Questions to Ministers

Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Report

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she still stand by her statement to the House on 19 July 2006 that the Ingram report into matters relating to Taito Phillip Field was “very comprehensive and thorough”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Why did her Government reject Noel Ingram QC’s request that the Crown pay the legal fees for the original whistleblower into the inquiry, and does she now accept that her refusal of that request prevented the inquiry from hearing crucial and damning evidence against Mr Field?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As has been gone over in the House before, Mr Ingram did not make that request. He sought advice from the solicitor-general as to what the normal practice was, and the solicitor-general informed him it was not the normal practice to pay in that way.

John Key: What concerns does she have, if any, that other Ministers of hers, including Phil Goff and Damien O’Connor, may also be subpoenaed by Mr Field’s lawyers to give evidence in the trial?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have absolute confidence in the Ministers to whom the member has referred, and in any evidence that they may be asked to give.

John Key: Is she concerned that in addition to bribery and corruption charges, the police are also planning to lay charges of obstructing the course of justice against Mr Field; if so, what is her response to the obvious conclusion that the charges relate to Mr Field’s behaviour during the inquiry that she defended in Parliament for months?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course I think the inquiry was comprehensive and thorough, but that is not to say that everybody who spoke to it was truthful.

John Key: Does she agree with the statement made by Justice Randerson that the allegations against Mr Field “strike at the heart of the administration of government”; if so, why did she try to sweep them under the carpet?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is a matter of record that within a very short time of those allegations being aired in the media, I commissioned an inquiry into whether there was a conflict of interest with Mr Field’s duties as a Minister. That inquiry was comprehensive and thorough, and on the basis of that the police made further inquiries.

John Key: Is it not the sharp end of this whole debate that the Prime Minister set up an inquiry that was designed to fail and not get to the truth, that everything was done to ensure this issue could be swept under the carpet, and it was only when the Opposition continued to take up the story that the police got involved, and that what the public of New Zealand want to know is why the police are laying charges that are so extensive and so damning against Mr Field, when her inquiry found no guilt?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is well aware that the terms of reference required Mr Ingram to look at the issue of conflict of interest with ministerial duties. As for the truth, I do not think that member is in a strong position to be raising those allegations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether a member of Parliament could know the nature, shape, or character of potential charges to be laid by the police unless he was in conversation with them, and is that a proper matter of discussion for the member of Parliament or the police?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: With respect to the issue that the leader of New Zealand First raises, I assume that Mr Key just made up the substance of the charges he thought would be laid, because he could not possibly know.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement: “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That statement was made very early in the piece, and long before the Ingram report came out.

Taito Phillip Field: Is it a fundamental principle in the judiciary of any civilised Western country that a man is considered innocent until proven guilty, or do we have a kangaroo court here?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Indeed it is, but that is not, presumably, a principle that the Opposition of this House adheres to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to know whether there has been an omission to the questions of the day, because Mr McCully has the media in a right lather up there on a total bagatelle, but he does not have a question on the Order Paper to show how he is sincere about it.

Madam SPEAKER: That is obviously not a point of order.

Crown Land—Protection

2. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Has he received any reports on the protection of Crown-owned land?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Yes. The Labour-led Government recently announced a new process for the sale of all Crown-owned land to ensure national interests such as heritage, cultural, local, and recreational values are protected. The Minister for State Owned Enterprises also announced that the State-owned Landcorp will be retaining ownership of nine properties, including Whenuakite Station and Rangiputa Station, that Landcorp had been planning to sell.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative approaches to managing Crown-owned land, such as that owned by Landcorp?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I have seen a very confused policy announcement, stating that New Zealanders should be asked to buy shares in assets they already own—specifically mentioning Landcorp. I have also seen a report stating that this is essentially a restatement of policy we have had for some time, so there is nothing new. Both of those reports came from Bill English.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou i te Whare. Does the Minister agree with the views reported by the Northern Advocate in which the chief Ngāti Kahu Treaty claims negotiator, Professor Margaret Mutu, states that the Crown had no other choice other than to protect Rangiputa Station, because “It would have caused huge political embarrassment if they had tried to sell it. I think they had the elections next year in mind.”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. From Professor Mutu, I regard that as a thankyou.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports highlighting problems with the sell-off of Landcorp and other landowning State-owned enterprises?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I have seen a report essentially saying that the biggest problem is the opinion of the great majority of New Zealanders. As Mr Key said, “Now, we’re listening to the public … we know they don’t want to … sell assets and we understand that” . At the same time, of course, he described a policy to sell down part of Landcorp and Solid Energy as “very timid”. It appears that the war in the National Party is not over.

Hon Bill English: If the Government is not selling any land assets, why does it need a process to protect the sale of sensitive land assets?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It may come as a shock to the member to know that the Crown has been selling and buying land since approximately 1840. In order to do that, which, of course, includes surplus education land, land that is put into development for housing, and so on—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. We will hear the answer in silence. I cannot hear a word. I assume the question was asked because an answer was required.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that is an unwise assumption on your part, Madam Speaker, if I may say so. Land has often been sold, for example, for development for housing—surplus education land, for example. That is quite different from flogging off the family silver of Landcorp and the State-owned enterprises, which is what that member clearly wants to do, and his colleague is clearly too timid to do. The war in the National Party is not over.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Does the Minister agree with Dr Rāwiri Taonui, who suggests that the real reason New Zealand did not sign up to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is that in relation to the restoration of Māori land: “The real issue is that New Zealand has forced Maori to accept very much less, usually one to two percent of losses. The Crown does not want to admit that New Zealand’s restitutive processes and standards are sometimes lacking.”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the votes on that issue in the UN largely came down to three categories: those countries that did not have what we might call indigenous people—that is, people separate from the main population—and that did not care; those countries that did but said they would not enforce the declaration even though they voted for it; and those countries that thought if they voted for it they would be bound to enforce it, so voted against it.

Nandor Tanczos: Why does Landcorp, which is New Zealand’s largest farmer, running nearly a million animals on 370,000 hectares, not have any farms using organic production methods nor have any intention to do so; and what is the Government doing to ensure that State-owned enterprises share its commitment to sustainability—or is that an operational matter?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is a difference between sustainability and organic farming. Organic farming uses a range of unnatural inputs that happen to be 19th century in their technology and that are not necessarily sustainable.

Nandor Tanczos: How much greenhouse gas has been emitted in the last 5 years due to Landcorp’s conversion of forest to dairying, which is a climate change double whammy due to the loss of carbon stored in the trees, followed by an increase in methane emissions from cows; and what is the Government doing to ensure that State-owned enterprises share the Government’s commitment to carbon neutrality—or is that an operational matter?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. I cannot give the numbers on the first item. Much of that has occurred, of course, under management contracts by Landcorp for other landowners. But the emissions trading system, and the introduction of agriculture into that system, will cover Landcorp as well as any other landowner in the country. We would expect, as a matter of course, that Landcorp as a State-owned enterprise would pay particular regard to sustainability issues in the longer term.

Taxation—Threshold and Average Wage

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Is it the Government’s policy that a person earning less than the average full-time wage of $46,002 should pay 33c on every dollar they earn between $38,000 and the average full-time wage?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): For those who are not eligible for Working for Families, that is the current tax structure. Of course, some people earning less than that amount who qualify for Working for Families pay no net tax, at all.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the threshold at which low-income taxpayers go on to a 33c tax rate has remained the same since he took office in 1999; and why has he made no adjustment to either the rate or the threshold of tax paid by people who earn less than the average wage?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, that is correct. The primary answer to the second question is that the Government, unlike the member, does not believe in borrowing for tax cuts.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister seen any reports on how much taxes have been reduced in the last three Budgets?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Over the last three Budgets we have reduced taxes by $2.5 billion from 1 April 2006, rising to $4 billion a year from 1 April 2008. That, of course, includes the major packages around business taxation, depreciation, Working for Families, and so on.

Hon Bill English: Why is the Minister raising false hope among people who earn less than the average wage but pay 33c in the dollar tax, by promising tax reductions next year, when he has stated in Cabinet papers that: “We should not adjust thresholds in the medium term and thereby retain fiscal drag.”—fiscal drag being the effect of people paying more tax because their incomes have risen?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is possible not to appear in drag but to be beautifully clothed. There are other ways of cutting taxes.

Hon Mark Gosche: What reports has the Minister received on the criteria for revenue reduction initiatives?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I received a report that states that high-end taxpayers will save a lot of what they get, if they get a tax cut, so that does not go into the inflation pool. That came from John Key, which makes it clear that National’s priority is for tax relief for those on higher incomes. The Government will continue to look at the possibility of tax reductions, but only in a manner that meets the four key tests: we will not borrow to pay for them, we will not cut services to pay for them, and we will not implement them at a time that will contribute to inflationary pressures or in a way that increases inequalities.

Hon Bill English: What does it say about the Government’s priorities that a New Zealander who earns $39,000 faces a tax rate of 33c—and has done now for the whole 8 years that that Minister has been in charge—and that the Minister’s first tax cut was $1 billion for corporates?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I note that the 33c rate was actually introduced in 1988 and remained unchanged throughout the 1990s. The member has suddenly had a conversion experience, but unfortunately for him it was on the road to nowhere rather than on the road to Damascus.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister not aware that the threshold at which taxpayers reach 33c was adjusted in 1996 and 1998 from $30,875 to $38,000, and that there has been no adjustment for almost 10 years since, because he regards company tax cuts as more important than tax cuts for people on $39,000 who are paying the same rate as millionaires used to pay?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The problem with the last bit of that statement is that if one cuts the top tax rate, for example, it would cut in at an even lower rate. Thirty-three cents was always the rate millionaires paid from 1988 onwards, but of course it was National that raised the top marginal rate to 66c in the dollar. It was a Labour Government that in two steps reduced the rate from 66c to 33c in the dollar. The fact is that the Government’s priority was business tax cuts to fund economic growth. National opposed business tax cuts. I wonder whether the member ever told that to Mr Phil O’Reilly.

Hon Bill English: Why has the Labour Government after 8 years in office not cut the 33c tax rate that applies to anyone earning over $38,000 up to $60,000, when no one would regard those people as wealthy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Firstly, because the last time there was a cut in such a rate it was accompanied by a cut in New Zealand superannuation. That was in 1998-99. Secondly, the Government restored the level of New Zealand superannuation. Thirdly, the Government introduced the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Fourthly, the Government gave a huge boost to family incomes via Working for Families. Fifthly, the Government has introduced KiwiSaver. Sixthly, the Government is introducing tax credits for research and development. Seventhly, the Government has cut business taxation. National opposed every one of those moves.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that answer by telling us that he is merely carrying out Helen Clark’s economic strategy, which she described in public statements as “building up the kitty”, which means getting as much tax as possible off people on $39,000 to spend on Labour’s vote-buying schemes?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We would much rather build up the kitty than strangle the cat and describe that as a free-market system.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Partnership Programme

4. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister for ACC: What are the estimated savings to ACC of its partnership programme with accredited employers since its introduction, and how do the companies that participate in this programme compare in terms of accident rates and workdays lost to those in the same industry groups that are covered by ACC?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: The answer to the first part of the question is nil, as the partnership programme is cost-neutral to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). On the second part, generally speaking, over the last 6 or 7 years accredited employer entitlement claims—those that are more expensive because they involve things like work-related pay—have been higher than non-accredited employer claims. Over the last year or so, total employer entitlement claims have been lower than non-entitlement claims, but for the previous 4 years they were higher.

Heather Roy: In extending the review of ACC’s partnership programme, as announced on the 13 September, is the Minister paving the way to extend coverage to out-of-work accidents; if so, is this because the evidence overwhelmingly shows that this limited form of competition has resulted in fewer accidents, significant savings, and better outcomes for workers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member clearly did not hear the answer to the first question. Firstly, it is cost-neutral to the Government; as it is covered through ACC, the levies, of course, cover the cost of it. Secondly, the expense of the entitlement claims, which are the more expensive part of the system, has been higher under the accredited employer scheme than under the non-accredited employer claims. Thirdly, given all the to-do about the AFFCO example, where an accident occurred within the workplace site, it is extraordinary that some accredited employers are now asking to cover all accidents by their employees, wherever they may occur, including those over which they can have no control at all.

Lesley Soper: What are the good health and safety practices that an employer must demonstrate to become accredited?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To become accredited an employer must satisfy a stringent three-tier assessment by ACC in order to demonstrate a best-practice approach to injury prevention, and appropriate experience in managing health and safety issues. This ensures that only those employers with a commitment to health and safety and injury reduction are able to manage their employees’ workplace injuries. The current accredited employer scheme was introduced as part of the process whereby private insurance was removed from ACC in 2000.

Heather Roy: If the current review reveals that competition will result in safer workplaces and greater productivity, what assurance can the Minister give this House that she will expand the partnership programme to cover out-of-work accidents, or has her Government already decided that involvement by private providers is incompatible with Labour’s ideology?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member is confusing two quite different things. The accredited employer scheme is about employers taking responsibility for the cost of their own accidents. That is quite different from private insurance companies competing for coverage.

Bail Amendment Act—Operation

5. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied with the operation of the Bail Amendment Act 2007; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; because in the 9 days that the amendment has been in force it has clarified the law, which, of course, was its intent.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s new Act now makes it easier for a defendant to get bail because the Crown has to show that there is a “real and substantial risk” of reoffending or absconding, and that even if the defendant has repeatedly breached bail in the past it may not be considered relevant—as was the case with Chris Kāhui, who was recently granted bail under the Government’s new law, despite previously breaching his conditions three times?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, the revisions in the Bail Amendment Act were made with the intention of clarifying the law. In fact, the phrase that the member quotes from the Act actually came from the Court of Appeal’s 2002 R v Hines case in terms of a specific quote from the court where it said “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. This was a definition that the court itself ran. I can perhaps do no better than to quote Justice Heath on the very case the member quotes. He has said in the last few days that it “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than was under the previous legislation, but rather to emphasise the need for a proper inference to be drawn from proved facts, as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork about the possibility of a risk.” Finally, I would point out that under this legislation, of course, the bail has also been revoked.

Lynne Pillay: What previous comments has the Minister seen on the amendments to the Bail Act?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have seen and heard many. I have heard support for the then proposed bail changes as they were when they went through this House, followed by an assertion of “random and haphazard” application of the previous law, and then a failure at the last hurdle to support the very changes that brought greater clarity to the bail law—all from the member opposite, Mr Power.

Simon Power: Why has he made it easier to get bail at a time when the latest crime statistics reveal that since 1999 Labour has overseen an increase of 151 percent of defendants failing to report for bail, indicating that the Government is already letting people out on bail who should not be there?

Hon MARK BURTON: The 9 days that we have to draw on experience, I suggest to the member, is a rather short period of time to evaluate. The 9 days none the less has seen Justice Heath talk about the advantage and clarity that this brings to making the appropriate decisions. I think Justice Heath is in perhaps the best position to make that decision.

Simon Power: Why is a previous record of breaching bail conditions not considered to be a good predictor of the likelihood of breaching bail again, or is this just consistent with the fact that 87 percent of the defendants on the electronic bail scheme had also previously offended while on bail—yet another bright idea from a Minister and a Government desperate to cut prison numbers?

Hon MARK BURTON: I assume that when the member stood in this House and said that he and the National Party would support the bail provisions in the then bill proceeding through the House—

Simon Power: You voted against it.

Hon MARK BURTON: It is a matter of record. It is in the Hansard—

Simon Power: Look at the votes.

Hon MARK BURTON: Well, of course, flip-flopping is something we are used to from that member, saying one thing and doing another. I think Mr Power is a one-man leadership crisis. He does not even need another member to disagree with. But I assume that when the member said he was going to support the bill, and spoke in favour of it, it was because it intended to clarify the law and respond to a number of judicial decisions, including the Court of Appeal in 2002, which is precisely what this legislation has done.

Simon Power: Can he confirm that the primary reason for making bail more readily available and letting more offenders out on bail is to lower the number of prison inmates, since the original purpose of the bill in which the provisions relating to bail were contained were to “introduce a range of measures to arrest the sharp increase in the prison population in recent years.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I can confirm that the revisions in the Bail Amendment Act are intended to clarify the law and respond to a number of judicial decisions rather than to make any specific changes. But I say to that member, if the National Party is not committed to try to bring down the shocking high level of imprisonment in this country then it does not deserve, ever, to sit on the Treasury benches.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister reviewed the select committee’s examination of this bill; if so, can he confirm that these matters were of such great concern to that committee as a whole, of which Mr Power is a senior member, that it made no mention of them at all in the substantive part of the report, and that, in the same report, the National Party’s minority report made no mention whatsoever of this issue; and can he also confirm that, unlike the ACT party, which brought an amendment to the bill to the floor of this House—and in discussions with New Zealand First and the Government got an amendment—Mr Power made no mention whatsoever of this issue then?

Hon MARK BURTON: My recollection is that the member’s first assertion is correct. It would be par for the course for the member opposite belatedly to raise matters that are in direct conflict with what he has said during the course of debate in this House as well as in select committees. As to the second matter, indeed I think the member raises a very good example of MMP at work, where a member of a very small party, having found a concern, brought in an initiative and discussed it with other parties. The Parliament got behind that decision because it was the right thing to do.

Simon Power: Has the Minister received any reports that explain why New Zealand First voted for legislation that makes it easier for defendants to get bail?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I have not received any such reports, but, of course, the matter before the House in this question does not do what the member asserts. The Act actually clarifies the law consistent with, for instance, the Court of Appeal decision in 2002.

Ron Mark: I seek leave of the House to table two statements. One is by Mr Power and says that the National Party would support the bail part of the bill.

Leave granted.

Ron Mark: I seek leave of the House to table a statement by Mr Power where he said National would now not support the Bail Amendment Bill.

Leave granted.

Simon Power: I seek leave to table the voting record on the Bail Amendment Bill, which shows New Zealand First voted to make bail easier to get.

Leave granted.

Schools—Ownership

6. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on possible changes to the ownership arrangements for New Zealand schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I have seen a report arguing for a privatisation agenda, including more private schools, more money for private schools, and private businesses running and building schools. So far, that agenda has not been fully explained by its architect, the National Party leader John Key, nor the National Party’s education spokesperson, Katherine Rich, but it does represent a radical departure from current policy, and therefore it is necessary for the National Party to have an open, frank, and honest exchange with New Zealanders and tell them what its real education policies are.

Moana Mackey: What reports has the Minister received on the implementation of a privatisation agenda for public education in New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen reports advocating privatisation by increasing funding for private schools, increasing numbers of private schools, and creating opportunities for profit to be made by the building and running of schools. I have also seen a suggestion of a removal of caps on tertiary education tuition fees. So far, none of these policies have been explained, and once again I say it is time for the National Party to have an open, frank, and honest discussion with New Zealanders about its real education policy.

Sue Bradford: Is the Minister concerned that reports promoting the idea of the private sector owning schools, when combined with increased funding for private schools, could lead to a creeping privatisation of our education system, which could, within a decade, see our schools operating something like they do in parts of Australia, where there are two tiers of schools—good private ones where middle-class and rich kids go, and lesser public schools on which poorer families have to rely?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is a concern of the entire education sector. One of the strengths of our system is that we do hold it together through a public education system, and guarantee the right of all young New Zealanders to have the best possible education.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister agree that any private businesses investing in schools would want to make a profit; if so, does he believe that it would be prudent to direct taxpayer resources away from teaching and learning and into the coffers of private businessmen?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think that that is the major concern of people who have heard about the suggestion made by the National Party, and they might like to look at examples in Australia—like the one in New Brunswick, where one of the schools that was put together under, I suspect, a similar kind of arrangement, had an undertaking to save $184,000, and, in fact, the school ended up costing $900,000 more, because, of course, it is reasonable for the private sector to seek profit, that is what it does, but not so in the public sector.

Katherine Rich: Can he confirm that the Government does not own the buildings of over 2,500 early childhood centres, over 300 State schools, over 100 private schools, or even, for that matter, the Ministry of Education building here in Wellington; and is it not hysterical dramatics saying he would die in a ditch over the State owning all schools buildings, considering that the State continues to fund buildings owned by other people, the most recent example being his press release even today, which announced more funding for early childhood centres for buildings he does not own?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: What I can confirm is that the country is waiting to find out whether the National Party will sell the public school system. That is the first question: whether the National Party will sell the public school system. Secondly, I ask the member whether she knew about this policy, before Mr Key announced it.

Katherine Rich: Does he agree with his colleague Trevor Mallard—incidentally a former education Minister—who last November when speaking on behalf of the Government about new infrastructure development said: “We want to see more action, and there is a more important issue than whether new construction is privately or publicly funded. The Government is open-minded about the use of public-public partnerships.”; if not, has he bothered to ask Annette King why, some years ago, we bothered in this House to pass legislation to enable public-private partnerships, just for him to rule that out—not just for education but the whole State sector?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I always agree with Trevor Mallard on the idea of being open-minded, as he always, always is. But what I am also saying is the country is waiting with an open mind to hear the National Party explain whether it will, indeed, privatise our public education system. That is the question, I say to Mr Key. Is privatisation on the agenda or not? It is time to be open and honest.

Schools—Funding Cuts

7. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement, in relation to a sudden funding change which has left many schools hundreds of thousands of dollars worse off without warning, that “I’m a bit seriously pissed off with this myself”; if so, when did the ministry tell him about the planned funding cuts?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Once again, the member has her facts wrong. School deciles change every 5 years, following the census. Schools have always been given the same amount of lead time as they were given this time. I was concerned, however, that although all schools were consulted about the change, on this occasion the New Zealand Educational Institute, which had expected to be contacted, was overlooked by the Ministry of Education, and the ministry is correcting that now.

Katherine Rich: What, precisely, annoyed the Minister, because when the decile changes shaved an estimated $2.5 million from the operations budgets of secondary schools and, potentially, $8 million from primary and contributing schools, it is beyond the realm of credibility that he did not know about that?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is, in fact, beyond the realm of credibility. If the member had listened to the answer before, she would have heard me say that the census is the trigger for changing the decile ratings, as it was under the National Government. The lead time was the same as last time. What annoyed me a little was the notion that all schools had been consulted, but that the New Zealand Educational Institute had on this occasion been missed out. It was annoyed about that, and so was I.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister received any reports advocating major changes to our education system, including changes to the way our schools are funded; if so, what did they involve?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can report that when the National Party was asked to explain its education policy at the New Zealand Educational Institute conference a few weeks ago, Katherine Rich signalled no major change. A few days later, her leader revealed a privatisation agenda. Katherine Rich did not tell the New Zealand Educational Institute about that. She dodged questions on performance pay, on bulk funding, and on the right of children to go to their local school—in fact, she said nothing. It is time for the National Party to have an open, frank, and honest discussion with New Zealanders about its real education policy.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that 40 percent of primary schools and 50 percent of secondary schools were in deficit in 2006, and that the number of secondary schools in deficit actually increased from 33 percent to 50 percent between 2005 and 2006; and what does he think that schools facing cuts—for some, cuts of in excess of $100,000—should do to cut their budgets, when some are talking about cutting teachers, books, and even reading recovery programmes?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm that the deputy leader of the National Party said that schools were awash with cash, and I can also confirm that the majority of schools gain, change not at all, or lose on average about $14,000. Those schools that lose any substantial sum of money are currently working with the Ministry of Education to ensure that the transition works for them.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that when he stood up in front of the New Zealand Educational Institute and said that he was annoyed at the process that had been used to inform schools about funding cuts, he knew about the process, he agreed with the process, and he was really just using a soft, smarmy answer to deal with a difficult question from the floor?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Many, many times, of course, the member has misrepresented what people say. What I said, of course, was that the decile rating changes with the census every 5 years, that the lead-in time was the same as usual, that the consultation process was exhaustive with all schools, but that one piece of consultation relevant to that conference was missed out. That was that the New Zealand Educational Institute was not contacted directly as a group, and that was what was talked about at the conference.

Katherine Rich: Will the Minister allow schools that are facing cuts to their funding of in excess of $100,000 to have a 12-month lead-in time, so they can amend their budgets?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I urge the member to listen to answers, because as I pointed out previously, the majority of schools are in no difficulty whatsoever. Some gain, some are the same, and some lose an average of about $14,000. As I said before, for the few schools that are losing larger amounts of money, we are working with them on a case by case basis to ensure that the transition is handled properly. That is what we will do.

Drugs—Driving under the Influence

8. DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has she received on the Government’s decision to introduce legislation which will impose tougher laws on people who drive under the influence of illegal drugs?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): I have seen several reports supporting the Government’s decision, but perhaps the most compelling information is the preliminary findings from the long-term research being conducted by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd and the New Zealand Police. An analysis of 400 blood samples from deceased drivers shows so far that 87 of the samples were tested positive for drugs only—both illegal drugs, and prescription drugs that could have impaired driving—and another 61 were tested positive for alcohol and drugs. The research will eventually cover 2,000 samples. The Government does consider it essential that we take measures to combat drug-driving on our roads, as well as drink-driving.

David Benson-Pope: What other reports has the Minister seen on the Government’s decision to introduce tougher measures against drugged drivers?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have seen a transcript of an interview with Simon Lambourne from the Automobile Association, who said that there is obviously a significant problem with drug-driving in New Zealand that needs to be addressed. I have also seen a report in the Sunday Star-Times in which the National Party spokesperson on transport, Maurice Williamson, said that National would support any sensible measures to stop people driving while impaired. However, this is in direct contrast to a media release from his colleague Otago MP Jacqui Dean who says that new law will do little to make our roads safer. Jacqui Dean says that tougher drug laws for those behind the wheel are unlikely to have any major impact on safety. I suggest she tells that to the families of the 87 confirmed victims of people who were driving under the influence of illegal drugs, or prescription drugs that could have impaired driving.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware of the reported statement of Helen Poulsen, forensic toxicologist from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd who is in charge of the study she referred to, which is that: “New Zealand appears to have one of the highest drug-driving levels in the world”; and if she is aware of that statement, does it not indicate to her that some action should have been taken years ago to address this problem, and can she perhaps explain why it was not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I have seen those comments. They are from a person who is involved in the research, as the member has identified. The question could be asked as to why there has not been action sooner. I cannot address the past, but we certainly are addressing the present. The legislation will be before this Parliament very soon, and I am hopeful that it will receive the endorsement of the House.

David Benson-Pope: What other reports has the Minister received that impact on the credibility of commentary on drug-driving legislation?

Hon ANNETTE KING: In general the commentary has been supportive and sound. However, Otago MP Jacqui Dean has once again shown that she speaks before she thinks. Miss Dean has written a letter to the Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton asking whether the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs would consider banning water.

Hon Member: Water?

Hon ANNETTE KING: She wants to ban water. She is happy to ban water, but she is not happy to ban driving while impaired by illegal drugs. Of course, this is the same MP who said National would not borrow for tax cuts; it would simply get the money from offshore. [Interruption] I have to say, Madam Speaker—and they do not like this answer because it is true—that I believe the editorial in the Herald on Sunday got it right when it said the National Party is like a party sniffing the political wind rather than offering itself as a credible alternative Government.

Housing New Zealand Corporation—Tenant Fraud

9. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement on 3 October regarding Housing New Zealand Corporation tenant fraud or dishonesty that “At the beginning of last month, 1164 referrals were with the Investigations Unit. More than half of those have now been reviewed and closed or referred for other types of action, leaving 431 cases either waiting to be assessed, under investigation or currently being assessed by the Crown prosecutor.”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes.

Phil Heatley: How could the investigations unit possibly have reviewed 700-plus cases in only 23 working days, given that it had allowed such a backlog in the first place?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The backlog at the Housing New Zealand Corporation that the member referred to was located in two places: at the beginning, when cases were referred on; and at the end, when cases needed to be sent to the Crown prosecutor. I can report that the cases that were waiting to be sent to the Crown prosecutor have all happened; they required no further investigation. Those at the beginning of the process were looked at to see whether there was any correct documentation, and whether there was any validity to the accusations. Most of those accusations were by neighbours about alleged partners being in the house, or undeclared income, and many of them were found to have no basis or substance. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I would hear the calls for points of order if, in fact, members did not make so much noise in the House. I do not need any assistance from members.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you will reflect, you will see that my question was quite clear: how could the investigations unit possibly have looked at 700-plus cases in only 23 working days? He never said how it had possibly looked at 700-plus cases.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I understand his point of order. The Minister did address the question. I listened to it very carefully.

Russell Fairbrother: What action has the Minister taken to improve the operation of the investigations unit of the Housing New Zealand Corporation?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: This answer may go some way to answering the previous question, as well. As I have previously advised the House, I wrote to the board of the corporation on 28 June, seeking assurances about the investigations unit. In response, the corporation has appointed a new central manager to take clearer responsibility for this area; started enhancing the processes of the unit; commissioned a peer review of the investigations unit from the Ministry of Social Development, which operates a similar function; introduced a screening framework for incoming referrals, to decide on how to deal with them; and, of course, dramatically reduced the backlog.

Phil Heatley: Is the corporation’s deputy chair’s confession true that of the 700-plus cases reviewed over those 23 working days, only 12 percent have been closed, leaving 600-plus cases still under some sort of action; if so, what sort of action?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I think I should clarify the situation, because the member is making a great deal of these numbers. Last year the investigations unit investigated over 600 cases; 87 percent did not result in a Crown debt, a finding of fraud, or a prosecution. Most of these cases are actually malicious cases of people dobbing in neighbours, which very quick investigation reveals are not true.

Phil Heatley: Will the Minister admit that of the September backlog of 1,164 cases, 600-plus cases are still under some sort of investigation, and 431 are still to be assessed; and when will these 1,000-plus cases be properly investigated and finally put to bed?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: No, I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that last year 87 percent were found not to be true.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a Chris Carter quote: “I can assure this House that all allegations of”—

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

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a quote: “I ask Mr Heatley where the cases are. Perhaps”—

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

General Practitioners—Fee Structure

10. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports detailing the importance of lowering general practitioners’ fees?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have. Research released about 2 weeks ago shows that the reduction in general practitioners’ fees for over-65-year-olds, for example, has so far led to a 24 percent increase in consultation for that age group. Earlier access to health care means better health outcomes. That is known. That is why this Government’s low fees policy matters so much.

Maryan Street: Has the Minister seen any reports that may lead to a reversal of the Government’s low fees policy?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes. It has been well reported throughout New Zealand that the National Party was caught trying to conceal its intention to let doctors’ fees rise. That is well known. What is less well known is that the National leader, John Key, chose that moment to reveal his deep instinctive preference for the market as it affects health care. When cornered, Mr Key likened doctors’ services to those of mechanics and accountants, and said: “The market will solve any problems.” In all of this tawdry issue, I think the most chilling insight is that the health of New Zealanders will be determined by market forces, according to Mr Key. That is the sort of thing Dr Brash used to say.

Sue Kedgley: How realistic does the Minister think it would be for New Zealanders to shop around for doctors if the cap on general practitioners’ fees was removed and a person’s own doctor was to exorbitantly increase his or her fees, given that there are areas of New Zealand where there are no doctors or there are very, very long waiting lists to see a doctor?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The relationship between a patient and a general practitioner or a patient and a medical centre is often very close and very longstanding. Shopping around is not part of the behaviour of any of us when we go to seek medical advice. It is in part, but it is not a substantial part of our behaviour. What is most likely to happen if general practitioners’ fees—[Interruption] I hear National members trying to talk me down. This stuff matters. What is likely to happen if general practitioners’ fees return towards the levels that they used to be before this Government came into office is simply that New Zealanders would put off having their breast, their prostate, their cough, or whatever it is, checked. As a result of that, we will end up with poorer health-care. There is substantial international literature to that effect.

Hon Tony Ryall: Given that the Minister is talking about New Zealanders missing out on access to services, what will he do about the case of a Matatā woman who needs a cancerous part of her lung removed but has had her surgery cancelled three times, including once when she was fully gowned, and has now been given a fourth time and told to ring the day before to find out whether that operation will be cancelled, as well?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is a time-honoured practice of the member to hide behind some primary question, then come up, unannounced, with a patient whose name I cannot know and whose condition I cannot know, and to make a series of assertions that, more often than not, are not entirely as the member would have them when they are checked out. I simply say to the member that if he cares about this New Zealander would he please come to me with the details so that I can make progress on that case.

Electoral Finance Bill—Freedom of Expression

11. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill “Some members have already suggested that the third-party reforms unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. They do not, and the Crown Law Office advice on this matter is clear in that regard.”; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; for the same reasons I gave on 14 August in reply to virtually the same question from the member’s senior colleague.

Christopher Finlayson: Does the Minister disagree with the submission of the New Zealand Law Society when it said: “The bill seems to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as it limits freedom of expression in a way that cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”; if so, on what grounds does he disagree with the Law Society?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do disagree with the Law Society. I would cite the Supreme Court of Canada, which has relatively recently considered very similar legislation regulating third parties in terms of breach of freedom of expression. I refer here to the recent case of Harper v Canada. It was clearly said that limits on third parties allow all citizens to have meaningful participation in the electoral process and are, therefore, beneficial. The danger with unlimited expression is that it ultimately benefits the very wealthy, not the average Kiwi.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister believe that free speech in New Zealand should be equated with the expenditure of vast amounts of money?

Hon MARK BURTON: Indeed I do not, and, as my answer to the previous question indicated, we have seen—and in 2005 we saw all too clearly—the attempt of one party in this House, the National Party, in collusion with others who sought to spend more than $1 million, to secure electoral victory by a complete rort of our electoral law. That is not the sort of electoral system New Zealanders want or will tolerate.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that if the bill cracked down on secret trusts and anonymous donations, the public would then have a right to know if, for example, the National Party had been funded by the very corporations to which it may later sell our State-owned enterprises, and that without these changes we would never know?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the question the member raises is one of some import. It is why it is one of the matters that will be referred for further investigation, alongside the structure of the administrative bodies and a number of other matters around State funding and the general funding of political parties, to an independent inquiry.

Christopher Finlayson: Can I take it that the Minister is also disagreeing with the New Zealand Law Society, which very rarely recommends that legislation should not proceed yet in this case has said that the bill should be abandoned; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I am disagreeing with the notion of abandoning a bill that certainly sets out to ensure the security of the New Zealand electoral system. And I stand by the comments I have repeatedly made that I expect the select committee process to add value and further refinement to improve the legislation.

Christopher Finlayson: Does the Minister disagree with the written submission of the Human Rights Commission, which states that “the inroads on freedom of expression which will result from the Bill are disproportionate and. in the Commission’s opinion, do not amount to reasonable justification under s.5 of the BoRA”; if he does, on what grounds does he disagree with the Human Rights Commission?

Hon MARK BURTON: On two grounds: firstly, the experience of Harper v Canada in the Supreme Court of Canada, which, unfortunately, the Human Rights Commission neglected to make reference to. It is the most relevant piece of recent experience in terms of international—

Hon Bill English: It’s a different law.

Hon MARK BURTON: Oh, Mr English! This is absolutely relevant to this jurisdiction. Secondly, I rely on Crown Law advice, which differs from that opinion.

Hon MARK BURTON: I seek leave to point a copy of Chris Finlayson’s maiden speech to this House. I think he needs to read it.

Leave granted.

General Practitioners—Removal of Free Care for Under-sixes

12. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: What reports, if any, has he received on the effect on free health care for under-sixes if the cap on general practitioners’ fees were removed and charges were left to be set by “the market”?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): The member asks a very poignant question, and it is clear that she knows there is a history on this issue. Ten years ago this year, the then National Minister of Health, Bill English, at the request of New Zealand First—they were in coalition Government together at that time—introduced and paid for free health care for all under-6-year-olds. But that Government back then did not write that deal into any contract, and it did not adjust general practitioner subsidies to account for inflation. So 10 years later—today—about 40 percent of general practitioners do charge under-6-year-olds. It astonishes me that National has not learnt from that lesson.

Barbara Stewart: Can the Minister also confirm that any removal of the cap, and a move to market rates, will likely result in under-sixes and seniors, who currently receive no-cost or low-cost preventive primary health care, delaying medical treatment until they need urgent and more expensive acute care, usually at already overstretched emergency departments?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is precisely the point and precisely the case. It is time that this Parliament learnt that primary health care matters for the health of all New Zealanders, and that we can have slower progress of chronic diseases, we can avoid hospitalisation, and we can avoid some emergency arising, if there is good primary health care. We will never avoid all of that, but we can determinedly reduce the costs to the citizen and to the health system of secondary care by having better, cheaper, more accessible primary care. That is what the Primary Health Care Strategy is about, and that is what the National Party would have put a stake through had the media not caught it out.

Barbara Stewart: Does the Government plan to further increase the number of general practitioners who do not charge to see 0 to 6-year-olds; if so, how?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, we do. The member will be aware that as part of our confidence and supply agreement with her party, we recently announced a further increase for general practitioners for the provision of free under-sixes health care. But this time there is a difference; this time, if the medical centre is to receive that funding, then it will contract to not charge. If it does not contract, it will not get the money. So what we will see now is free visits for under-sixes to those general practitioners who choose to contract, on an ongoing basis. What is more, each year we will increase the level of subsidy or adjustment going to general practitioners to account for inflation—something the National Party never got round to doing.

Questions to Members

Electoral Submissions

1. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many written submissions has the Justice and Electoral Committee received on the Electoral Finance Bill and how many of those submitters gave oral submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member misread his question, and it did not make any sense in the way he read it because he asked how many written submissions there were and then asked how many gave oral evidence. I think he meant to read the question: “How many submissions were given …”.

Christopher Finlayson: I apologise—such a substantive point.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member just like to repeat it, and then we will be clear on it.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submissions has the Justice and Electoral Committee received on the Electoral Finance Bill and how many of those submitters gave oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee?

LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): The Justice and Electoral Committee received 575 submissions on the Electoral Finance Bill, and heard from 100 submitters on the bill.

Christopher Finlayson: Does the chairperson agree with her colleague the Hon Steve Maharey, who said: “I am looking forward, of course, to the Human Rights Commission getting a chance to talk through its submission with the select committee.”; if so, why did she ensure that the members of the Human Rights Commission were not able to present oral evidence to the committee, where no doubt they would have voiced their strong opposition to the bill?

Madam SPEAKER: No. The member has responsibility for the second part but not the first. Would the chair like to address that?

LYNNE PILLAY: What the member said was simply not true. The member, as the deputy chair of the committee, should be aware that the scheduling of submissions was discussed by the committee, and that discussions relating to particular submitters are committee proceedings that are confidential to the committee.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was somewhat alarmed to note that Mr Ryall got to his feet to say something but you sat him down. I want to know what it was, because he has been told not to say a thing unless he checks with Murray McCully, his new minder.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member well knows, that is not a point of order.

ENDS

© Scoop Media