is Government money profiting from the harm done to problem gamblers and their families, and when will the Government get rid of those investments?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said, that is up to the individual Crown financial institutions, subject to their statutory requirements. Sky City Entertainment Group is a publicly listed company that acts in conformity not only with general law but also with specific law around the operation of casinos. It contributes to the problem-gambling levy.

Sue Bradford: Can the Minister assure the House that the new KiwiSaver funds will not be invested in Sky City Entertainment Group or other gambling companies, given his Budget commitment the other day to ethical investment?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We are working on a series of guidelines and reporting against socially responsible investment requirements. It would not be for the Government to direct where KiwiSaver funds should be invested. That is not the role of Government in this respect.

Sue Bradford: In that case, will the Government be making matching contributions proportional to the size of its profits from investing in Sky City Entertainment Group, thereby offsetting the harm caused by gambling, given that Skycity Casino is now talking openly in Auckland about aggressively targeting local gaming customers in the Asian community?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. Sky City has indicated that there has been a substantial increase in the Asian population in Auckland—perhaps others realised this somewhat earlier—and therefore it is marketing that particular audience.

Rodney Hide: Does he accept that if the New Zealand Superannuation Fund was rolled into the KiwiSaver scheme, every adult of working age not only would get an endowment of $8,000 and a genuine stake in New Zealand but could actually choose the KiwiSaver scheme that met his or her ethical concerns, including those of the Greens?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Destroying New Zealand superannuation is not necessary to allow people to choose which KiwiSaver scheme they want to save into. They will be able to choose which KiwiSaver scheme they want to save into anyway, and, indeed, they will be able to change their KiwiSaver provider, although not more than once a year. So if the member wants to set a scheme up, then he can do so.

Taxation—Top Income Tax Rate

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, in relation to the top income tax rate of 39 percent, that “Obviously, people’s incomes have risen, so they have gone into that bracket.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with Dr Cullen’s comments that next year’s Budget will outline the Government’s long-term plans in respect of personal taxation, and that there will be room for modest personal tax cuts in the future; if so, why have cuts not taken place in the last 9 years?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, and it is all a question of priorities. Right now our Government has given priority to KiwiSaver, which National has voted against at every opportunity, despite knowing how much Kiwis want it.

Darren Hughes: Does the Prime Minister agree that the increase in the top tax bracket in 1999 was to reverse cuts to superannuation; if so, has she seen any reports on the logic of continuing to pay New Zealand superannuation alongside other programmes such as the Government’s new KiwiSaver agreement?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Government, indeed, has made a huge contribution to ensuring the viability of New Zealand superannuation. That is what the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is all about. But I have indeed seen a statement that suggests that once incentives for private savings are offered, then the country is heading down a road where there is no logic to paying universal superannuation. That statement came from Bill English. Under Labour, New Zealanders get both KiwiSaver and New Zealand superannuation; under National, they would probably get neither.

John Key: How can the Prime Minister have the gall to come into the House this afternoon and claim that next year’s Budget might outline modest tax cuts, when she may have noticed that last week Dr Cullen actually cancelled the modest tax cuts he had already promised and announced in 2005?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What Dr Cullen actually announced was the first adjustment in business tax rates in 19 years—something the so-called party of business has not delivered for business. Secondly, Dr Cullen announced a $20 tax credit for a worker who goes into the KiwiSaver scheme, backed by a $20-per-worker employer tax credit. That is worth an enormous amount to workers, and opposed at every step by the National Party.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with the rest of New Zealand that over the last 8 years the Labour Government has had more than enough money for personal tax cuts—in fact, up until recently it has had a fairly low-inflation environment in which to roll out tax cuts—and that the only reason this Government has not rolled out tax cuts is that Labour believes that it knows how to spend New Zealanders’ money better than New Zealanders do? What a disgrace that is!

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What I know is that Kiwis expect a New Zealand Government to invest in health, education, superannuation, families, and infrastructure, and that over the past three elections they have said no to the National Party, which only ever had one policy, and that was to cut personal tax rates and never look after the basics that Kiwis wanted.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1999, when Labour came into office, the top personal tax rate in New Zealand cut in at $60,000, which happened to be exactly the same rate at which the top personal tax rate in Australia cut in; that after 8 years of a Labour Government, the top personal tax rate in New Zealand now continues to cut in at $60,000, while in Australia it is $180,000; and can she see why New Zealanders are just a little miffed at that—and hopefully she has her own answer and does not have to rely on Dr Cullen’s advice, because his tax advice has been rubbish in the last 8 years?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As the member is so keen on Australia, I look forward to his announcing that its top personal tax rates are 40c and 45c in the dollar. Also, I look forward to his announcing that the compulsory employer contribution in Australia is 9 percent of an employee’s gross earnings.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that if I did get up and announce Australia’s top personal rates and all of its personal rates, in fact 99.5 percent of New Zealanders would be better off, because at every income level under $220,000, one pays more tax in New Zealand than is the case in Australia?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can only assume from that answer that the National Party is not only opposed to cutting the business tax rate and is not only opposed to the tax credits for workers for KiwiSaver, but is now suggesting that it actually would like to tax workers more at 40c and 45c in the dollar.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Prime Minister also confirm that in Australia ordinary workers face capital gains taxes and face a stamp tax whenever they buy a house, and that this Government not only has cut the corporate tax rate for the first time in 19 years but also, for the first time in many years, has cut the rates of taxation on savings, which National did not touch for 9 years except by increasing them in some respects?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can confirm all those things and that National tends to be all talk and very little do, when it suggests it is friendly to business. What I do know is that the leader of the National Party recklessly promises personal tax cuts, knowing he would have to slash public spending to do it and go against the advice of his own spokesperson on finance, who, I repeat, says that now is not the time for personal tax cuts.

John Key: Why would modest personal tax cuts be affordable under Labour in election year 2008, when the predicted surplus for election year 2008 is either the same as, or lower than, the surpluses announced in the 4 years prior to that—or is the magic just that it is election year and when one is 12 points behind in the polls one has to do something, I guess?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat: that member has recklessly promised personal tax cuts at a level at which he knows public spending would have to be cut. I can say that this Government has always prioritised restoring the shattered public services left by a National Government, restoring superannuation and infrastructure, looking after families with substantial family tax credits, and, now, looking after workers who want to save through KiwiSaver. All those have been top priorities for us.

John Key: What comment does the Prime Minister have for the business leader I met last night who employs 120 cleaners, who said that he was appalled at what was announced in the Budget last week, that the 120 cleaners working in his company will not get a tax cut, will not get a pay increase, and will not go into KiwiSaver, not to mention that his business is now going to be suffering under those additional costs; and has it occurred to the Prime Minister that well over half of the New Zealand workforce will not be in KiwiSaver, and some of those who may even be matched, like those in the State sector, are already matched and therefore will not be getting anything out of the KiwiSaver incentives—so, if the Prime Minister wants to back the 50 percent of the country who can afford to save, without the 50 percent who cannot, can she see why she is no longer winning?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is great to see the National Party keep digging into a hole on KiwiSaver. The member’s friend is obviously out of tune with the only known poll of business opinion on KiwiSaver, which had 68 percent of business people polled strongly agreeing with it.

Madam SPEAKER: We will hear this question in silence.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Has the Prime Minister read reports that a prominent New Zealander has argued that large-scale tax cuts are affordable if the Government changes its “gearing”, that what that means is borrowing large sums of money to pay for tax cuts, and was the person who said that, John Key?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am well aware that a very influential factor in the last election campaign was the certain knowledge by voters that the National Party was prepared to borrow for tax cuts, and that never made sense.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether New Zealand has net debt that is positive or negative; and, when she works out that it is positive, that it will mean that we have more cash than we have debt, for the record?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Under this Government and Minister of Finance, New Zealand has, for the first time ever, moved into a net positive fiscal asset position. That is easily squandered by a spendthrift Government and by a leader who is used to taking short-term positions in the money market. That is not the way to lead a country.

Research and Development—Private Sector Encouragement

3. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What action is the Government taking to encourage higher levels of private sector investment in research and development?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): I have truly excellent news. The Labour-Progressive Government is providing a major tax incentive worth $630 million to boost private sector investment in research and development. Businesses investing in research and development can earn a 15 percent tax credit on that spending. For example, a company spending $100,000 on research would get $15,000 back in a tax rebate. The aim is to help raise the rate of private sector investment in New Zealand, which is currently only a third of the OECD average.

Lesley Soper: What reports has the Minister seen on the response to this initiative?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Too many to go right through them, but I will give some headlines. Anthony Scott of the Association of Crown Research Institutes predicted that Budget 2007 will be remembered as “Kickstarting an R&D culture”. Global Positioning System technology firm Rakon says that it may help change the minds of companies considering doing research and development elsewhere. Andy Hamilton of Icehouse said that it was a great thing the Government was doing. The National Business Review’s Paul McPadden said that the Government has clearly signalled it wants to boost New Zealand’s investment in research and development. And Deloitte says that the 15 percent rate compares favourably with those already in existence in other jurisdictions. The only sour note is the absolute failure of the National Party to back what is an excellent policy.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister confirm that giving businesses better tax incentives for productivity improvements is contained in the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have great pleasure in confirming that that is part of the confidence and supply agreement with the New Zealand First Party, which has always emphasised the need for New Zealand productivity.

Fishing Industry—Confidence

4. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister of Fisheries: Does he believe he has the confidence of the fishing industry; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Of course, the member should more properly ask that question of the industry itself, but in my view the answer is yes, because this Government and previous Labour and Labour-led Governments have done more for the fishing industry than any Governments in our history—from introducing the world-leading quota management system in 1987 through to the benthic protected areas policy, which is in partnership with the industry, and which protects 30 percent of our ocean floor.

Hon David Carter: Does the Minister stand by his lecture to the Seafood Industry Council conference yesterday, when he said: “I’m warning that I’m disappointed with progress. If you think I’m going to leave it there, you don’t know me very well.”, and is this heavy-handed approach likely to gain the confidence of the industry?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes, I stand by everything I said. Secondly, the industry is a robust one, and it has a robust Minister to deal with, and we both respect each other in that regard.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister seen any reports of expressions of support from the industry?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: By the most extraordinary set of circumstances, I have. On 4 April 2007 the Seafood Industry Council said: “The Minister of Fisheries should be applauded for the hard work that he has personally committed to … We congratulate the Minister unreservedly.” But wait—there is more. On 2 December 2006 the Seafood Industry Council said: “We are pleased the Minister of Fisheries is now proposing a range of more practical measures to reduce the accidental hooking of seabirds … It is positive the government seems to be taking a practical approach to tackling the issue,”. But wait—there is more. On 20 December 2006 a press release stated: “ ‘full support for the Minister’s decisions’ is how the Deepwater Group of fishing companies describes the Minister of Fisheries’ decision to reduce the commercial catch limits in some areas for orange roughy,”. I could go on, but I will not. However, I can assure members that there is more.

Hon David Carter: Why did the Minister give the fishing industry yesterday a “straight talking to”, and can he confirm that he then met, a few hours later, with Labour’s Māori caucus members to receive a “very straight talking to” from them?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes, I can confirm that I met with the Māori caucus last night. The Māori caucus and all members of this Government have fraternal relations and talk often to each other. I say to the member that I am not just the Minister for the fishing industry; I am the Minister of Fisheries. My role is to safeguard our fisheries resources for all New Zealanders, both today and into the future, whether they be involved in recreational, customary, or commercial fishing. These are people for whom—and all of us surely come into this category—the environmental integrity of our future fisheries and marine environment is important. It is important to us all. I will uphold that principle anywhere I speak, at any time.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that for 80 percent of landings it is unknown whether the current fish stock biomass is at, above, or below maximum sustainable harvest; and does he agree that the viability and profitability of the fishing industry, including the Māori fisheries assets, both for today and for future generations, is absolutely dependent on his last comment concerning the Government’s need to ensure that we take a precautionary approach to the fishing resources?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think everyone in Government, everyone in the industry, and recreational and customary fishers know that there is not adequate information on our marine resources, and that it will be a very long time before we have adequate information, no matter how much money we put into it. I can confirm—and it is a no-brainer to me—that if there are no fish left to catch, there is certainly no value for customary fishers, recreational fishers, or commercial fishers. I would have thought that was obvious to even the meanest of minds.

Hon David Carter: Can the Minister confirm for the House that he still has the numbers to pass the Fisheries Amendment Bill?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: One of the reasons that this Government is heading towards its ninth year in Government is that we have got experience in, and understanding of, working cooperatively with other parties. I should tell the House that that is why the member who asked the question was in my office last week discussing with me his concerns about the bill. And we agreed to work together collectively. So maybe the National Party is learning something for a change.

Hon David Carter: What changes to the Fisheries Amendment Bill did the Minister promise the Labour Māori MPs in yesterday’s meeting?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No promises or commitments were made at any meeting yesterday. We listened to each other in terms of understanding what the issues are, and all of us made commitments to go away, to think through what was said, and to come back together to meet again. That is the way one negotiates; one does not have an ultimatum that one determines before meeting. That may be the National Party’s way of approaching collective discussion when in a coalition Government; it is not ours.

Hon David Carter: Why did the Minister write to the Hon Chris Carter, the Minister of Conservation, on 28 November 2006, and state in that letter that he had no intention of consulting with either the industry or the Labour caucus in regards to this bill before he introduced it into the House?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The member is not quoting accurately from that letter. What the letter actually stated was that I was not prepared to go into any discussions with any other parties until Cabinet had actually passed the issue we had been dealing with. That is a proper approach for any Cabinet Minister, and it is something we follow almost on a regular basis.

Rural Doctors—Overseas Doctors

5. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: E whakaae ana ia ki ngā kōrero a Tim Malloy, te Tiamana o Te Rōpū Tākuta Rongoā Whānui, arā, Tākuta ā-Taiwhenua, i kī, e ono tekau mā rima ō-rau o ngā Tākuta ā-Taiwhenua nō tāwāhi, ā, kāre tēnei i tētahi mea matatūtanga ā meake nei, mehemea kāre, he aha ai?

[Does he agree with the comments of the Chairman of the Rural GP Network, Tim Malloy, that overseas doctors now make up 65 percent of rural doctors, and that this is not sustainable in the future; if not, why not?]

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I almost agree. The percentage may be a slight overestimate. The 2005 Rural Health Workforce Survey found that 43 percent of general practitioners responding to the survey were New Zealand trained, 29 percent were trained in Britain, 14 percent were trained in South Africa, and 14 percent were trained elsewhere, including Australia.

Tariana Turia: What explanation can the Minister give for the fact that 1,400 international medical graduates register here each year, compared with little more than 300 New Zealand trained doctors, producing a New Zealand health system in which 80 percent of its new doctors are foreign?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member draws those details from a Sunday Star-Times article that was published on Sunday, which included doctors who come here for a very short time indeed—even for conference purposes. It is not reasonable to include those data when one is looking at the movement of doctors across our borders in both directions.

Maryan Street: What has the Government done recently with regard to medical training in rural areas?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It has done a good deal. The pilot Otago medical school rural full-immersion programme was started earlier this year; Auckland University has a similar but larger initiative starting next year in Northland; for overseas-trained doctors who pass the New Zealand registration exam, a year of mentored supervision is being offered, starting in about 6 weeks’ time; and then, of course, there are all the existing supports for rural general practitioners and primary care services that my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor has been investing in for many years.

Jo Goodhew: How does the Minister explain the results of recent research that shows that 28 percent of the money dedicated to recruiting and retaining a rural health workforce—approximately $1.2 million—was captured by bureaucracy, so it cannot possibly be helping the rural workforce crisis?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That research would raise my suspicions immediately because its estimate of the total amount of money we spend on rural general practitioners and other primary care services is a gross underestimate of the total.

Barbara Stewart: Is he aware that overseas-trained doctors are overrepresented in complaints upheld by the Health and Disability Commissioner; if so, what is his department doing about this?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I am aware of a statement that Ron Paterson, the Health and Disability Commissioner, made on Monday, but let us get the statement correct. He stated that the data suggests that there is a slight issue and that it is something to monitor. He stated: “I will certainly be monitoring to see if there continues to be this slight over-representation.”

Tariana Turia: What response has the Minister made to Dr Vaishali Mona Verma, coordinator of the overseas doctors forum—a forum established by the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor—who advised the Prime Minister on 16 May 2007: “At present an overseas trained doctor finds several gaps in the system. We are bullied, assaulted and suffer all kinds of human rights abuses by our Medical Council, Royal College of General Practice supervisors”, and what does he intend to do about that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: As I mentioned to the House earlier, the main outstanding need for overseas-trained doctors appears to be a year of mentored supervision. That is an offer that many of them, I suspect, will take up. It will be available to those doctors who pass the New Zealand registration exam and it will begin on 1 July—about 6 weeks from now. I am not sure how many people will take it up, but we have funding initially for, I think, 28 places.

Tariana Turia: Is he aware that foreign doctors are overrepresented in the complaints upheld by the Health and Disability Commissioner—as was stated by the honourable Barbara Stewart—and what explanation can he give for the fact that Dr Vaishali Mona Verma suggested in his email to the Prime Minister on 16 May 2007 that, despite regular email contact during 2006, “The Minister of Pacific Affairs, Minister of Justice, Minister of Ethnic Affairs and the Minister of Health did nothing about the breakdown of this ethnic health service for Indian people which I had established”, and what does he intend to do about it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am sorry, but I cannot recall the email and I cannot recall the Indian health service—whether or not it is a rural one is not clear—but I am very happy to take the issue up if the member would like me to do so.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

6. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Simon Power: Can he confirm allegations that inmates working in the garage at Auckland prison service the cars of staff—including one staff member who got them to completely build up a vehicle from materials supplied by the department—in return for steaks and roasts, and, as well, are allowed to do work on their own cars, including the Mercedes of a drug dealer; and when will “deals for meals” cease?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I can confirm those allegations have been made. They are currently being investigated. At the end of that investigation we will work out whether they are true.

Simon Power: Can he deny information received by my office regarding Auckland prison that one staff member took inmates to his home to help build a workshop, and that another staff member took two inmates to his home to do a bit of work around the section?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of these allegations. They are currently being investigated. At the outcome of those investigations, appropriate action will be taken.

Hon Paul Swain: Has the Minister seen any reports of Department of Corrections officers from Tongariro/Rangipō Prison getting inmates to panel beat their private vehicles between July and October 1999, when Nick Smith was the Minister; if he has seen those reports, what advice does he have about what the then National Government did about it?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The record is clear that on the dates listed I was not the Minister of Corrections. I resigned as Minister of Corrections when I became Minister of Education in January of that year.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of allegations, and that the National Government did nothing following the proof of those allegations.

Simon Power: Can he deny information received by my office regarding Auckland prison that an officer charged with investigating corruption in prisons got inmates to build him a mechanical spit-roast, and that other staff members have had their boats, including a 40-foot yacht—known throughout the prison as “HMNZS Corrections”—refitted in the prison workshop?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of the first allegation. I am not aware of the details of the second allegation, but they will be thoroughly investigated, and if they are proven to be correct, appropriate action will be taken.

Simon Power: What does he say to Kevin McNeil, the son of murder victim Lois Dear, who has received death threats allegedly made from cellphones inside prison, and why has his department allowed Mr McNeil to be re-victimised because it has failed to stop cellphones from being smuggled into prisons, and has yet to introduce measures to block their signals?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of that allegation. There has been no evidence at all that it did take place. I am aware that allegations of corruption are made by prisoners and by politicians every day. We do investigate those, and where proven, action is taken. It will be taken in this case, if that member can front with any evidence that proves the situation.

Simon Power: Can he confirm his response to written question No. 3408 that it was the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections who first raised the idea of a special unit to investigate corruption in prisons; if so, why does Barry Matthews think an anti-corruption unit is necessary as part of this restructure, if corruption is limited to, in his words, “a few bad apples”—about “five in the whole organisation”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yesterday Barry Matthews, the chief executive, announced a restructure of head office to include an investigation unit that will be answerable directly to him. It will be staffed with skilled people who are able to act immediately on any allegations made by prisoners or politicians; they will check out the validity of those claims, so that action can be taken immediately.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister not accept that the long-running list of allegations of inappropriate relationships between prison officers and inmates, and the well-established record of a large amount of goods being smuggled into prisons, even when National was in Government, are proof and evidence that we are long overdue for the establishment of an internal investigation team that is independent, that operates from head office, that looks at all such instances impartially, and that sees through the courts prosecutions by the police?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It is difficult for the Department of Corrections, like any large organisation, to be perfect. Any political, private, or public organisation will, from time to time, have individuals who do not abide by the law or by the ethics and standards of that organisation. We are determined to make changes to ensure that we minimise any opportunity for that. This unit is one major improvement in that area, and we will pursue through the courts any inappropriate behaviour.

Simon Power: I seek leave to table a report from the Daily Post on 30 January of this year where Steve Chadwick said: “We do need to clean up the corrections department.”

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

Broadband Network—Financing

7. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister for Information Technology: Has he received any further reports on financing improvements to New Zealand’s broadband network?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology): Yes, I have seen reported yesterday in the Dominion Post that Maurice Williamson opposes Government investment in the country’s broadband infrastructure. He was contradicting his leader, John Key, who was proposing Government funding, and, oddly enough, he was siding with co-leader Bill English, who also rejected the idea.

Martin Gallagher: Has the Minister seen any further reports on investment in broadband infrastructure?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, in the same Dominion Post article Maurice Williamson is then quoted as proposing the adoption of the Australian Labor Party policy to pour the equivalent of $4.7 billion into broadband, thus contradicting both himself and both his co-leaders all in the same article, and demonstrating the wisdom of his usual approach of remaining invisible.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was a rare moment, but I did listen to that Minister’s answer. He referred again to the co-leaders of the National Party. There are no such people. Given that the House is particularly insistent that we do not refer to the state of “Helengrad” when we are talking about the Prime Minister, I think it would be appropriate for you to act, as you have previously said you would, and pull Ministers up for this sort of childish behaviour.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, may I say that no slight was intended; simply, there is confusion about who is, in fact, the responsible spokesman for the National Party—

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not appropriate. I am sorry I did not pick up the term. I just ask the Minister to—[Interruption] Do members wish to stay in the Chamber? When I am on my feet and speaking members will be quiet. Would the Minister please address the question in the appropriate way.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am very happy to repeat my answer with the amendment requested. Yes, in the same Dominion Post report Maurice Williamson is then quoted as proposing the adoption of the Australian Labor Party policy to pour the equivalent of $4.7 billion into broadband, thus contradicting himself and both his leaders all in the same article, and demonstrating the wisdom of his usual approach of remaining invisible.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister assure the House that any financing of improvements to New Zealand’s broadband network will include rural networks; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Absolutely. The rural network is essential to New Zealand and I daresay it is in need of significant reinvestment.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Can I ask the Minister to answer a question that I have put down as a written question but that he refuses to reply to, which is simply: where has New Zealand moved from and to in the broadband penetration table since 1999, when the OECD first started collecting the data and when Labour first came to power?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As a result of a decade of inaction by National, which presided over the most bizarre light-handed regulation of telecommunications in OECD experience, New Zealand, sadly, slipped to 22nd out of 30 countries in the OECD. I am delighted to announce to the House that in the last 12 months, as a result of the Government’s stocktake policies, we have come up one place.

Health Services—Commonwealth Fund Survey Placing

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Why did New Zealand drop from No. 1 in the Commonwealth Fund survey of New Zealand, UK, Australia, Canada, and the United States health systems published in 2004 to No. 4 in this year’s survey, and when will New Zealand again make the top half of this survey?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): We did not. The 2004 survey had dozens of rankings, not one, and in the latest survey the Commonwealth Fund has just last week corrected an error, using a big red box in which to do so. However, the more important point is that each of these surveys measures different things and uses different populations. New Zealand has a range of achievements in the survey, depending on the dozens of questions asked. Overall we do very well and are often in first or second place.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister stand by his answers to written questions that show there was less elective surgery performed last year than there was in Labour’s first year in office, despite a $4 billion a year spending increase and a population growth of 7 percent?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I stand by my press release of only yesterday, which shows that the provisional results for the year to February show an increase of 6 percent. The member should stop saying it is a decrease; it is an increase. Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.

Ann Hartley: Can the Minister tell us something of the detail of the Commonwealth Fund survey results?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will try to give members just a sense of it. New Zealand ranks very highly in many important domains: we are second for access, second for efficiency, first for primary health care information technology, and second-equal with Germany for quality. On the indicators of patient-centred care, the report states that New Zealand clearly outperforms all others with respect to engagement, patient preference, communication, continuity, and feedback. We did come fourth in one case, in an area known as “healthy lives” in the 2004 survey, but the report notes the important caveat that data that showed us coming fourth is from 1998 and that substantial changes may have occurred since that time. Substantial changes certainly have occurred since that time.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister stand by his answers to written questions that show that between 2005 and 2006 there was a 7 percent drop in elective surgery case weights?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member has financial year, calendar year, case weights, numbers of discharges, and numbers of people, and he mixes them up—

Madam SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is answering the question, so would members please enable him to do so.

Hon PETE HODGSON:—and mixes them up until he gets two data points that give him an attack position. The problem is that the latest data, from February to February, for the amount of surgery going on in this country shows a 6 percent increase. The member needs to work out that that means there is more surgery being done now, not less.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is the number of people who got elective surgery last year less than the number in Labour’s first year of running the Treasury benches, despite an extra $4 billion a year and population growth of 7 percent?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member gets that number because he refuses to use the latest data. He does not like good news when it is looking him in the face.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will the Minister admit that even though he is claiming there was a 6 percent increase last year, compared with his first year in office it will, in fact, be less, and how can it be that after 6 years and $4 billion a year extra on health, fewer people got elective surgery last year compared with Labour’s first full year controlling the public purse strings?

Hon PETE HODGSON: We seem to have a battle to the death going on here. The long and short of it is that the member’s primary question said that we dropped from first to fourth in the Commonwealth series. He was wrong on both counts. He is now asserting a decrease in surgery, and he is wrong on that count as well. He declines to use the latest data, because it does not suit his purposes.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Would the Minister explain how it is that fewer people received elective surgery in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch last year compared with Labour’s first year in Government, despite the populations of the main centres increasing significantly over the same period?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The fact that the member makes the same mistake as his colleague does not make it—

Hon Tony Ryall: It’s not a mistake, it’s the truth.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The truth of the matter is that the amount of elective surgery going on in New Zealand, using the latest data, is greater, not less—

Hon Tony Ryall: But not the year before.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, that is right. It is to the end of February, because that is the latest data we have. I thought that using the latest data would be better than using stale data, but the member does not like it because it really does disturb his prejudices. The health system is getting better each year.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table, to the year ended December 2006, information showing that Labour is doing less elective surgery now than in its first year in office.

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

Charities—Budget 2007

9. TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: How will charities benefit from announcements in Budget 2007?

Hon RICK BARKER (Acting Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): The Budget 2007 contained great news for charities. The threshold for donations made to charities by individuals, Māori authorities, and businesses will be gone by 1 April 2008. This will make it easier and more attractive for Kiwis and business to donate to charity because the rebate threshold will have gone. It is appropriate to acknowledge at this time the very good work done by the United Future Party in support of this policy work.

Tim Barnett: Will charities that employ paid staff be eligible for the new KiwiSaver employer tax credit?

Hon RICK BARKER: An unqualified yes. Charities can be certain of this because the $20 per week KiwiSaver employer tax credit is administered through the PAYE system. One thing that is not certain, however, is whether National supports KiwiSaver.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister confirm that improving the rebate on charitable donations was publicly signed off as part of United Future’s supply and confidence agreement with the Labour-led Government in 2005, straight after that election, and not in response to a National Party media release, and what feedback has the Minister received from organisations such as Philanthropy New Zealand about this United Future Budget gain?

Hon RICK BARKER: I can confirm that, and I can confirm for the House that this policy work was being undertaken, and documents were released under the signatures of Dr Michael Cullen and Peter Dunne, in October last year. That was at a time when the current leader of the National Party was still plotting his challenge against Don Brash. I can further say that the charitable sector has been overwhelmingly positive about this, because this Labour-led Government, with United Future, is doing things; National simply talks.

Schools—Year 1 Class Size Reduction

10. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Will he achieve the promised reduction in year 1 class sizes ensuring “that by 2008 there are no more than 15 students in a class”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Good news! The Labour-Progressive Government is committed to moving to a teacher-student ratio of 1:15 for year 1 students. The first phase of this process means that appropriate property provision will be available, and 702 extra teachers will be in place, by term 2 of 2008. The second phase of this roll-out will be considered in the 2008 Budget.

Katherine Rich: Why has the Minister changed the ratio commitment for junior classes to one teacher to 18 kids, when his Government’s promise in 2005 was one teacher to 15 children, and can he explain why this is not a broken promise?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The commitment has not changed. The Government has been committed to a ratio of 1:15 by the end of 2008, and that is the policy.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What measures are in place now to reduce class sizes and get more teachers into schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: A large amount. The Labour-Progressive Government has already provided 3,500 extra teachers to schools over and above any required by roll growth, through its school staffing initiative, and has provided a further 740 teachers for classroom release time for primary teachers. With this increase, we are funding almost 5,000 extra teachers over and above those required by roll growth. And we know that National has committed itself to having not one extra teacher.

Katherine Rich: Will the Minister guarantee that by the end of 2008 all students in a sole-charge school will be in a class with only 14 other students, given that he has said in the Budget that the ratio will be 1:18 by the end of the second term—is he expecting a tidal wave of teachers to decrease the ratio by the end of 2008?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The policy is that the Labour-Progressive Government is committed to a 1:15 ratio for year 1 students. By term 2 of 2008 we will have in place the first phase of that. The second Budget that will deal with this issue will be the 2008 Budget.

Katherine Rich: Is the Minister guaranteeing that by the end of 2008 all students in junior classes will be in a class with no more than 14 other students; if that is the case, why does he talk about a ratio of 1:18 in the Budget, thereby creating the impression that he has broken his promise?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I welcome the fact that the member wants to spend even more money—to rack up even more spending by National. But nothing has changed. The Government is committed to a 1:15 ratio; by the end of 2008, with the other Budget to come, that is what we will have.

Katherine Rich: Is the real reason the Minister has made no progress on his election promise—a 1:15 ratio in junior classes—the fact that even as late as last year, in official Treasury reports, it was quite clear that not a single costing had been done for these extra teachers, so here in 2007 he is rushing to implement a Labour promise made back in 2005 that he knows is unachievable?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not call a commitment to have 702 extra teachers, and appropriate property, a lack of progress; I call it progress. I also say to the member that people plan ahead for these things, they know when they are going to implement them, and that is what we are doing.

Housing New Zealand—Gang Evictions

11. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Minister of Housing: Has Housing New Zealand taken any further action to identify and remove any of its tenants who are criminal gang members in the wake of the eviction notice served at a Range View Road, Ōwairaka, address last week; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Housing New Zealand Corporation houses are peopled according to need. Like all landlords, it is required to abide by the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act. We actively manage all our tenancies and do not tolerate tenants committing criminal acts in any of our properties. However, if tenants are law-abiding, we do not have any lawful grounds on which to deny them a State house because of membership of an organisation, a religion, a political party, or any other group.

Pita Paraone: Does Housing New Zealand Corporation have any mechanism for ensuring that its tenants are law-abiding, or does it always wait until terrorised neighbours have a complaint before any action is taken?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Housing New Zealand Corporation relies on its case managers getting around houses. But I take the member back to the case he has raised. In that particular situation Housing New Zealand Corporation was reliant on the police informing it of the situation, and, as soon as the police did that, then, as he knows, Housing New Zealand Corporation acted.

Lynne Pillay: How actively does Housing New Zealand Corporation manage its tenancies?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As a responsible landlord, Housing New Zealand Corporation actively manages its 67,000 homes—up, I should say, from 50,000 or so just 7 years ago after we took over from National. The overwhelming majority of these tenancies are trouble-free, because, like most Kiwis, our tenants are law-abiding families that are focused on getting on with their lives. When problems arise that cannot be sorted out satisfactorily at a neighbourhood level, we use all the options available to us under the Residential Tenancies Act. In the current year we have terminated 17 of our tenancies—for example, with the assistance of bailiffs. Other tenants choose to leave before it becomes necessary to take their case formally through the tribunal.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. How many State houses are estimated to be inhabited by criminal gang members; if this information is not known, does the Minister not consider he owes it to high-need New Zealanders on the housing waiting list to find out this information and ensure they are not being put behind those gang members in the pecking order?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not have those figures with me today. But I say to the member that this would be extraordinarily difficult to do. For example, a person may well have committed a crime in the past but now be a person who is seeking to live a good life, get on with a job, and so on. Those people would risk, of course, being caught up by a measure such as that. But I go back to the central point, which is that Housing New Zealand Corporation does not tolerate criminal behaviour in its tenancies, and it acts when it finds that.

Fisheries, Minister—Crisis Meeting

12. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Did he have a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries last night; if so, would it be accurate to describe that meeting as a crisis meeting?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: The Minister is currently at the commemorations for the late Dame Te Atairangikaahu at Tūrangawaewae. The answer is yes and no.

Hon Tau Henare: Why did it take until last evening to hold an urgent Clayton’s meeting with the Minister of Fisheries, when the decision to defer the reporting date of the bill had already been made yesterday afternoon?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As far as I am aware, the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries meet on many occasions.

Hon Tau Henare: Does the Minister recall a statement issued by the Labour Māori caucus during the foreshore and seabed debate: “The land wars are over so the consent of tangata whenua is required before customary title can be extinguished. Otherwise it is a confiscation.”; and can we expect, just like the foreshore and seabed issue, that members of the Labour Māori caucus will stamp their feet, shake their taiaha, then accept being patted on the head and pushed back into the corner, as they are told to do?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are discussions occurring that I am sure will lead to a satisfactory outcome from the perspective of a wide range of people. I am sure that the National Party will still find a reason to oppose the legislation, and I am sure that before we get to the next election it will express the view that it will not change it.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Labour Māori caucus believe that the sustainability of our fisheries is vital to the success of the Maori Fisheries Act, and what would be the effect of the collapse of our fisheries on Māori and the fishing industry?

Madam SPEAKER: I just note that the Minister is not responsible for a caucus meeting or caucus affairs, but if the question addresses a ministerial responsibility—

Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This question is to the Minister of Māori Affairs, and I understand that the Minister of Māori Affairs is a member of the Labour Māori caucus.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, but when he is addressing the question he is responsible only in his role as Minister, not as a member of a caucus—I just make that point. Would the member like to rephrase the question so that it is clear it is about a ministerial responsibility.

Pita Paraone: Does the Minister share the view that the Māori caucus believes that the sustainability of our fisheries is vital to the success of the Maori Fisheries Act; and what would be the effect of the collapse of our fisheries on Māori and the fishing industry?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, the Minister and his colleagues strongly support the sustainability of the fisheries. There is no point in owning 100 percent of nothing.

Hon Tau Henare: Was last night’s crisis meeting the first consultation that he as Minister of Māori Affairs has had with the Minister of Fisheries, or has he known about these proposals and been complicit in trying to push them through from the start?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister did not have a crisis meeting last night.

Hon Tau Henare: How many other commercial decisions that directly affect the economic development and well-being of Māori are the Minister’s Cabinet colleagues slipping past him, knowing he is not easily woken from the slumber of ministerial comfort?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister attends many, many meetings about Māori issues, not least meetings with the Attorney-General on matters to do with the foreshore and seabed.

ENDS

© Scoop Media