( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. )

Thursday, 26 July 2007

Health Care—Primary Health Care Services
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—Powers under Section 12
Oil Market—Supply
Environment, Ministry—Confidence
Rates Rebate Scheme—Uptake
Environment, Ministry—Communications Manager
Reserve Bank—Price Stability
Hawke's Bay District Health Board—Caregiver Training Contract
Volunteer Support—Promotion
Teachers—Internet Sex Sites
Question No. 9 to Minister
Civil Aviation Authority—Runway Safety
Talented (Accredited Employers) Work Policy—Applicants

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Health Care—Primary Health Care Services

1. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What steps has he taken to improve the affordability, accessibility and quality of primary health care for all New Zealanders?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Quite a few. On 1 July this Labour-led Government completed the roll-out of cheaper doctors’ fees, halving the cost of going to the doctor, and of lowering the cost of most prescription medicines from $15 to $3. We know that means New Zealanders will seek help from their general practitioner or other primary health care provider earlier than previously. Last month I doubled the number of funded places for general practitioner training, and last week I announced a $6 million innovation fund to help general practitioners and nurses to spread the remarkable innovations that are already under way.

Lesley Soper: Can New Zealanders be confident that they will continue to access affordable and quality primary health care?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The answer to that question is no and yes. The reason it is no is that the National Party still needs to clarify its position on low fees and low prescription charges. It is on record as both supporting improvements and opposing them. The answer is also yes because National’s indecision month after month, year after year, means it will not become the Government any time soon.

Barbara Stewart: Is he aware of a statement by a New Zealand Medical Association general practitioner spokesperson that the $39 payment per visit for children under 6 does not reflect true costs; if so, will the Ministry of Health be raising the level of that particular subsidy; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member asks a good question, as if often the case, and I appreciate New Zealand First’s interest in this matter to the point that it is part of the agreement with New Zealand First on confidence and supply. I can say to the member publicly that the Government is engaged on this issue seriously.

Sue Kedgley: What cross-party support has he received to widen the scope of the treatment options available in primary health care, particularly for chronic care?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Quite a lot. Given that the question is coming from the Green Party, I think I should say that with the Greens’ support and, indeed, encouragement, we have introduced new complementary and alternative medicines capacity within the Ministry of Heath, precisely because integrated health care is an area of increasing interest both for members of the public and for an increasing number of health care professionals.

Hon Peter Dunne: As part of the possible extension of primary health care for all New Zealanders, is the Government giving consideration to an annual free health check for, initially, older New Zealanders but ultimately for all New Zealanders?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, but not for the age group the member may have in mind. From February 2008 the Government will be introducing a free health check for children ready to go to school—the ready-for-school check. That follows on, of course, from a number of free Plunket checks that they have got in. The outcome of the Well Child review currently under way is that the free health check will, I think, be reasonably comprehensive and a new contribution to the health provision in this country.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—Powers under Section 12

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Will he invoke section 12 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 now that the official cash rate has increased to 8.25 percent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No.

Hon Bill English: Why did the Minister raise the issue of intervention in monetary policy last week, when he knew that it would put pressure on the Governor of the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates this week, if only to prove his independence?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not believe that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is so petty as to wonder about who has got the biggest whatsit when he comes to make a decision about interest rates.

Hon Mark Gosche: What is the Government doing to reduce pressure on monetary policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Despite claims from those opposite, we continue to run what Standard and Poor’s—

Hon Member: Oh, Iceland!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, actually, Iceland is twice as high in interest rates as New Zealand. Despite claims from those opposite, we continue to run what Standard and Poor’s have described as a conservative fiscal policy. That is why it confirmed our current credit rating. Dr Bollard acknowledges the importance of savings, which is one of the reasons why the Government’s KiwiSaver scheme is so important in the long term in redressing the imbalances in the economy. I wait to hear National’s position on those extensions of KiwiSaver.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister share New Zealand First’s belief that it is time to rationally debate the failings of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and consider introducing a far more coordinated approach between monetary and fiscal policy, both to combat inflation and to keep the economy balanced?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am very encouraged by the way the select committee inquiry is already proceeding. A number of very interesting submissions have been made to the select committee. Clearly, Mr English has not read any of them. I would recommend them—for example, the submissions from ASB, the New Zealand Exchange, and a number of others. All are very interesting and very well considered, and it is quite interesting to have a debate on such matters.

Hon Bill English: After 7 years of mismanaging economic growth, what does the Minister have to say to a person with a 2-year $200,000 mortgage who now, when it is renewed, will face additional outgoings of around $45 a week, and to exporters who face an 80c-dollar—a level they never imagined possible—and if he wants to take all the credit for good economic management, should he not take the blame for the highest interest rates in the developed world and the highest exchange rate we have seen since the float?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We do not have the highest rates in the developed world. That is wrong, for a start. Secondly, the time when the member was the Minister of Finance was the only time we managed to get negative growth in the last 10 years. Thirdly, we have reduced unemployment to around 3.5 percent. Fourthly, we have had the longest period of sustained growth—the second-longest since the Second World War and the longest in the last 30 years. We have seen strong household-income growth and strong real personal-income growth. What about that does the member not understand?

Hon Bill English: How much less inflationary pressure would there be in the economy if the Minister had stuck to his original, and already generous, Budget spending allocation, rather than deliberately overspending it by $4 billion, as recorded in the pre-Budget Cabinet papers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: All the inflation measures so far are still reflecting a year in which the Government ran a cash surplus over $2 billion, took another $2 billion out by way of the New Zealand superannuation fund, and reduced demand by $4 billion - plus dollars in one year, while that member’s leader was still promising a tax cut of $2.5 billion dollars.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister recall his own words in his own Cabinet paper, in which he stated that Cabinet should stick to the spending allowance because not to do so would “risk higher than necessary inflation and interest rates”; did he then go ahead and sign off a Budget that overspent those allowances by $4 billion, and was that not sacrificing homeowners and exporters in the cause of Labour’s big-spending re-election campaign?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: First of all, the shift in the spending for the current year that we are now in mirrors almost exactly the shift in the forecast revenue for the current year that we are now in, so the balance remained the same. The second thing is that the two big initiatives in the Budget were the KiwiSaver extensions to expand our savings—which National cannot make up its mind about—and the business tax package, which cuts taxes for the productive sector. This member keeps calling for cuts in the bureaucracy while his leader is saying that public servants’ jobs are safe. They are the same people, you know.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister now telling us that the one thing that might offset his big spend-up is the higher than expected tax revenue that arises from higher inflation—the tax revenue that will be paid by the same people who will be worse off by $50 a week because of these interest rate increases?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Let me explain it again to the member. This Government will be running cash deficits over the next 4 years on forecast that are much, much less than the total transfers into the superannuation fund. In other words, this Government will continue to take money out of demand in the New Zealand economy over that period of time. I remind the member that his leader has spent the last 4½ years attacking me for running excessively large surpluses, and suddenly National has decided that surpluses should be much bigger.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us just who has been more rattled by his erratic behaviour—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Government is interjecting on every question that I ask. I know we can have some interjections on questions, but interjecting on every question is going a bit far.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. I note that from the member, and I also noted that the member interjected constantly on the answers that were given. I just remind all members—[Interruption] That member will leave the Chamber if he does that again. I just remind members that however tempting it is to comment, please keep your interjections rare.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: When the Minister looks back at the last 6 months of various proposals he has floated that have been shot down, at the various times he has been shut down by the Prime Minister, and at his threat of intervention in monetary policy last week, who does he believe is more rattled by his erratic behaviour: Japanese housewives or his own colleagues?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: At a time when the leader of the Opposition cannot wait to get out of this House because he is shaking so much whenever he is in it, we are not rattled at all.

Oil Market—Supply

3. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: What economic and fiscal strategies is he developing to prepare New Zealand for the impact of an “extremely tight” oil market within 5 years where oil production may not be able to keep up with demand, as predicted by the International Energy Agency’s Medium-Term Oil Market Report earlier this month?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Low debt and projected surpluses give New Zealanders as much fiscal flexibility to respond to changing circumstances as almost any other developed country has. The development of an emissions trading system, and measures to support energy efficiency, to support biofuels, and to support passenger transport will help directly. Of course, as oil prices rise, individuals also react, by, in fact, adjusting to more efficient vehicles.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will he discuss with his colleague the Minister of Energy the need to amend this statement in the draft New Zealand Energy Strategy: “It is unclear whether conventional oil production will peak in the next decade, or a decade or two later.” so that it reflects a greater sense of urgency, given that the Government has always relied on the International Energy Agency’s fool’s paradise view that we still have around three decades until peak oil, despite all the other views to the contrary?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not propose to do that at this stage, at all. I am old enough to remember the report from the Club of Rome in, I think, 1975, stating that we would have run out of oil by this point. In fact, proven commercial oil reserves now are still larger than they were 20 years ago.

Gordon Copeland: Can the Minister confirm that a steady increase in oil prices to the point of an extremely tight market in 5 years also provides economic incentives for reductions in oil consumption, such as switching from cars to public transport, and for oil substitution through increased investment in alternative technologies; if so, how does the Government plan to assist that process?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member is right; there are basic market signals coming through, and we are seeing the results of that. When did we last see nearly all motor vehicle manufacturers or importers in New Zealand advertising diesel vehicles as part of their major offering, instead of petrol vehicles, because of diesel vehicles’ greater efficiency? What the Government can do in all of that is look at areas like fuel efficiency ratings and standards, and look at doing what it has done, which is to mandate a beginning towards including, to start, minimal biofuels content within our fuels, but that can increase. The Government itself is reviewing its own vehicle fleet. It is looking to use much more fuel-efficient diesel-powered vehicles and others, and vehicles with low carbon footprints.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he believe that biofuels, useful as they will be when used on some scale, can provide for a continuing 4 percent annual compound growth in demand for transport fuels, given the International Energy Agency’s statement in the same document I just quoted that biofuels are already running into competition with food production for suitable land, and that the economics of biofuels are still uncertain and raise doubts as to whether ambitious supply-growth scenarios can be realised?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To pick up on that one important point, it seems to me, the economics of biofuels is like almost anything else: dependent in large part upon the price of the alternative. In that respect, the Green Party should be welcoming high oil prices, even if the rest of us complain when we go to the petrol pump.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What plan does he have to deal with the impact on the economy of even faster accelerating oil prices, if strategies to correct the exchange rate actually work and we are no longer protected from real oil prices by an overvalued dollar?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member, of course, points out the conundrum that is faced at the moment; that if the dollar starts to come back to a level that is more favourable towards exporters, there will be an increase in petrol prices and, indeed, in diesel prices. That is one of those variable prices that business in New Zealand has coped with for a very long time. Petrol prices at the pump now are significantly lower in real terms than they were, for example, in the early 1980s. It is not as though we have not been through these kinds of variables before. It is important to remember that other countries are going through the same experience.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister place on record, then, that he expects the current rise in oil prices to be a temporary phenomenon, just as the oil price rises in the 1970s were, and that it does not signal a long-term depletion of oil supply?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thought it was very clear from what I said that that was not what I was saying, at all—in fact, rather the opposite. I said that I expect that there are long-term pricing signals here that will lead to significant change in behaviour and practices by individuals, by business, and by others.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table an article quoting Goldman Sachs Group headed: “$100 oil price may be months away says”—

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

Environment, Ministry—Confidence

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister for the Environment; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she has told the public that the reason David Benson-Pope has not been sacked is that she believes him, that she looked him in the eye and took his word, and how does she feel about that 2 days later when he has changed his story in two significant respects—firstly about whether he knew of the rumours of a conflict of interest; and, secondly, over the number of phone calls between his office and Hugh Logan?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that that is what the Prime Minister said. She has seen no evidence at this point to change her view on that matter.

Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister not aware that despite David Benson-Pope’s frequent statements that there was one phone call between his office and the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment, it was revealed yesterday that there were at least four calls over 2 days, and how likely does she think it that a Minister would not know that a discussion about an employment matter was going on between his close friend and chief adviser, and the chief executive of his department, for 2 days?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister has been clear that he did not know that Mr Hurring made the initial phone call to Mr Logan. He has already confirmed that Mr Logan informed him about matters the next day.

Hon Bill English: Can we take it that this is another example of the Prime Minister’s slippery analysis, when she has just told the House that Mr Benson-Pope did not know about the “initial” phone call, and does that mean that she does not believe him when he said there were no other phone calls, there was only one?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Given the nature of that question, I advise the member that one thing more dangerous than trying to put words into my mouth is trying to put words into the Prime Minister’s mouth.

Hon Bill English: Given that the Prime Minister is aware that David Benson-Pope’s story has changed in two significant respects, how many changes to his story does she have to hear before she will decide she does not believe him?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member clearly did not listen to my previous answer. He continues to preface a question with an assertion, then base the rest of the question on that assertion.

Hon Bill English: Is it not true that David Benson-Pope has been caught out twice before with less than fulsome explanations on the public record, and why is she the only person in New Zealand who believes him on this matter?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the Prime Minister said in the House earlier this week, a member’s word should be taken unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister understand that the real situation is probably that David Benson-Pope heard the rumours and said, as quoted yesterday, “I don’t want that woman in my office.”, and his close friend and political adviser, Mr Hurring, went off and did the dirty work?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member has already managed to exceed J K Rowling in extended works of fiction, in this House.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister answer the question I asked earlier: how many significant changes does she need to hear from David Benson-Pope’s story—one of which he confirmed himself, so it is not fiction, unless that is what she thinks of everything he says—that he said himself there were four calls; how many more examples of this does she need before she concludes what everyone else concludes, which is that the gentleman is not telling the truth?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member has come up with nothing that changes the essence of what happened.

Hon Bill English: What’s the essence?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: He does not really want to know, does he. That is the problem. Mr Hurring rang Mr Logan, to say to Mr Logan: “Is this rumour true?”. Mr Logan came back to respond to Mr Hurring, and Mr Logan briefed Mr Benson-Pope on what Mr Logan had done in conjunction with the State Services Commission. I might say, in fairness to Madeleine Setchell, if only the information she had originally given had been passed on to the rest of the people involved, this probably never would have got to the point where this immense pile of paranoid mystery would have been built around it by Mr English.

Rates Rebate Scheme—Uptake

5. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Local Government: What reports, if any, has he received on the uptake of the Rates Rebate Scheme?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): I can advise that by the end of this week, for the 2006-07 financial year ratepaying Kiwi households will have rebated approximately $50 million. That is a seventyfold increase in Government funding, when compared with rebates for the 2005-06 financial year. The expanded scheme has proved a success for tens of thousands of New Zealand ratepaying households, particularly those on fixed or lower incomes such as the elderly.

Martin Gallagher: Has he seen any other reports on local government funding?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes. I have seen a report of a recent speech made by a politician to the Local Government New Zealand conference that described John Key’s proposals as, to quote the Otago Daily Times editorial, “irritatingly non-committal”. It said that Mr Key vaguely suggested “there would be more money for local authorities”—more money, I note again—“but did not say why, where it was coming from, or how much, or what it would be for.” In contrast, this Government, through initiatives such as the Rates Rebate Scheme, Working for Families, and KiwiSaver, is helping New Zealand families to build secure futures.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Has the Minister noted within the reports on the uptake of the Rates Rebate Scheme that many eligible people were not claiming a rebate because of embarrassment at having to reveal personal income information to their local councils, often to people who live in their close vicinity, and if he has, does he believe some changes are required to the way the system operates?

Hon MARK BURTON: Although there has not been a high level of reporting of that concern, certainly there is some indication of it. One of the things with the massive increase in the utilisation of the scheme is that I have officials reviewing a number of factors, to look at whether we have got it just right or whether further refinements can be made in order to ensure that as many people as possible make use of their entitlement.

Environment, Ministry—Communications Manager

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister for the Environment: Did the Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment ever ask him for his opinion on the appointment of Madeleine Setchell as the communications manager of the ministry; if so, what did he say?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment): No; I had one conversation with the chief executive relating to this matter before it was resolved. That conversation happened when he drew me aside in the context of a meeting about other issues and advised me there was an issue he was dealing with involving the partner of a National Party staff member, and that he had formed a preliminary view that there was a conflict of interest and that he was working with the State Services Commission to manage that issue. I noted two things: first, that this was clearly an employment issue and therefore his responsibility alone to manage, and, secondly, that from the point of view of my office I would likely be less free and frank in meetings with such a person. That was a statement of the obvious.

Gerry Brownlee: What miraculous events have occurred overnight for the Minister to have this greater recollection of the meetings held on 29 May that he could not remember yesterday, and has he also perhaps forgotten that he did say to Mr Hugh Logan: “I won’t have that woman in my office.”?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No miraculous events have occurred and I did not make that statement.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister expect us to believe that after the flurry of phone calls between his office and Hugh Logan’s office on 28 May, which caused Mr Logan to drop everything, conduct an urgent inquiry, and involve the State Services Commission, that at a meeting the next day the Minister was neither asked for, nor offered, his opinion on the actual appointment of Madeleine Setchell beyond the scant comments made by the Minister in the House today?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: For the benefit of the member, let me run through the chronology again. I was not aware, when my adviser began his inquiry but I now know that it was Monday, 28 May. I was first informed of the relationship later on 28 May when it had been confirmed by the chief executive. That there was formally the possibility of a conflict of interest was notified to me after that date personally by the chief executive.

Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister said to Mr Logan that he would be able to be less than free and frank should Ms Setchell be in any meetings in his office, what conclusion could Mr Logan reach other than the Minister was instructing him to dismiss Ms Setchell?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The member has misrepresented my quote. I said I would likely be less free and frank. I am sure the member understands fully that that is a statement of the obvious. He would be less likely to conduct a conversation as frankly with this side of the House as he would with his own colleagues, one would assume.

Gerry Brownlee: Why did the Minister not simply make that admission—this new revelation—right at the start of this particular issue and the investigation into it; and is the Minister surprised that when Mr Logan was asked by the media if the Minister had said: “I won’t have that woman in my office.”, he could not answer that question for himself with a simple “No”?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: There are about five questions there. Can I repeat that I did not make that statement.

Gerry Brownlee: Can we assume from Mr Logan’s refusal to deny the Minister told him: “I won’t have that woman in my office.” with a simple one-word answer, that it is a fact the Minister did instruct exactly along those lines, and could any other conclusion be reached from what the Minister has told the House today?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No, members cannot make that assumption, and other conclusions can definitely be reached. These are the facts of the matter.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister assure the House that if Mr Logan were to speak in a free, full, and frank manner, and tell the media what the Minister said to him, he would keep his job?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can assure the House that I have confidence in the professionalism of Mr Logan and I have no concerns in that respect.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no adverse consequences for any one either in his office or in the Ministry for the Environment who blows the whistle on what the Minister actually said to Mr Logan?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not the employer, either in my office or in the Ministry for the Environment.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that he has not, in the past, pressured any Government department to remove staff because of his perceptions about their political connections?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It would be totally inappropriate to do so.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We know that it would be inappropriate to do so. We are asking whether the Minister is prepared to say he has not done that before.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is answering as the Minister for the Environment. That is his ministerial responsibility in this context. I also remind members that they cannot require a specific answer to their questions. In that instance the Minister addressed the question, though it may have been outside his ministerial responsibility.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In relation to the question about the employment of Mr Logan, has the Minister received any report that when Mr Brownlee was asked whether Mr Logan would have a job were there to be a change of Government, he refused to answer yes?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I think it is one of the ironies of this issue that the behaviour of Mr Logan and, I believe, my staff has been honourable, and that reflection cannot be conveyed about the behaviour of those members opposite.

Reserve Bank—Price Stability

7. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What impact has the Reserve Bank’s primary function to focus on price stability had on New Zealand’s interest and exchange rates over the last 6 months?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I think that to answer the question completely would be almost impossible, because to do so would assume a series of scenarios about what would have happened if the primary focus were different. At a purely factual level, retail interest rates have risen, on average, by somewhat less than the 1 percent increase in the official cash rate over that period. The trade-weighted index of the exchange rate has risen by 10.3 percent, but much of that will be due to very strong growth in milk prices and a weakening US dollar, and cannot be assigned solely to movements in the official cash rate.

R Doug Woolerton: Has the Minister seen any alternatives proposed to change the status quo and widen the primary function of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act; and would he agree that a $2 billion tax cut package would do nothing to combat inflation in the short to medium term?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen many suggestions for alternatives, particularly in terms of widening the focus of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. I am yet to be convinced that that would actually help the Reserve Bank in its work. Certainly, a large tax cut, feeding further demand into the economy, would clearly place further inflationary pressure into the economy, thereby leading to even tighter monetary policy.

R Doug Woolerton: Is the Minister concerned that the 20c increase in the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar in the last year has wiped at least $2 billion from the revenues of the seafood and sheep and beef industries alone; and would he agree that our prospects as an exporting nation are grim if the level of our interest rates continues to be the highest in the developed world?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There has to be major concern about that rise in the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar. Clearly, therefore, what it tells us is that the interest rates are probably less important for the success and viability of the exporting sectors than the level of the exchange rate is, despite the obvious connection between the two in terms of the way things operate. I think that underlines the utility of what the Finance and Expenditure Committee is engaged in, which is actually a very thoroughgoing review with some very useful submissions coming in that may well assist in the further development of the operation of monetary policy in New Zealand.

Hon Bill English: You don’t believe that.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do actually believe that.

Hon Bill English: No, you don’t.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do believe that. The member is silly enough to think that he arrived at perfection 18 years ago in his life. At least he should get a mirror, which would demonstrate that that is not true.

Hawke's Bay District Health Board—Caregiver Training Contract

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Was the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s $1.1 million caregiver training contract with Wellcare, a subsidiary of Healthcare New Zealand, publicly tendered; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): No, the district health board did not tender for that contract. The reason, as I understand it, is that the contract was first initiated by the Ministry of Social Development, and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board then joined the contract.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it really believable that at department putting $72,000 into a contract has all the say over a district health board putting over $1.1 million into the contract, and is it not so that the Ministry of Social Development has confirmed publicly that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was consulted in the selection of that provider?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It may well have been; I would not know. I am not responsible for the Ministry of Social Development, and I am not a member of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. But the fact remains that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board joined the contract after it had been first let. Why did the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board put in $1.1 million? Well, because the deal was that it was to employ these people for 2 years, and most of that money has gone on wages.

Russell Fairbrother: Is the caregiver training contract regarded as being successful; if so, how is success measured?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Ministry of Social Development certainly thinks so. It is on record as stating that it has been an excellent pilot, so much so that it is trying it elsewhere in New Zealand.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister confirm that Mr Hausmann, the principal contractor in this case, and a member of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, did not declare an interest in Wellcare Education when Annette King appointed him in 2005; and in light of this information, how can the Minister justify his advice to the House that Mr Hausmann made full disclosure when Annette King appointed him in 2005?

Hon PETE HODGSON: As I stand here I have no knowledge as to whether Wellcare existed in 2005. But I will say that this is all part of the continuing innuendo against Mr Hausmann that occasioned him to write to me some weeks ago asking me to please review afresh his management of conflict of interest, even though it has been done before. I have agreed to examine the management of his conflict of interest afresh, and that review is under way now.

Hon Tony Ryall: So is it acceptable under this Labour Government that a district health board can enter into a $1 million - plus contract with one of its own board members, without having a public tender process, with no consultation with the board, and with that same board member declaring that interest only a few days before the contract was signed?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member asks the wrong Minister. I will just say again that Wellcare Education was approached by the Ministry of Social Development, not the district health board. I am sure that people consulted with one another.

Hon Bill English: So what?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Well, I am not the Minister for Social Development. That is what.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister aware that the person who presented the contract to Healthcare New Zealand, Wellcare, to sign was in fact a Hawke’s Bay District Health Board employee, and that that employee first discussed skills and training in the sector with Mr Hausmann, following an invitation to have that meeting with him after a district health board meeting in the Hawke’s Bay?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My best guess is that the only reason the member is able to ask that question is that all of the information around it has been put into the public arena. But what is more, there is now an independent review of the management of the conflict of interest issues surrounding Mr Hausmann, which was originally sought by Mr Hausmann. It will be looking at all of that data in the cold light of day to see whether the management was accurate.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a document detailing meetings and activity pre-contract for the Ministry of Social Development and that district health board from what appears to be Healthcare New Zealand.

Leave granted.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a chronology of events on 29 May 2006 from the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

Leave granted.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a memo from Diana Curtin on the Healthcare cadetship dated 30 May 2006.

Leave granted.

Volunteer Support—Promotion

9. TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What is the Government doing to encourage and support volunteering?

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): This Labour-led Government values the work of our volunteers, and continues to support them. The first round of 2007’s Support for Volunteering Fund has just opened. It will support Volunteering New Zealand and 10 volunteer centres around the country to continue serving their communities—volunteers like Hamish Hickley, who mentors disadvantaged children in Porirua, and Sonia Ford, who helps international students in Wellington.

Tim Barnett: What is being done to support and encourage volunteering among Pacific peoples?

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: Volunteering New Zealand has recently received funding for a new project to explore, encourage, and promote Pacific volunteering. Work is also in progress on a new study about Pacific people volunteering, and cultural obligations. This Labour-led Government promotes volunteering in our diverse communities. Volunteers contribute to our national identity as proud Kiwis.

Teachers—Internet Sex Sites

10. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: What specific steps did he or his office take last week to check whether the art teacher who posted hard-core pornographic pictures of himself and two women on internet sex sites, with messages for girls “the younger the better”, was not working in any capacity in any school, which led him to make the categorical statements that “this person is not teaching anywhere right now.” and that he “is not employed at any school.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: The Minister said last week that he had checked with the Teachers Council. More specifically, his office rang the Teachers Council, which advised that the person’s practising certificate had lapsed, so he could not legally teach. After making inquiries, the Teachers Council also advised the Minister’s office that the person was not employed at any school.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister of Education confirm that despite his assurances last week, this teacher taught in a New Zealand secondary school for around 10 days over a 3-week period, and stopped teaching only the week before last?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The Minister’s statement was correct according to the knowledge he had at the time from the Teachers Council. [Interruption] I am sure that for members opposite that is some form of conspiracy, but I think the member asking the question actually wants to investigate the issue seriously. The member is quite correct: the person was involved in teaching subsequently, and that situation is leading, obviously, to a review of the guidelines. The teaching appears to have been illegal, and the Teachers Council is investigating the breach. If proven, it will issue a warning that he has breached the Education Act 1989 and taught illegally. That offence is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 on both the school and the illegal teacher.

Moana Mackey: What action has been taken to ensure that no similar case occurs, in which a teacher is only censored and not deregistered, due to flaws in the council’s disciplinary guidelines?

Paula Bennett: He’s still teaching!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, he is not now, actually. The Teachers Council has reviewed its guidelines as a matter of urgency. The council board is this afternoon considering a proposal to revise the guidelines to ensure that no improper activity can fall through the cracks because it is not covered by any specific criterion, which appears to have been the problem in this case. The revised criteria will be formally drafted, and go out for early public consultation.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Would the Minister of Education give a categorical assurance to this House that notwithstanding his limited powers in matters relating to the employment of teachers, he would use all his influence to ensure that someone who would engage in such behaviours as described in the primary question could never again teach within a New Zealand school or, indeed, in any school worldwide?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sure the Minister would use whatever powers he can, in that regard. I would go further than that and say that if it becomes clear that the powers that are available are completely insufficient in that respect, then, clearly, we would need to look at strengthening those powers to prevent a recurrence of this kind of situation, which is totally unacceptable.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that there is actually nothing to stop this teacher from teaching in another classroom, whether as a reliever, as he was until last week, or, ultimately, as a permanent staff member; that a principal looking to recruit this teacher would have no idea what the censure was for; and that, basically, the Teachers Council, as set up by his Government, is doing nothing to ensure a high standard of professionalism of our teachers, when faced with this kind of situation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not think I would agree with the member in that regard. Any person whose practising certificate has lapsed can teach for only up to 10 additional teaching days from that point—and this person has already taught for those 10 additional days—even in any circumstance in which that teaching might have been legal. A school, I believe, should check to make sure the person has a practising certificate. That can be done, I understand, on the Teachers Council website. If something is wrong with its system, we need to follow up on that to make sure the information that goes up goes up quickly and there no delays. I am not aware of any problem in that regard, but I am happy to listen to the member further.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that the Minister of Education, who stood in the House last week and denied that this teacher was working in a school—only for us to then find out that this teacher has been teaching New Zealand kids in a classroom—and who makes such categorical statements, has no ability to ensure that this teacher will not be teaching in a school next week, and has no ability to ensure that the Teachers Council will deny registration, and that, actually, the Teachers Council is worried that it will have to re-register this guy because of a technicality?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I cannot comment on that very final point. I do not have sufficient information in front of me, and I welcome anything the member may be able to give me about it. On the other point she made, no, I do not agree with that. The practising certificate has lapsed, and for that person now to try to teach would be illegal. Indeed, it would be illegal for the school to employ such a teacher.

Katherine Rich: Why did the Minister of Education last week say this teacher was not teaching, when in fact he was; surely the Minister was not relying on the technical argument that last week was the school holidays and therefore there were no classes?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, not at all. As I explained in the primary answer, inquires were made of the Teachers Council, which advised the Minister’s office that this person was not employed at any school. At the end of the day Ministers have to—

Katherine Rich: He was.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In the school holidays, one is still employed. Ministers have to rely upon the information they are given. That information was clearly inadequate.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the conclusion of my answer to question No. 9, I heard Nick Smith make a comment that I take great offence to. I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: The member should have raised that at the time.

Civil Aviation Authority—Runway Safety

11. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for Transport Safety: He kaha tana whakapono ki te Mana Tohu Rererangi o Aotearoa, otirā, ki tāna ake mahi whakamana tōpito wāhi pareora o ngā taunga rererangi?

Translation: Does he have confidence in the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, in particular in its work relating to the certification of runway end safety areas?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): Yes. I am very happy with its work in that area, particularly in the development of the runway end safety area rule.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He aha te Mana Tohu Rererangi o Aotearoa ki te whakaaro o te Rōpū Whakahaere ā-Rererangi o Rotorua kia tau aua waka rererangi nui nei, e haere nei i te ao pēnā i tērā Airbus 320 i tutuki i Brazil inā tata nei, nā, 190 te hunga i mate engari, he poto iho te papa rererangi i Rotorua, ā, kua tata eke te wāhi here kei ngā pito ki te 90 mita e tika ana?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[What action can the Civil Aviation Authority take over Rotorua Regional Airport’s proposal to operate the same type of aircraft on international services as that used in the recent Airbus 320 crash that killed more than 190 people in Brazil but with an even shorter runway and a marginally compliant 90 metre runway end safety area?]

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: First, at present Rotorua airport is not an international airport. Therefore, I think that the Airbus A320s, which are mostly used by New Zealand airlines in an international role, are unlikely to fly there. However, in respect of the runway length at Rotorua, there is at present a proposal by the airport authority to have it extended. If such a proposal was brought to the Civil Aviation Authority, it would obviously consider it. But, firstly, if the airport runway was to be extended by more than 15 metres, runway end safety areas would be required. That is the trigger point at which runway end safety areas are required. Secondly, if the airport became an international airport, then obviously the runway end safety areas would have to be added.

H V Ross Robertson: What is the Civil Aviation Authority’s role in terms of runway end safety areas?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: As I said before, under the existing rule Rotorua Airport is not actually required to have a runway end safety area within the existing runway length, and I am very proud to say I did sign off on the rule, after many years of nothing having been done. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Members in this House constantly ask Ministers to address questions fully. We have a Minister who is attempting to do that. The least we can do is to listen to him.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If the airport were to become an international airport, or if it should decide to increase its declared runway distance by more than 15 metres, it would be required to introduce a runway end safety area, and at that point the Civil Aviation Authority would have a role in respect of monitoring the airport’s compliance with the runway end safety area rule.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He aha i aro kore ai ia ki te tūtohutanga mai i te Rōpū Whakakotahitanga o ngā Kairere o te Ao e mea ana kia whakaheke i ngā raru hauora, me whai ngā taunga waka rererangi katoa e whakamahi nei i ngā waka rererangi i ngā tikanga here nei, arā, kia kore e poto iho i te 240 mita te roa o te wāhi here kei ngā pito, ki te kore me whakarite i tētahi taputapu whakatū i te rere o te waka rererangi?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Why has he ignored the recommendation from the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations that in order to reduce safety risks all airports that airlines operate at should have a minimum runway end safety area of 240 metres or an engineered materials arrester system?]

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I certainly have not ignored the issue, at all. That is one of the reasons why the runway end safety area rule was put in place—and I am very pleased with that. The argument is over the trigger point at which an airport has to install a runway end safety area. It was decided that when airport runways are extended, or indeed when an airport becomes an international airport, then the extensions would have to include a runway end safety area.

Te Ururoa Flavell: E whakapono ana ia ka whai hua tana whakaaetanga ki te whakaaro o te Rōpū Whakahaere ā Rererangi o Rotorua ka whakakaha ake ngā raru hauora ki te hunga haere me ngā kairere ka mutu, mō taua hunga e noho mai rā i raro tonu i ngā waka rererangi tae atu ki te hunga noho nei kei ngā pito o te taunga waka rererangi, arā, ko te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ruamatā tērā, ko te tupuna whare o Uenukukōpako tērā, ko te marae o Ruamatā tērā, ko te whānau o Cookson tērā? Ki te kore, he aha tāna hei whakatika i te take nei?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Does he believe that approving the Rotorua Regional Airport’s plan will provide the maximum level of safety possible for passengers and crew and those immediately within the possible undershoot and overrun areas, including children at Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ruamatā, Uenukukōpako Wharenui, Ruamatā Marae, and the Cookson whānau who live at the northern end of the runway; if not, why not?]

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: The airport company is proposing a northern runway extension of 150 metres to allow for larger aircraft and international flights. That is clearly a business decision by the airport’s owners. If it does go ahead, they will have to incorporate a runway end safety area, which will at least address the issues of overrun raised by the member. That will be in conformity with Civil Aviation Rule Part 139, and the physical standards for runway design and runway end safety area design will obviously have to be met. The Civil Aviation Authority will ensure that is the case; that is the role of the Civil Aviation Authority. But the commercial decision as to whether to extend the runway is properly within the purview of the airport authority, and, of course, local ratepayers will have plenty to say about that issue.

Talented (Accredited Employers) Work Policy—Applicants

12. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: What was the average time for the approval of applicants under the Talented (Accredited Employers) Work Policy in 2006-07?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I am advised that the average processing time for the talented accredited employer work applications for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 was just 10 days.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the financial information required by Immigration New Zealand for applicants for accredited employer status is considered official information by Immigration New Zealand and will be released on request to trade unions unless the applicant can prove that to do so would unreasonably prejudice his or her commercial position?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The member is well aware of the relevant provisions of the Official Information Act, and, of course, commercial confidentiality is a reason established under the Act for the non-provision of such information.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What steps is the Minister prepared to take to ensure that Immigration New Zealand does not need to pressure applicants for accredited employer status with letters that ask applicants to clarify exactly how the release of their confidential financial information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice their commercial position—what steps is he prepared to take to make sure that applicants are not pressured in that way by Immigration New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Quite clearly, the member concerned had the opportunity to refer to some specific information in his primary question, and that would have allowed me the opportunity to prepare a considered response. I would be most willing to prepare such a response, if he would like to send me the correspondence.

Darien Fenton: Why does the Government run an employer accreditation scheme, and what proportion of applications are approved?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The employer accreditation scheme simplifies the process for employers recruiting talented workers. Under the talented worker policy, once the employer is accredited then the process for the grant of work permits is vastly streamlined and the processing time is reduced. It is worth noting that in the last year the approval rate under that scheme was 98.3 percent of all applications.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Minister consider it appropriate administration of a policy for which he is responsible for a Northern Distribution Union delegate to tell an applicant for the accredited employer status, during collective employment negotiations, that the union has the power to tick off or not tick off that employer’s application for an accredited employer status?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Unions quite properly have a role in representing the interests of their workers, but it is certainly not true that unions have an automatic sign-off right on consultations around the accredited employment scheme.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Minister consider it appropriate administration of a policy for which he is responsible for the Northern Distribution Union to be able to tell applicants for accredited employer status that the union is currently sitting on nine applications that will not get the tick off unless certain union demands are met; if he does not consider that appropriate, what does he intend doing about it? [Interruption]

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It must have been a slow day for them to get excited about that. As I have said to the member already, the union is not the decision maker in this case; the Immigration Service is.

Peter Brown: Noting the subject matter of that question and the Minister’s answer, will he give the House an assurance that prior to people from overseas coming into this country to work for an accredited employer, there will have been a maximum search for an appropriate New Zealander to take the job?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The member makes an excellent point. It has been a longstanding part of our immigration policy that jobs should be available for New Zealanders first and that New Zealanders should always have the opportunity to fill vacancies where they exist. But, coming back to the other member’s previous point, of course it is relevant that of all employer applications for accredited status, over 98 percent are approved. So if the Northern Distribution Union is such a big bogey, it is hard to see how that could be true.

Peter Brown: Supplementary question.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think there are any more supplementary questions. I think we have expired the number that we are entitled to.

Peter Brown: I haven’t expired yet, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for making that obvious.

Peter Brown: I appreciate your assurance, Madam Speaker. Will the Minister give an assurance that before anybody comes into this country as an immigrant under this scheme, it will be determined that he or she is of good health and good character?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can only say that in the case of the member it is good to see that he is in rude good health, and that rumours of his expiry were vastly exaggerated.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I seek leave to table a recent letter from Immigration New Zealand to an applicant for accredited employer status.

Leave granted.

( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. )

ENDS

© Scoop Media