Questions to Ministers

Taxation—Affordability of Tax Cuts

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “Across the board tax cuts are not affordable, and will inevitably lead to cuts in public services.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): That July 2005 statement was absolutely true. I am happy to say that the continuing strong economy under this Labour-led Government now gives us many more choices.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister recall that yesterday in the House, using Statistics New Zealand’s figures, I pointed out that somebody who does not have children but who earns the average wage, which has gone from $34,000 to $44,000, is in fact only $500 better off after the impact of fiscal drag and inflation, and that by doing the same calculation using Treasury’s figures, moving from $36,000 to $46,000, that New Zealander is in fact $500 worse off; and does she think that is fair to someone earning the average wage?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am advised that the figures the member is quoting are those from Bill English. He got it wrong, and we will have a bit of fun with him in due course.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that if tax thresholds had kept pace with inflation in the time that she has been the Prime Minister of New Zealand, people on the average wage would now be better off by $1,200 a year, or $23 a week; and does she not think that would be the decent thing she could have done to at least just help them avoid bracket creep?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would not take any of Bill English’s figures at face value, because I know he sets the member up. Of course, the Working for Families tax cuts make families immensely better off.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Prime Minister believe it makes economic sense to promote a policy of large-scale tax cuts in conjunction with asset sales, and if such a policy was pursued, what would have to be sacrificed in order to accommodate the reduction in these two income streams?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The National Party went to the last election with a tax cut policy funded by borrowing, asset sales, and cuts in spending. That was a bargain the public chose to see right through.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If it is true that cutting taxes, as the National Party proposes to do, would reduce Government income to fund services like health and education—which is a statement we agree with—is it not also true that if agriculture was brought into the emissions trading scheme now and taxpayers did not have to cover the cost of our agricultural emissions for the next 5 years, then those hundreds of millions of dollars could also be used for hip replacements, improved student-teacher ratios, or many other public services?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The answer to the first part of the question is certainly yes. In respect of the second part of the question, the Government gave a commitment in 2002 that agriculture would not be included in the first commitment period, and we have honoured that undertaking.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister of Finance that four conditions must be met before a Labour Government would give a tax cut, and can she give a commitment that if those four conditions are not met, then no tax cuts will take place under Labour?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am glad the member is taking the four tests seriously. They look like pretty good tests to me.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister explain to the public of New Zealand why she and her Minister of Finance are saying that tax cuts will be on Labour’s agenda next year, when she does not know whether the four tests can be met?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Is that not an extraordinary statement from the leader of a party that has voted against the billions of tax cuts delivered by the Labour Government?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Has the Prime Minister just received a verbal report suggesting that taxes should be cut even if it means borrowing for them, even it means that services have to be cut, and even if it means that totally unfair tax cuts are brought into place that do not do anything for low to middle income New Zealanders?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: On the record, the public refused to vote at the last election for a party that promised inflationary tax cuts that would have put up every mortgage, would have cut services, would have involved borrowing, and would have meant asset sales. That has always been the National Party approach.

John Key: Will the Prime Minister have a go at answering the question this time, seeing that she avoided answering it last time: the Minister of Finance has laid down four tests that he says tax cuts have to meet before they can occur under a Labour Government, so will she give a commitment to New Zealanders today that if those four conditions are not met there will be no tax cuts under Labour?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am very confident that if there are tax cuts those conditions would be met.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr Bill English argued today that tax cuts could be paid for by not properly providing for bad debts on the Government books, and that if we did not write off those, we could afford to pay for tax cuts?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have heard word to that effect. I also heard on 9 March Bill English say: “Right now is not a time to be giving out extensive tax cuts.”, and the very next day I heard John Key say: “We’re firmly committed to tax cuts.” Which is National’s policy?

John Key: Now that the Prime Minister has confirmed that under Labour the four conditions have to be met before there is a tax cut, will the Prime Minister explain why she and Michael Cullen can confirm that there will be tax cuts under Labour next year when she does not know whether those conditions can be met now?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member really should pay more attention to the answers given. The answer given was that the Government had many more choices in front of it. The answers consistently given are that these issues will be addressed in next year’s Budget. I do not know what it is about that that the member does not understand, except that he is not in charge of his policy and Bill English is.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister agree that the proposal of the New Zealand Institute today to welsh on our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol would amount to an environmental tax cut for polluters and a reduction in the services provided by the climate, and will she assure the House that the Government will not follow the institute’s advice?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am very much inclined to agree with the assertion in the member’s question. What has truly amazed me is to see Mr Key go from climate change denier, to jumping on the bandwagon, to leaping off it again today and going back to the denial state.

John Key: Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Finance when he actually dreamt up these four tests that must be met under a Labour Government before tax cuts could occur, because it may well have dawned on her that those conditions have been met before when the Minister of Finance was in charge, and New Zealanders are wondering why they did not get a tax cut in that year?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: This Government has delivered billions of dollars of tax cuts to families, to businesses, and to savers, and every single one of those cuts was voted against by National. There is a word for that, and it starts with “h”.

John Key: I seek leave to table a document showing Treasury’s figures that if someone was earning, 7 years ago, the average wage of $36,000 and now earns $46,000—

Leave granted.

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members that there is to be silence during points of order, otherwise some people will be leaving the Chamber.

Defence Force—Equipment Upgrades

2. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What plans does he have for investing in the further upgrading of equipment for the New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): Since 1999 the Government has committed some $7.6 billion, under the Defence Long-term Development Plan and the Defence Sustainability Initiative, to transforming the New Zealand Defence Force. The expenditure, of course, was necessary to rebuild and recover from the damage done by the neglect and the underfunding of the Defence Force by the National Government in the 1990s. So far 28 major projects have been advanced to significantly expand capability across the Defence Force. Further major projects will be considered by Cabinet before the end of this year, with funding provided under the long-term development plan.

Jill Pettis: What are the major projects due for consideration in the near future?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The major projects include the purchase of a new training and light utility helicopter, which will be a huge step-up from the old Sioux helicopters. It will include further major development in upgrading the Ohākea air force base. Cabinet will consider a business case for advanced pilot training, when the current lease on the B200 Beechcraft King Airs expires. Finally, preparations are under way for the major upgrade of the New Zealand Anzac frigates.

Dr Wayne Mapp: When will the Minister announce an unconditional sale of the Skyhawks, or does he in fact know that the purchaser has got no money, and that is why the Minister has given up, parked them outside in the rain and the wind, to corrode away, with no sale value whatsoever?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is very hard, of course, to announce an unconditional sale, when the conditions are set by a country outside New Zealand—that is, the United States. I think the National Government signed those conditions for the sale of the A4s when that point in time came. However, the New Zealand Government has a number of options, and I am confident that the Aermacchis and the Skyhawks will be sold.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister confirm that, although in recent years we have seen the biggest purchase of military hardware in living memory, the attrition rates of those who are meant to fly, drive, and sail all this machinery are still running at around 15 percent; that despite aggressive recruitment campaigns in the last year, the Navy has increased its strength by only 34, the Army by 17, and the Territorial Force has declined by 150; and if he can confirm all of that detail as being contained in the annual report, can he tell the House when the Government will approve a substantial pay increase for all Defence Force personnel, equivalent to that given by this Government to nurses, teachers, and police?

Madam SPEAKER: Before the Minister answers, I just note that in supplementary questions the Minister is required to answer only one of them.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Firstly, in relation to attrition rates, of course when we have the success of this Government in halving unemployment and creating a third of a million new jobs in the New Zealand economy since December 1999, attrition rates will increase, and attrition rates are at a higher level than I am comfortable with. Notwithstanding that, of course the New Zealand Defence Force, having declined in numbers through the 1990s, is now going in the opposite direction. There have been significant increases, in the hundreds, overall in the Defence Force across all three services.

Jill Pettis: Are any significant capital projects being planned to strengthen the capability of the Army?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, obviously in addition to the major project—Project Protector for the Navy—and the huge upgrading that is occurring in the Air Force, the New Zealand Army has also benefited. It has benefited now by having the state of the art light operational vehicles and light armoured vehicles, but, beyond that, it has now received new medium-range anti-armour weapons. It now has a new cueing and radar-directed air defence system. Major investments will shortly be made in the general service vehicle fleet, and mortars and artillery, though that will be a couple of years off.

Electoral Finance Bill—Human Rights

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he still fundamentally disagree with the Human Rights Commission’s view that the Electoral Finance Bill “represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.”; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; for the same reasons given on Thursday, 18 October, when the author of this question, Mr Hide, first asked it. It is the opportunity to hear and weigh the merits of various points of view, without the views of those who would use wealth to drown out all the voices of others, that enables informed citizen participation in the electoral process.

Hon Bill English: What does he believe the public are to make of a situation whereby the Human Rights Commission, which has a statutory responsibility to advocate for human rights in New Zealand, has used the strongest possible words to describe the effects of the bill in calling it “a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish,” and in calling for the bill to be withdrawn and completely rewritten, but the Labour Government just shrugs its shoulders and says it is happy with the bill and that is all that matters?

Hon MARK BURTON: Although I have great respect for the Human Rights Commission—and that is a matter of longstanding record, which is somewhat different from the National Party, I have to say—the fact is that the principal purpose of this bill is to protect the rights of citizens to participate without having their voices overwhelmed by those who would use substantial wealth to drown them out.

Hon Bill English: Has he seen the comment made by the Human Rights Commission: “It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech”—a comment the Government is paying no attention to—so why bother having a Human Rights Commission if the Government will ignore it just because the Human Rights Commission thinks something different from the Labour Party, which is unusual in itself?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the last quip is more in keeping with the usual tone of disdain that the National Party usually shows for the Human Rights Commission. But I have to say—

Hon Member: No human rights.

Hon MARK BURTON: Or for human rights, for that matter. As I indicated, the Human Rights Commission was a submitter to the parliamentary select committee process—a process for which I have the greatest regard. Out of that process I anticipate a refined bill that I am sure will add value to the process, and many views have been expressed. I am sure that at the end of that process we will see a bill that we can progress through the House.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister see that it strengthens the Human Rights Commission‘s criticism of the bill when his own defence of it consists mainly of accusing the National Party and other people of trying to rort the electoral system; and why does he not take their comments seriously, precisely because people from right across the political spectrum have the same views as the Human Rights Commission—in fact, everyone except Labour?

Hon MARK BURTON: As usual, the member concludes his question with a completely erroneous statement. The fact is that it is appropriate that we can have disagreement with any submitter, including, on this occasion, the Human Rights Commission in respect of some of its conclusions. That the National Party sought to rort the electoral system—and that the voters and the electors of New Zealand require protection from that behaviour—is beyond question. That is the purpose of this legislation.

Rodney Hide: Does he think it appropriate that this Parliament pass electoral law that the Human Rights Commission is implacably opposed to; and would the Government consider the suggestions made by the Human Rights Commission for the amendment of the Electoral Finance Bill?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Human Rights Commission, as I recall its submission, made a number of suggestions for change, which included some comment around the definition of advertising, around spending limits, and so on, and which, in fact, were made by a number of submitters. I have indicated from day one that the Government is open to considering the recommendations made to the select committee, and I await with interest the deliberation of the committee on the bill.

Tariana Turia: Does he agree that the electoral finance laws must not be designed and determined by politicians and parties in isolation of the people; and what process will the House initiate to ensure New Zealanders have an opportunity to decide on any changes, rather than just politicians?

Hon MARK BURTON: With respect to the member, I think that process is in progress as we speak. It is called the parliamentary select committee process. Its entire purpose is to enable any and all with an interest in a matter being considered by Parliament, on its referral to a select committee, to have their say—and on this matter many hundreds of people have.

Hon Bill English: Is he aware that one of the reasons the Human Rights Commission has described the bill as “a dramatic assault on … fundamental human rights” is the regulated period starting on 1 January in an election year; and can he confirm that the Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom studied its country’s 12-month election period—the longest in the world—and recommended that the regulated period for candidate election expenses and national spending by parties should be fixed at 4 months, because it found that the 12-month period was far too long?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the first of the several questions the member asked is correct—that was one of a number of issues raised in this particular submission, as with a number of others. As to the latter, my recollection is that the case the member refers to was for the first time that that legislation applied in the UK jurisdiction.

Hon Bill English: Just how strong would the language of the Human Rights Commission need to be for the Government to take any notice of what it says, given that it has already described the bill as a “dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish,” and given that it has already said “It is difficult to conceive of a greater limitation on freedom of speech”—what else would the Human Rights Commission have to say before the Government took any notice?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I have already indicated to the member, I have considerable respect for the Human Rights Commission but on this matter we are at odds. However, a number of the specific recommendations the commission makes, like a number of other submitters, have some merit. I await the decision and consideration of the select committee—a select committee that has representation from every party in this House—in order to see what changes, if any, the committee is recommending.

Business—Ease of Participating in New Zealand

4. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: Has she received any reports regarding the ease of doing business in New Zealand?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): Yes, I have. I have seen the Doing Business 2008 report from the World Bank, which again ranks New Zealand as second in the world out of 178 countries—only marginally behind Singapore—for ease of doing business. The data used by the World Bank was compiled just before changes were made by the Companies Office and the Inland Revenue Department to streamline the time it takes to set up a company down from 12 days to—now—a single day. If this change had been included in this year’s World Bank data, New Zealand would probably have been No. 1, so I hope we can achieve that next year. New Zealand’s success featured in a Jakarta Post article entitled “Ease in E-Business start-up: New Zealand’s Lesson to Learn”.

Maryan Street: Has she seen any other reports that contain good news for business?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I have. I have the seen the results of the fifth annual KPMG - Business New Zealand compliance costs survey, which were released this month, and which indicate that compliance costs for small business are on the way down. Interestingly, this survey shows that for firms employing five or fewer staff compliance costs have fallen by about a thousand dollars per full-time employee over the past year. I think this is great news for small business, which—due to issues of scale and scope—often feels the weight of compliance the most.

Lindsay Tisch: Why is she praising her Government over the World Bank’s ease of doing business survey when the survey does not cover issues such as taxation, environmental law, and resource management compliance, which are some of the top concerns among business?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I would advise that member not to believe everything he reads in a Business New Zealand press release, and to actually go and read the World Bank survey, which does cover those matters.

Maryan Street: Are there any other aspects of the KPMG - Business New Zealand survey that would reflect the Government’s commitment to business?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: As Minister of Commerce I am particularly proud that the Companies Office has been ranked as the most helpful Government agency for the fifth year in a row. This result reflects well on the staff but also the culture of an organisation that refuses to rest on its laurels and seeks continuous quality improvement. I know that my colleagues are also very pleased to see that the Department of Labour, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and the Customs Service all rated well with survey participants, and improved their ratings over previous years, reflecting the cross-Government commitment to improving service to business.

Health, Ministry—Confidence in Quality of Spending

5. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the quality of spending in the Ministry of Health; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Generally speaking, I do. However, I have no doubt that pockets of poor quality spending still exist somewhere in the system.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will the Minister explain why, despite Helen Clark’s pledge to cut a swathe through the health bureaucracy, the payroll of the Ministry of Health has rocketed by over 55 percent in the last 6 years?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I remind the member of two facts. The first is that the amount spent on the Ministry of Health in this country today is 1.82 percent of the total health budget. That means that about 98.18 percent of the health budget passes straight through the ministry and out into the sector. The second fact is that during the 1990s we had four regional health authorities, then one Transitional Health Authority, then one Health Funding Authority. That was big bureaucracy, and it has all gone.

Lesley Soper: How does value for money in the New Zealand health system compare with that of other Western nations?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is a very good question, a very important question, and the answer is that we compare very well. If we look at value for money in the New Zealand health system and compare it with that of the rest of the Western World, we see that we are way ahead of the pack. One or two countries are better than us, and Japan comes to mind, but we are better than nearly all of them. What is more, if we compare ourselves with the United States of America—and the National Party would have our health system head towards that of the USA—we find that, per capita, the USA expends almost exactly three times what we do on health, but New Zealanders live a little longer than Americans do.

Hon Tony Ryall: How is it cutting a swathe through the health bureaucracy, as was promised by Helen Clark, that over the past 6 years the Ministry of Health has employed an extra 250 staff—a 24 percent increase—but the payroll has gone up by 55 percent?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member just does not get it. The swathe that was cut through the bureaucracy of the health system was the taking out of the entire Health Funding Authority—the entire Health Funding Authority. Now we have all of the functions of the ministry—all of the policy functions, all of the regulatory functions, all of the payroll functions, all of the information technology systems, and much more than that—done for less than 2 percent of the health budget. I do not know another country that does better than that. I would like the member to point out one that can do as much as our Ministry of Health does on as little money as it gets.

Hon Tony Ryall: Should not the Minister admit that he is being completely disingenuous, because all the changes that he has talked about have happened already, in the last 6 years; and why does he keep adding more very expensive bureaucrats to the Ministry of Health, which Helen Clark described as bureaucratic and top-heavy, and where the number of staff earning over $100,000 a year has more than doubled in the last 6 years?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me disturb the member with this further, uncomfortable fact: not only is the proportion of health expenditure used by the Ministry of Health less than 2 percent—it is actually 1.82 percent—but it used to be higher. Only last year it was about 1.85 percent, and earlier than that it was higher than that. And it is proposed that it will drop further. In fact, there are 10 health targets for our health system, and target No. 10 is that we reduce expenditure on the Ministry of Health even further, to 1.65 percent. The member has decided to pick on precisely the wrong aspect of health expenditure in this country; we run a very cost-effective ministry.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why has the Minister not followed Helen Clark’s diagnosis of the Ministry of Health: “Never have so many people been employed to do so little.”, with the situation now being that if bird flu strikes, there will be a public hospital bed for every bureaucrat in the health system?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am going to say it one more time: the Prime Minister said that a big swathe of bureaucracy needed to be taken out of the health system, and it was: it was called the Health Funding Authority, previously known as the Transitional Health Authority, which was previously known as four regional health authorities. But, whatever they were called, those bureaucracies now do not exist. We have ourselves one ministry and 21 district health boards, and that is that.

Hon Tony Ryall: How is it cutting a swathe through the health bureaucracy, which the Prime Minister promised, that the Ministry of Health in the last 6 years has employed 250 staff—a 24 percent increase—but the payroll has gone up by 55 percent?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I rather suspect that if the member looked at the expenditure on those of us in this Chamber, he would find that the number of MPs has gone up by diddly-squat, and the amount of pay that each of us receives has gone up by more than diddly-squat. We call it inflation.

Police—Assaults on Officers

6. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Is she concerned at the record number of assaults on police in the last financial year where an average of six officers were attacked every day; if so, what is she doing to ensure the safety of police on the beat?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): Yes. This House and the public of New Zealand should always be concerned at assaults on police officers, the people we rely on to uphold law and order on our streets. Several measures have been put in place to increase the safety of officers on the beat, including the additional 1,250 police staff, under our agreement with New Zealand First; the roll-out of stab-resistant body armour, which will be completed by December 2007; the strengthening and funding of community partners like Neighbourhood Watch, Community Patrols, and the Māori Wardens Association, which work closely with the police to make our streets safer; the working with territorial local authorities to provide increased closed-circuit television surveillance and liquor bans in central business districts; and the trial of a non-lethal option, the Taser, to name but a few. However, as every member in this House knows, it is simply not possible to fully ensure the safety of officers. Policing is a dangerous job.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister agree with the comments of the Police Association president, Greg O’Connor, on the news of the rise in the number of assaults on police, which totalled 2,248 in the last financial year, that “A lot of it has got to do with P—more people are on it, so more people are prepared to have a go [at police].”, and that the wider increase in violence in our society was another factor in the increase; and could she tell the police whether that concerns her?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Obviously the answer to that is yes and yes, which is why this Government, in conjunction with New Zealand First, has worked in additional numbers of police and has worked with the Police Association not only to ensure that there are better conditions for our police who must go out to face the front line but also to ensure that the people of New Zealand know that the safety of our streets is not just a role for the New Zealand Police but a role for all of us, including our community partners. To expect the police to be on every corner is not realistic. Working closely with organisations like the Māori Wardens Association, etc., I think, adds to the capacity of our police to be able to undertake their role.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister tell the House when Tasers will be issued?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Commissioner of Police said at the time the Taser trial was implemented that he would withdraw the Tasers from the trial and then evaluate the project. He has informed me that it is on track for him to look at that report on 14 December.

Chester Borrows: What assurance can the Minister give that stab-resistant body armour will be distributed according to the real risk of injury, when 10 front-line police in Papakura still have no protection at a time when there are in excess of 80 violent street gangs operating in their patch; and just when will all front-line police in Papakura be issued with stab-proof vests?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I take the word of the Deputy Commissioner of Police Rob Pope when he tells me that the stab-resistant body armour will be rolled out by December this year, and that the aim was to get it to all front-line police first. If they are not in Papakura yet, as the member claims, then that is a decision for the district commander, and one that I am certainly happy to take up with Mr Pope. But I believe that all the stab-resistant body armour will be in place by December this year.

Ron Mark: When the number of attacks on police is running at six each and every day, with one of them being a serious attack; when the Police Association is calling for the introduction of Tasers; when we have the Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, reportedly telling police privately: “The Taser trial was a major success. The Tasers are a must.”; and when we have just witnessed the shooting to death of a drug-fuelled man who attacked a police officer, can the Minister tell the House why Tasers have still not been introduced—or is it that this delay in issuing Tasers is simply a public relations exercise to defuse the expected political backlash from the “loony tunes” on the left who would oppose the police receiving the Tasers?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is for none of those reasons that the member has given. The Commissioner of Police gave his word that there would be a trial, that there would be evaluation of that trial, and that at the end of that evaluation a decision would be made. To have gone ahead and issued Tasers without completing the word that he gave would have meant that he had not kept his word, and he had no intention of doing that.

State Services Commissioner—Inquiry into Environment Ministry Appointment

7. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: When will the State Services Commissioner release the report of the investigation into the Public Service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): I am advised by the State Services Commissioner that he intends to release the report as soon as it is completed. The investigation is progressing but is not yet concluded, and a completion date is yet to be determined.

Gerry Brownlee: Has she, any member of her staff, any other Cabinet Minister, or any ministerial staff seen any draft or final reports of Dr Prebble’s or Mr Hunn’s investigations; if so, when?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can speak only for myself, and I have received a draft of those parts of the report to the State Services Commission that refer to me, the Minister of State Services.

Gerry Brownlee: Does Mr Hunn’s report include any comment or assessment of Dr Prebble’s actions; if so, what actions will be taken as a result of analysis of Mr Hunn’s report?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have no knowledge in the matters the member has just asked me. All I have seen are the comments that I made to Mr Hunn. They have been shown to me to check as to whether they are accurate in terms of my input into the inquiry. I have no knowledge of what is in the report. As I have already pointed out to the member, I have seen only the comments that I have made.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister telling the House that she has seen the drafts of this report that relate to her and her involvement, but that none of those drafts in any way deal with any assessment of Dr Prebble’s behaviour and conduct in this particular matter?

Hon ANNETTE KING: If the member had listened carefully, he would have heard that I advised the House I have seen the comments that I made to Mr Hunn. That is the only thing I have seen. No one, as far as I am aware, has seen the full report, because as I am told it is still a work in progress. What I have seen are my own comments, as one would expect in any report, to ensure that they are accurate in terms of the person who took them down as a record of the interview with me.

Gerry Brownlee: Oh!

Hon ANNETTE KING: I tell Mr Brownlee that that is absolutely correct. I think I probably know myself a little better than the member does. After all, they were my comments.

Gerry Brownlee: Don’t be so sensitive.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Don’t tell lies.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I point out here that there is absolutely no risk of me telling lies on this matter, but the Minister may want to reflect on her answers.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Madam Speaker, I take offence at that. I have just told this House exactly what has happened in relation to that report. The member is insinuating something else—I am not sure what it is. Maybe he thinks he has seen a report, and if that is the case I would ask, how, why, and where?

Gerry Brownlee: My response was to the Minister yelling across the House “Don’t tell lies.” I am asking questions, that is all, and I think she should withdraw and apologise for that remark.

Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear the Minister say “Don’t tell lies.”, I must say. Did the Minister say that?

Hon ANNETTE KING: If I did, I apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: I call Gerry Brownlee.

Gerry Brownlee: I have no idea why this question causes so much tension on the other side of the House—

Madam SPEAKER: I have called the member.

Gerry Brownlee: Oh, there was so much noise I did not hear it.

Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps you could ask colleagues on all sides of the House to please keep their interventions down, so members can hear when they are called.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has just claimed he did not hear you call him. If he did not hear you call him, why did he start to speak?

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that Mr Hunn’s report will simply be a factual account of what happened, with any conclusions, etc. left to Dr Prebble, who remains, effectively, the judge, the jury, the defence, and the prosecution?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Mr Hunn’s role is to get to the facts. So obviously it will be factual, I hope, because his job is to get to the facts. It will be made public, as will Dr Prebble’s report be made public. I would say that if the conclusions are not correct, everybody will be able to see whether the right ones or the wrong ones have been made.

Gerry Brownlee: Why has the release of the report been delayed, given that Dr Prebble stated on 3 August that the investigation was expected to take between 6 and 8 weeks, and it has now been nearly 12 weeks; and is that because the Labour Government wants to release the report when it will be crowded out by other news such as the impending Cabinet reshuffle?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The trouble is that the member never listens to answers. The last time there was a question on this I was asked who would release the report, and it is not the Labour Government. It actually happens to be the State Services Commissioner, and as far as I know, he does not know when, why, or how the reshuffle will take place. So he will not be basing the report’s release on that. I think the member has got it wrong, once again.

Cancer—Melanoma and Sunbeds

8. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: Has he been advised of research by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer showing that there is a 75 percent increase in the risk of developing melanoma for people who first used sunbeds in their twenties or teenage years; if so, is he concerned that New Zealand has no legally enforceable standards governing the use of sunbeds?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I am aware of the information. I think the member has raised an important issue. I think we should take a look at whether a regulatory approach is called for or whether, indeed, we should consider education as the preferred way forward.

Sue Kedgley: Is he aware that the harmful UV rays from sunbeds are estimated to be up to five times stronger than the midday sun, and does he agree that along with the Government’s campaign to cut our shocking melanoma rates by reducing exposure to the sun’s UV rays we also need to reduce exposure to the harmful UV rays from sunbeds through legally binding standards and a public information campaign; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Amongst those various questions one answer would be that, yes, I am aware of the research that came out in July that said some solaria are capable of delivering five times the UV light of the midday sun, and that is a source of concern. All these things are to do with dose, and I think the important thing is that we now need to consider whether a response is called for—it may well be—and, if so, whether that response should be by way of a standard, a regulation, an education campaign, or a mixture thereof.

Barbara Stewart: Does he consider it satisfactory that over 300 people die every year from skin cancer, mostly as a result of excess sun exposure, but that there is no regulation of sunscreen products, meaning that manufacturers can claim what they like about effectiveness without the benefit of independent evaluation; if not, what is he doing about the situation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am afraid that the member knows more about this issue than I do. I had assumed there would be some constraint on what one could say about sunscreen products under the Fair Trading Act or consumer legislation. I suggest that the member may wish to drop me a letter along the lines of her question, and I would certainly undertake to look at it. It seems worthy of that.

Sue Kedgley: Is he aware of anecdotal evidence that young women and teenage girls are increasingly using sunbeds on a routine basis in the mistaken belief that sunbeds are a safe way to get a tan, a belief promoted by sunbed providers, such as in the ad I am holding that urges people to “relax and bronze on one of our fast tanning sunbeds with maximum safety”, and why would he not implement what the Cancer Society of New Zealand, the Australasian College of Dermatologists, and the Cancer Council Australia are recommending, namely regulations to restrict the use of sunbeds in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member may recall that in response to an earlier question I said we will be looking at that and we do need to consider whether a future would involve regulation, standards, or an education approach. I think that is an open question, and I think we should look forward to seeing what the advice—in the first place, from the Ministry of Health—looks like.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table research by the World Health Organization, pointing out that sunbed use in youth is unequivocally associated—

Leave granted.

Sue Kedgley: Secondly, I seek leave to table a document from the Cancer Council Australia and the Cancer Society of New Zealand, calling for regulations for the use—

Leave granted.

Child Support—Liable Parents’ Contribution

9. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister of Revenue: Is he satisfied with the level of child support collected from liable parents during the last financial year; if so, why?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): I am never satisfied when there is at least one custodial parent or one child not receiving a full payment from a liable parent. But I believe that the Inland Revenue Department is doing an excellent job, given the practicalities of the world in which we live.

Judith Collins: Why has core child support debt, excluding any interest or penalties, more than doubled under this Labour Government from $192 million in the year 2000 to $456 million today, bringing the total debt to nearly $1.2 billion?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The member is actually confusing some figures. The total debt of $1.1 billion includes the penalties and other payments that she said were excluded in her question. The reality is that 88.5 percent of all child support assessed since 1992 has been collected. The figures are improving. We are also assessing more people, which of course means that the amount to be assessed will increase.

Judith Collins: Can the Minister confirm that over 16,000 liable parents are not resident in New Zealand and that, combined, they owe half a billion dollars; and what action would he like to see taken to ensure that these parents meet their obligations to their New Zealand – based children?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I can confirm that at March of this year we had some 8,000 New Zealand cases being collected in Australia. After the commencement of the reciprocal agreement with Australia in March 2007 of this year, the Inland Revenue Department has collected around $23.1 million for Australian parents and around $28.4 million from Australian parents. Obviously, we need to do more. Legislation before the House at the moment will enable us to do more in the way of data matching when people enter and leave New Zealand, which in turn will improve the ability to track those parents who are offshore and to make them meet their liabilities.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister agree with me that child support debtors should be prevented from leaving this country, or does he share the view of David Cunliffe, who said in 2003 that it would be “Draconian” to stop liable parents from leaving the country; is the Minister serious about this situation or not?

Hon PETER DUNNE: When we have the data matching in place we will be better able to track who is coming and going. But I point out to the House that we cannot detain New Zealanders at the border and stop them from leaving this country, unless we have a warrant issued for that purpose. I am not sure whether the member is suggesting that all child support debtors should have a warrant issued against their departure from New Zealand. That would mean that we were placing them in a different category from any other person leaving this country with an unpaid debt.

Judith Collins: How can it be fair for defaulting liable parents to be able to come and go from New Zealand as they please, for the Inland Revenue Department to consistently not use its power to apply for arrest warrants, and for responsible parents to be left to shoulder the burden while this Government sits around worrying about the travel rights of people who fail their children?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The last thing that it would be responsible to do would be to start issuing arrest warrants for liable parents. Parents in that situation are in a very fraught, tense situation as it is. The differences and divisions between liable parents and custodial parents are very tense and bitter. If the member wants to start adding to that by introducing the concept of arrest warrants for parents who seek to leave the country, then I think she is simply escalating a tense situation far beyond what is reasonable to most people.

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table United Future’s policy on this issue, which was to stop them leaving the country.

Leave granted.

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the article: “Call to stop no-pay parents skipping NZ”.

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

Te Kete Hauora—Restructuring

10. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: What is the staffing reduction in actual numbers that is encompassed in the new, “leaner” Te Kete Hauora, and what evidence supports the relocation of the service development team and the chief adviser Māori health into the sector capability and innovation directorate?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): The answer to the member’s first question is “Nine”, and the answer to the second question is that it was done to further strengthen the ministry’s ability to respond to Māori health issues across the ministry.

Tariana Turia: What kinds of skills and expertise are being brought into the team to measure the so-called gains in the last administration, and why was a deputy director-general not appointed from the outstanding applicants who applied for that position?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The answer to the second question lies with the director-general. I have no role in that, as the member may be aware. The answer to the first part of her supplementary question is that the main measurement is a census mortality survey, which is ongoing and which is one of very few such studies in the world. It is a very important study, and I look forward to the next update, because I am hoping we will see still further progress. In general what is happening is that the ministry is intent on increasing its capacity and capability for Māori health across the ministry—the Māori Provider Development Scheme, for example, is now with the sector capability and innovation directorate, because that is where its natural home is—but the budget for Te Kete Hauora has actually remained unchanged, even though there are now fewer staff there, which suggests that the director-general has in his mind the possibility of further appointments.

Tariana Turia: How often will the ministry change the deckchairs from sector-specific to mainstream, and how will progressively dismantling Te Kete Hauora and spreading a mere eight Māori people across all of the directorates improve health and reduce inequalities, given the poor outcomes being achieved to date?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not think we have gone from sector-specific to mainstream. In the previous incarnation there was a directorate for Māori health and in the current ministry there is a directorate for Māori health. Nine people have been shifted from that directorate across to the sector capability and innovation directorate. The reason for that is that they manage the contracts and they manage the development of Māori providers—they are quite clever people, in my view. These are all decisions that are taken not by me but by the director-general. I think he is making a good job of the reconfiguration of the ministry, and I think that it has quite a lot of momentum now that it did not have earlier.

Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill—Reform Process

11. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Associate Minister of Commerce: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill that “It is part of a wider reform process to ensure that our intellectual property legislation is up to date, relevant, and takes account of international developments.”; if so, why?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce): I stand by my statement, and would add that copyright law must operate to enhance the interests of all New Zealanders. To ensure that is the case we need to be aware of a range of factors, including developments in technology, business and personal use patterns, and international practices.

Christopher Finlayson: How can the bill be up to date, when it does not cover new technological developments such as person-to-person filing-sharing?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: This legislation has been in the pipeline now for nearly 7 years. It has been negotiated across the vast range of interests of people who are concerned about intellectual property protection. Under this Government there have been seven pieces of legislation concerning this matter, and indeed a number of new ones are coming through.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is it the Associate Minister’s understanding that should Supplementary Order Paper 154, prepared by Gordon Copeland, be passed by this House in its current form, free retransmission rights could be accorded to Internet users, meaning local writers and producers may just as well pack up, go overseas, and carry out their work there?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: That view has been put forward, and I shall look forward to the debate in the House.

Christopher Finlayson: Does she agree with industry representatives who have said that the current definition of “communication work” would have serious and potentially harmful consequences for New Zealand’s copyright law, and what does she plan to do about that?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: As the bill is at present before the House, I expect it will be debated and that the matter of defining “communication work” will be resolved to the satisfaction of this Parliament.

Christopher Finlayson: Can she confirm that her poor handling of copyright law reform has caused a rift in her relationship with the Prime Minister, and has she had any inquiries from her caucus colleagues about job opportunities beginning from Thursday next week?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: There is no rift whatsoever, and I look forward to the Prime Minister making any announcements that she chooses to make.

Christopher Finlayson: Can she confirm that her negligent stewardship of this bill has resulted in Steve Maharey being appointed by the Prime Minister to supervise her work, and, in the unlikely event of her holding on to her portfolios next week, who is to be her new minder?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: It is not unusual for the Minister of Broadcasting to have an interest in broadcasting matters under a copyright bill. That is pretty good communication. In the Labour-led Government we actually talk to each other.

Product Safety—Reports

12. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What reports has she received on the safety of products available to New Zealand consumers?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): I recently received three reports on the safety of products available to New Zealand consumers. The first was a report by TV3’s Target show, which stated that the level of formaldehyde in clothing being sold to New Zealanders was higher than internationally recognised acceptable levels. Unfortunately, these tests were incomplete and misunderstood the international guidelines being measured. The second was a comprehensive report undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that found there was no risk to New Zealanders, as 97 of the 99 items tested were well within international acceptable levels, and the two that did not meet those levels did so after being washed. The third report was a statement made by National’s Kate Wilkinson that asserted we were “endangering our children’s lives” and insisted we “remove unsafe products from shelves”, based on unsubstantiated and inadequate tests done on a TV show. I think that member should apologise.

Darien Fenton: What action has been taken in light of the finding that clothes available in New Zealand pose no risk?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: There has been a great deal of interest from New Zealand manufacturers, importers, and retailers. There have been close conversations with Australia and other international partners, and, in line with those discussions, we have introduced a draft product safety policy statement, which sets acceptable levels of formaldehyde. I reiterate that the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act in this country guarantee that consumers can assume that all goods are safe and fit for the purpose.

ENDS

© Scoop Media