Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 2 May 2007

Questions to Ministers

Working for Families—Tax Credit Review

1. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he received on changes to the Working for Families programme and tax rates?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I have received reports, apparently emanating from the Leader of the Opposition, that suggest that the improvements to Working for Families announced in late 2005 should be abolished. That would mean lowering the threshold for abatement back down to $27,535 and increasing the abatement rate to 30 percent, from 20 percent. That would mean that families with a household income of over $27,500 would lose out. For example, a couple with a joint income of $60,000 a year and two children could lose as much as $82 a week and a minimum of $43 a week, depending on the age of the children.

Shane Jones: Has the Minister seen any reports on the likely reductions in tax rates that could be paid for by cuts to Working for Families of up to $82 per week for a family on $60,000 a year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, by reducing that family’s income by between $43 and $82 a week, and by rededicating the money so saved from Working for Families to across-the-board tax cuts, tax cuts of almost $5 a week could be delivered. That makes a mockery of Mr Key’s claim that no one would be worse off under that policy.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the reports are wrong; and when is he going to explain his own economic management to the country as to why people are going to be paying higher interest rates for longer, and why jobs are being exported—when is he going to explain that, instead of wasting his time on attacking everybody else’s policy in order to avoid the real issues?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Unfortunately, even before the last election Mr Key admitted some families would be worse off under National’s policy. As to the matter of the so-called jobs being exported, I want to ask Mr English whether it is now National’s policy to reimpose high tariffs, and whether is it now National’s policy to oppose free trade agreements. If it is, why did Mr Key not announce that in his speech today, instead of announcing nothing at all on exporting?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is question time, for the Opposition to ask the Government questions. Clearly Michael Cullen cannot answer them, so he has asked Bill English some questions. Do we take it that leave is going to be granted for Mr English to give the House a long dissertation on each of those points? I so seek leave.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Economy—Monetary Policy

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Christchurch Press that “Suggestions of tampering with monetary policy are a side-show designed to distract attention from areas that really need it.”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No, I do not support the implicit advocacy for a capital gains tax on housing in the Press editorial. I notice the one area where there is some significant possibility of consensus is in tax changes made in 1991 by the National Government, which has almost certainly led to tax advantaging for investment in housing. And, like Mr English, the Press also fails to spell out what Government spending should be savagely cut.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister still agree with the findings and recommendations of an independent review of the operation of monetary policy that he commissioned in 2000, conducted by Professor Lars Svensson, one of the world’s leading authorities on monetary policy, that concluded that no significant change could or should be made to New Zealand’s monetary policy framework?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think, in the light of the fact that we are now into the—I think—third economic cycle since the Reserve Bank Act was passed, that in each cycle we have seen the period of time at which the exchange rate has remained very high to be much longer, with consequentially more damage each time to the exporting sector. It is useful for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to examine the basis of monetary policy and to make recommendations. I think we should never be afraid of ideas.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister agree with the Christchurch Press that the Government is “doling out largesse”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not see announcements such as that by my colleague the Minister of Health yesterday to deliver fairer pay for aged-care workers as doling out largesse. They will not improve productivity in the health sector. The problem those opposite have is to front up on what Government spending they would actually cut, not least because core Crown expenses are currently 33 percent of GDP—exactly the same as in 1999.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister recall that the Reserve Bank and Treasury took part in the supplementary stabilisation review just last year, and the general conclusion of that review by more world experts on monetary policy was that the New Zealand framework approximated world’s best practice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am aware that, as a consequence of that review, and after I mentioned the possibility of a broader consensus of a select committee, Mr Key wrote to me seeking talks. I am aware that those talks were held between myself, Mr Mallard, Mr Key, and Mr English, and I am aware that Mr English sabotaged those discussions.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister not stop trying to distract anyone with proposed changes to the monetary policy framework, which, even if they were of value, could not apply in this cycle, and get on with the business of explaining to New Zealanders why they should pay higher interest rates because of his fiscal policies, given that, presumably, he thinks it is worthwhile that New Zealanders pay higher interest rates because of his fiscal policies?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I remind the member that when the issue of ownership policy has come up, Mr English has said that there is nothing wrong with monetary policy and that all Dr Bollard needed to do was lift interest rates earlier and higher than he did.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister intend to continue his fascination with what he believes are comments that I have made about economic policy—much as I regard that as a compliment—and when will he start explaining to this House and to the country his own policies; why is he so anxious to avoid doing this and to not take opportunities, such as through the questions I am asking him, to explain to the people of New Zealand why he is planning $4 billion of new spending, as a result of which they will have to pay higher interest rates?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I pointed out to the member, the member has called for higher interest rates than we have at the present time as an answer to monetary policy. Secondly, I point out to the member that his estimate of $4 billion includes $2 billion for changes to the corporate tax rate, which his party has argued should have been done although, in fact, the corporate tax rate was last cut in 1988 and remained entirely unchanged throughout the last National Government.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm his view that he is the only person, in thinking about economic policy, who believes that the Government’s planned spending surge over the next 2 years will have no impact on inflation; and why is it that he is right and everyone else is wrong?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I am clearly not the only person who believes that, because the member’s leader only last year said there was room for $11 billion a year of tax cuts. Over 2 years that is $22 billion a year of fiscal expansion.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that parliamentary consensus seems to be rallying around giving our Reserve Bank more tools to control the direction of our economy, and that National’s suggestion of adopting a common currency with Australia would not provide a panacea for our economy—rather, it would be a huge step in the wrong direction?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed. Almost every commentary has rejected the idea of a common currency, not least because, of course, nobody in Australia is talking about a common currency. Australia is putting forward that it would be very kind to allow us to use its currency if we were silly enough to give up our own currency. Mr Key favours that policy; I do not favour that policy for New Zealand.

Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill—Research

3. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he agree that the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill will impede legitimate public research carried out by historians, biographers, genealogists, and journalists; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): The bill ensures that people will still have access to records, provided that they have a legitimate purpose and permission for access to, and use of, that information. People will continue to have open access to historical information. However, as I have said, I am interested in ensuring that submissions strike a balance between the protection of information on registers, and access to, and use of, that information.

Sandra Goudie: Is it not a fact that the Government has lost its parliamentary majority for this bill because of this Minister’s arrogance, incompetence, and failure to consult?

Hon RICK BARKER: No. We had agreement for the introduction of the bill and its first reading. Secondly, as far as consultation goes, I consulted with that member on a confidential basis before the bill was introduced, and despite assuring me about that confidence she went out and leaked it immediately.

Keith Locke: Is it fair for anyone writing a critical biography without the family’s agreement to have to wait 50 to 100 years to get basic birth, death, or marriage information; and does this not mean that biographers will have to live very long lives?

Hon RICK BARKER: No. Nearly every biography I have read has been written with the permission of the family, and in such cases people clearly often seem to accept that it will be a warts-and-all biography. The fact is that this provision has to balance up access to information with the Government’s responsibility to protect the privacy of those individuals and to protect them from the predations of fraudsters.

Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any reports on the concerns about access to and use of personal information like this, and has he seen reports indicating support for the bill as it stands?

Hon RICK BARKER: Yes. I have seen a report that states that 52 percent of New Zealanders surveyed were concerned about identity theft, another report that states that this is one of the fastest-growing types of crime in the world, and another that estimates the cost of it to New Zealand at about $400 million a year. I have also seen a report in the Dominion Post that stated that consumer representatives and industry experts say that New Zealanders need to wake up and be vigilant in preventing identity theft. In that report Wellington fraud investigator Barry Jordan stated: “It has been too easy too long to change your identity in this country. The steps they are promoting are … necessary.”

Tariana Turia: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Has the Minister received the submission from the Māori society of the New Zealand Society of Genealogists that recommends that access to information on births, deaths, and marriages be unrestricted in order to facilitate whakapapa research in the lodging of land claims; if not, when was he thinking of consulting Māori about issues so vital in preserving the rights of Māori people that are guaranteed by the Treaty?

Hon RICK BARKER: My every intention is to ensure that people who want to have access to their family records will have it unrestricted and unfettered—that is Māori and Pākehā.

Hon Peter Dunne: In the light of that last answer, what assurances can the Minister offer to those parties in Parliament currently representing 63 out of 121 votes in opposition to the bill that their concerns will be met, as will those of the genealogists and the historians, and that a regime will be put in place that will ensure that the status quo with regard to access to that data remains?

Hon RICK BARKER: I have spoken with the genealogists, and they have raised their concerns directly with me, and I feel that the bill can easily be amended to deal with those concerns so that people do have access to their family records. On the other hand, the bill needs to strike a balance between access to information and protecting the privacy of those people whose records are on that information—and protecting those New Zealanders from the predation of identity fraudsters.

Keith Locke: How can the Minister talk about the problem of identity fraud when convictions for passport fraud have decreased from 38 in 2003 to eight in 2006, and does this not show that our current tools are working and that we do not need to keep our public records under lock and key?

Hon RICK BARKER: Passports are only part of the identity fraud issue. As I said in answer to an earlier question, New Zealanders suffer about $400 million a year in identity theft. Another particular case I would draw to the member’s attention is that of William Kevin Roach, who stole the identity of a young baby—4 years old—and 40 years later, the family were confronted with having a new identity parading around as their child. This person used that identity to steal $100,000 from the taxpayer. This Parliament should be concerned about both issues.

Keith Locke: Is it not wrong for the Government to talk about identity fraud in the private sector when, in fact, officials, such as Trevor Morley, president of the Institute of Professional Investigators, states that access to information on births, deaths, and marriages is critical to detecting fraudsters and that we should not prevent genealogists and others from having access to records—there is no reason for that?

Hon RICK BARKER: I just want to remind the member and the House that there is no intention to have the bill restrict people from having access to their family records, at all. That I consider to be totally legitimate. But other consumer representatives say that New Zealanders have to wake up about identity theft, and one of the most easy pieces of information to get about a person in order to build his or her identity is on the open register as it is today.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from a well-known historian and biographer, Graeme Hunt, explaining that this bill is an attack on press freedom.

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a second document. It is a reply by the Hon Rick Barker to a question from Peter Brown, which shows a dramatic reduction in fraudulent passport applications.

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

Electricity Commission—Confidence

4. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Does he have confidence in the Electricity Commission?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: Why has the Government appointed an independent board of inquiry to hear submissions on the national policy statement on electricity transmission, when the Government already has the Electricity Commission charged with overseeing its policy statement on priority investment in the national grid, and does not this new board signal a vote of no confidence in the Electricity Commission?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Absolutely not. Mr Brownlee again shows he is befuddled in his understanding of the law. Last month he was effectively calling for remote rural users to be cut off the electricity grid, and now he is showing his misunderstanding—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has just lied to the House, and I think he should apologise for doing so. I made the point that remote electricity users were likely to be cut off under this Government, not under a future National Government, and he has misrepresented that position, quite inappropriately. The question actually relates to confidence in the Electricity Commission. I am not the one who has appointed someone else, to take work off the commission; it is his Government that has done that, and he should tell us why.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It is the member opposite who has to withdraw and apologise. He has made an unparliamentary accusation. I am afraid that the other matter he got into is a matter of some debate as he was not clear about what he said in the first place.

Madam SPEAKER: The matter is one of debate, but the member in making his point was out of order, so I would ask him to please withdraw the comment calling the Minister a liar.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It might help if you were able to listen to the start of the answers, because I think that, right at the start, Ministers set the tone and, particularly, indicate whether they are going to answer. We know that the trend from this Government, as set today by the Minister of Finance, is not to answer, but it might be encouraging if you were to indicate to Ministers that their resorting to personal attacks only reflects poorly on them.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: We could, of course, render this House entirely sterile by having no political content in either questions or answers, but it would have to be both-sided in that case. Question after question contains some kind of politics within it.

Madam SPEAKER: The point that is being made is that the rules apply equally to all sides of the House, and I think the member has raised quite usefully a point that should be noted by all members. [Interruption] I just remind members that when I am on my feet and talking, shouting out is unacceptable. Would the Minister now please address the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Brownlee’s befuddlement on this occasion arises from his misunderstanding of the Resource Management Act. Central government provides guidance to the councils through national policy statements and national environment standards. These are important documents because they apply across the country. So before national policy statements are finalised a board of inquiry—in this case, chaired by a retired High Court judge—considers the content of them. The board of inquiry is not in any way a commentary on the Electricity Commission; it is about a national policy statement relating to the environment.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Minister have confidence in the Electricity Commission, when the Transpower proposal to rectify the security risk at the Ōtāhuhu substation, which blew out last year and cost the New Zealand and Auckland economies about $80 million, has been waiting for approval from the Electricity Commission since July 2006, and is nowhere near being granted, and is not that the reason why his Government has decided to appoint this particular board—to go round the commission, which takes far too long to reach simple decisions?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Not at all. I will not repeat the description of the law, which shows Mr Brownlee’s misunderstanding of the Resource Management Act. In respect of the Ōtāhuhu substation, the easy remedial steps were taken in the months that followed. The Electricity Commission has recently approved more than $244 million of grid expenditure. It has given draft approval for an $840 million upgrade of security of supply into Auckland, and it is considering further upgrades at the Ōtāhuhu substation.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister have confidence in the Electricity Commission when, for its $90 million per annum costs, it has overseen residential electricity price rises of over 48 percent since 2003, when it began?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The electricity market was inflicted upon this country by Mr Bradford and the then National Government. Since that time the rate of increase in electricity prices has ranged between 0.7 percent and 4 percent real per annum, depending on the sector.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is the Minister creating another Government board in the energy sector when it is clear that his Government’s energy policies are a mess, largely because of the overlapping roles of the Commerce Commission, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the Electricity Commission, and now the board of inquiry into electricity transmission, and does he think he might at any point get on top of this industry’s problems, or will he just keep on creating new bureaucracies until he finds one that listens to him?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I repeat that national environment standards and national policy statements made under the Resource Management Act are required by that Act to go through an inquiry process. They work across the country. That member calls for Resource Management Act reforms, and his colleague Dr Nick Smith criticises the lack of national policy statements and national environment standards. The moment that one is proposed Gerry Brownlee misconstrues its purpose.

Gerry Brownlee: To the Minister—[Interruption] I am sorry? Am I answering the questions and is Mr Benson-Pope asking them?

Madam SPEAKER: I called Mr Brownlee. Would members please just restrain themselves rather than cause disorder in the House.

Gerry Brownlee: Can we assume from the tenor of the Minister’s answers today that the Government is moving towards overarching legislation that will mean that the 400 kilovolt line into Auckland, and other transmission projects, can proceed with minimal regard for public opinion?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, not at all. But what is necessary is for consistency of planning decisions relating to transmission across the country. Giving guidance to the councils, through a national policy statement, will assist in achieving that.

Aged Care—Services

5. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What significant recent announcements has he made for the aged-care sector?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yesterday I announced the largest ever investment in the care and support of the elderly. Most of this will go to workers in the sector. It will enable high turnover of staff to be reduced, successful training to be established and expanded, and therefore the evolution of a more stable, better paid, and more skilled workforce.

Lesley Soper: How does the Government intend to ensure that the funding will indeed flow to the workers?

Hon PETE HODGSON: In many respects providers are already keen to lift wages because the labour market is tight. New Zealand has amongst the lowest rates of unemployment in the world. However, I have also obliged district health boards to use contractual mechanisms to ensure the money flows, as they have in the past. In addition, I have stated that the future of the sector lies in collectivity, because home-based workers in particular are somewhat isolated.

Barbara Stewart: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand First made addressing issues in the elder-care sector a priority in its confidence and supply agreement with the Government, and that it is the second time in 2 years that New Zealand First has secured significant funding increases for this sector?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I can confirm both those statements. Indeed, it is the third Budget in a row in which there have been significant increases in this sector. I acknowledge and thank New Zealand First for its ongoing support and cooperation in this matter.

Sickness and Invalids Benefits—Numbers

6. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Can he confirm there were 115,357 people on sickness and invalids benefits when his predecessor, the Hon Steve Maharey, said in August 2004, “We are pretty hopeful that we can start to make some serious inroads into these numbers.”; if so, can he confirm that 3 years later, numbers on sickness and invalids benefits have increased by another 9,124, almost 8 percent, to over 124,481 today?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I understand that the member is referring to a Dominion Post article of August 2004 titled “Maharey’s dream run”, and that of course continues to this day. As the member is well aware, we have made very good progress in this area. The rate of growth in these numbers has significantly slowed. I am advised that the rate of receipt of sickness and invalids benefits in New Zealand is around 4.5 percent of the working-age population, which compares favourably with Australia’s higher rate of 5.2 percent, and with the United Kingdom, where 7 percent of the working-age population is in receipt of a sickness or invalids benefit. I know that the member and her Opposition colleagues find it difficult that benefit numbers, including those on sickness and invalids benefits, have fallen by 136,000—34 percent—since 1999, but that does not mean, in turn, that a relatively small group of people should be vilified because they have become ill, pregnant, or disabled, or have a short life expectancy and need support.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister think New Zealanders are getting value for money when this Government announced in Budget 2005 $128 million to get sickness and invalids beneficiaries into work, when 2 years later the number of those beneficiaries has increased by 7,000 in just those 2 years; is that good use of money?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, I do. As the member herself demonstrates, the workforce is taking on an older profile. The population aged from 40 to 64 years has been increasing rapidly since the early 1980s as the baby boomers move into this age group. This age group is, of course, more susceptible to illness and disease than those who are younger. The number of people on invalids or sickness benefits who are aged from 50 to 64 years, as a percentage of the total number of those on invalids and sickness benefits, has steadily increased from 36 percent in 1999 to 42 percent today.

Steve Chadwick: Why are people granted a sickness or invalids benefit, and what is the Government doing to support them?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: People are granted sickness and invalids benefits if they become sick, injured, pregnant, disabled, or otherwise cannot work. People who are granted invalids benefits are sick, have an injury or a disability that is expected to last at least 2 years, have a life expectancy that is expected to be less than 2 years, or are blind and otherwise qualify for an invalids benefit. However, many people do not want their illness or disability to stop them from becoming economically independent and working if they can. The Social Security Amendment Bill is about just that—supporting people into work now and in the future, based on what they can do, not what they cannot do. I look forward to National Party support for that bill.

Madam SPEAKER: Members, the level of chat has risen quite considerably in the House, so it is becoming quite difficult to hear. If you have to conduct private conversations, would you please take them outside the Chamber.

Judith Collins: Can the Minister explain to the House how he can put in $128 million to get fewer sickness and invalids beneficiaries, but end up with 7,000 more—just how did he do it?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Could I reinforce for the benefit of the member, who is obviously having some difficulty in grasping this, that these benefits are available to people who are sick, because they are sick.

Judith Collins: Will the Minister confirm that of a target of 15,000 eligible people in Manukau, his PATHS programme has managed to get only 343 people into work; and would he say 343 out of 15,000 was a really good achievement for that $128 million?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am delighted with the success of the PATHS programmes, and more will be rolled out in the immediate future. This Government is keen to support people, not to make up—as the Opposition does—reasons for not supporting them.

Judith Collins: How can the Minister spend $128 million on getting sickness and invalids beneficiaries into work, when 2 years later 7,000 more people are too sick to work?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I answered that question earlier.

Judith Collins: No, he did not. I think he has given up. Has the Minister ever thought that if he spent less money, he might actually get more people off the benefit?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I suppose that is benefit cuts in the National Party style, yet again. It might be instructive for the member—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. I will ask the Minister to give his reply in silence so we can make some progress here.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It might be instructive for the member to realise that doctors are the people who assign eligibility to these benefits.

Judith Collins: I seek leave of the House to table a schedule showing the Minister is spending $128 million to get 7,000 more people on to the sickness benefit.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is objection.

Mobile Phones—Fees

7. Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) to the Minister for Economic Development: Has he received any reports regarding the reduction of fees charged by mobile phone companies being passed on to fixed-calling customers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: Yes, I have received deed polls from Vodafone and Telecom specifying their commitments to reduce mobile termination rates and to pass the reductions through to customers. These reductions are from 20c in both cases to 14c for Vodafone and 12c for Telecom.

Hon Brian Donnelly: What options are available to the Government if it is found by the annual audits that either one or both of the companies are reneging on their commitments to reduce termination rates or to pass those reductions on to fixed-calling customers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Deeds provide legally enforceable processes. Rates can be enforced by fixed-line providers while pass-through can be enforced by the Crown, and under the Vodafone deed pass-through can also be enforced by fixed-line customers.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that policy settings to put pressure on telecommunications companies to reduce the costs of mobile phone calls are outlined in the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and his Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, page 4 of the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Labour Party specifically refers to this pressure on telecommunications companies to reduce the cost of mobile phone calls.

Housing New Zealand—Confidence

8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Housing New Zealand Corporation does a very competent job in managing nearly 67,000 homes for Kiwi families. Like all organisations, of course, there is always room for further improvement.

Phil Heatley: Why does the corporation own 145 State houses each with a market value of over $1 million?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Of course, when those houses were built they certainly were not of that value.

Russell Fairbrother: How successful has Housing New Zealand Corporation been in meeting community demand for affordable, quality housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Since 1999 Housing New Zealand Corporation has increased the number of homes it has available by 6,871, following a decade when National sold 13,000 houses. It has introduced income-related rents for 90 percent of its tenants on low incomes. It has introduced the Housing Innovation Fund, making available $285 million to local government and community organisations to upgrade and develop homes for needy families. It has substantially redeveloped six communities in New Zealand and refitted 13,568 houses to make them warmer, drier, and more energy efficient. And so it goes on.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. How many people are currently on the State housing waiting list, and how many of them were not New Zealand citizens at the time they applied for housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I will remind that member again, as I have done many times in this House before, that people cannot get a State house in New Zealand unless they are citizens or residents, and if they are residents they have to have been in New Zealand for 2 years, unless they are refugees—but they are still required to be residents of New Zealand.

Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although I think the Minister may have addressed my question, it asked about the number of applicants who were non - New Zealand citizens at the time of making application, not about the allocations themselves.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I imagine that if people who are non-citizens or non-residents have gone to a Housing New Zealand Corporation neighbourhood unit to put themselves down for a house, they would be told that they could not get one if they were not a resident or a New Zealand citizen. Anybody who was anticipating his or her residency or citizenship being granted may well have applied for a Housing New Zealand Corporation house, but I could not give an answer as to how many people did so.

Phil Heatley: Why did the Minister hide behind rateable valuations last year, when he said there were only three State houses worth over $1 million, instead of revealing to this House Quotable Value’s more realistic market valuations of 145 houses being worth $1 million - plus, or was he embarrassed about that information?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am not in the habit of hiding behind anyone, but I would like to say that with increasing housing values and the rising values of houses, of course Housing New Zealand Corporation houses will increase in value. As I have said to the member in the past, just because a house is worth over $1 million that does not mean to say it does not have a valid place to be a State house.

Phil Heatley: What confidence should the thousands of needy families on the waiting list have in this Minister if he refuses to trade in those 145 grossly overvalued houses for several hundred average State houses, so they too can have a roof over their heads?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: A lot more confidence than they should have in a spokesperson for National, which sold 13,000 houses—mostly to speculators, not tenants. I have said in this House many times before that the Government does sell some houses. Some houses may well be sold and the proceeds used for reinvestment for social housing. But this Government is committed to not selling off State houses, because we want New Zealanders to have the chance to live in affordable homes.

Phil Heatley: Since the Minister is claiming in this House today that he is selling or redeveloping these million dollar - plus homes, why is it that Quotable Value tells us the corporation had 124 of these million-dollar homes in 2005 but has 145 now?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: First of all, let us clarify that I never said that we would be selling off all of those houses. I said that Housing New Zealand has a policy of sometimes selling a few discrete houses for redevelopment. But in the end these are State assets that provide homes for people. That spokesperson comes from National, which hocked off State houses while in Government. I wonder how he deals with the 11,000 people who are now on the waiting list because a National Government sold off 13,000 State houses.

Phil Heatley: Why does the Minister not better arrange the housing stock and get more houses for his investment if he really cares about low-income people?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I will remind the House that this Government has built 6,871 State houses since it came into Government in 1999. National, while in Government, sold 13,000 houses.

Early Childhood Education—Free ECE Information Line

9. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does the Minister consider that the Free ECE Information line has been successful in informing parents about the 20 hours free scheme, and how many calls have been taken to date?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes, the Free ECE Information line—0800 204 433—has played a valuable role in informing parents about the 20 hours free scheme. The information line has received 3,753 calls as at 29 April.

Heather Roy: How can the Minister claim that the information line has been successful when the operators do not know which centres are opting into the scheme and which centres are not, and why are operators telling parents to contact non-teacher – led centres, such as playcentres, when they are clearly ineligible to participate?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am advised that in general the information line works effectively and has good systems in place. But we take any concerns about poor service very, very seriously. Minister Maharey is looking into that matter right now.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Apart from the helpline, what else is being done to make parents aware of 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Early childhood education centres themselves have an important role in getting information out to parents. They have been enthusiastic about doing that.

Hon Member: Name one.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The one in Gisborne. Centres have already ordered over 80,000 booklets for parents’ information and over 200,000 attestation forms for parents to fill in to claim their 20 free hours.

Metiria Turei: How does the Minister justify giving 20 free hours to private centres, which make a profit, but excluding playcentres from the 20 free hours programme when it would cost the Government only about $50 per term, per family, and some administrative support, to give them that same kind of programme and when playcentres have come out on top in the Competent Children study for long-term quality outcomes; and is the Minister not concerned that their exclusion from this policy could threaten their role in supporting New Zealand parents engaging in their children’s early childhood education?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There are different aspects in relation to who gets funded, and where, and when. The bottom line is that 92,000 children aged 3 and 4 will be eligible for this policy.

Heather Roy: What has been the cost to date of setting up and running the freephone information line, and does the Minister consider this to be value for taxpayer money when many parents cannot find a centre at which to enrol their 3 and 4-year-olds, making them truly ineligible?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Approximately $35,000 has been budgeted for running the information line. This is in line with other services of this type and, given the number of calls to date, well worth the cost.

Paula Bennett: How does the Minister respond to parents who were promised by this Government that they would get 20 hours free and are now facing the reality that it is simply not going to be available and that they were lied to?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Ninety-two thousand 3 and 4-year-olds will benefit from this—and this Government responds positively, always, to parents. We have done so consistently, and that is why they like this Government.

Heather Roy: Why is it that on the website 20hoursfree.blogspot.com, the organisers of a petition to force Labour to keep its election promise on this issue have more information available on which centres are participating than the ministry’s own information line?

Hon Member: That is debatable.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I doubt that very much—that is debatable.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table an analysis by Michelle Rush Consulting Ltd that describes the impacts of playcentres’ exclusion from the 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy.

Leave granted.

Paula Bennett: I seek leave to table a headline from today’s Christchurch Press that states: “Learning centres baulk at free hours”.

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

Question No. 8 to Minister

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I have just had some papers delivered to me. I seek leave to table answers from Quotable Value New Zealand’s annual review, stating that it valued 145 State houses worth over a million dollars each in 2006.

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

PHIL HEATLEY: I seek leave to table answers from Quotable Value’s annual review, stating that it valued 124 State houses worth over a million dollars each in 2005.

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

PHIL HEATLEY: I seek leave to table the Primary Production Committee’s report on Quotable Value New Zealand, confirming that it values million dollar-plus State houses each year.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): I seek leave to quote statistics from Statistics New Zealand showing that the average house price over the last 10 years has increased by 60 percent.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document—

Hon Members: No, it is not a document.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please clarify—is that a document?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is a document. Those who do not wish to give leave can voice that now. Is there any objection to leave being granted? Yes, there is objection.

Work Stoppages—Statistics

10. KATE WILKINSON (National) to the Minister of Labour: Is she satisfied with the current level of work stoppages as reported by her department; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): It is never good to see any breakdown at all in collective bargaining but I am very pleased to see that work stoppages are at a lower level under the Labour - Progressive Government’s Employment Relations Act than they were under National’s Employment Contracts Act—a trend that is obviously beneficial for both employers and employees.

Kate Wilkinson: Does she agree with the statement of the previous Minister of Labour, Margaret Wilson, that the number of industrial stoppages will be one measure of success of the Employment Relations Act; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If the primary point of the question is whether I agree with the previous Minister of Labour, who is now the Speaker, the Hon Margaret Wilson, the answer is most definitely yes.

Sue Moroney: Noting the Minister’s response to the primary question, can she tell the House what the average rate of work stoppages is under this Labour-led Government’s Employment Relations Act as compared to National’s Employment Contracts Act?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I certainly can. It shows that the rate of total stoppages has dropped by nearly 20 percent. It shows that stoppages are shorter by almost a third on average. It shows that the rate of working days lost has halved, and it shows that the losses in wages and salaries have almost halved. That is without taking into account the significantly increased number of people who are in the labour market at the moment. Those results have been achieved because the Employment Relations Act is fair and balanced and the Employment Contracts Act was not.

Kate Wilkinson: Given that the Employment Contracts Act had only 88 actual work stoppages in its last 3 years and the current Employment Relations Act has had 136 actual work stoppages in its last 3 years, which legislation has therefore been more successful in keeping work stoppages down?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am getting used to patsy questions from that member. It is a pleasure for me to repeat the information that I have just given to the House. Over a total comparison of the Employment Contracts Act as opposed to the Employment Relations Act, the rate of total stoppages has dropped by nearly 20 percent. Stoppages are shorter by almost a third on average. The rate of working days lost has halved and the losses in wages and salaries have almost halved. This is absolute confirmation of the success of the Employment Relations Act.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister recognise that nowadays the problem is not so much the number of strikes but more who is striking, as strikes that were once the domain of labourers have now moved on to embrace the medical industry in significant numbers; does she recognise that when the medical people go on strike it creates huge upheaval and there is much disquiet in the minds of many New Zealanders; and if she does recognise that, what will she do about it?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I completely agree with the sentiments behind the member’s question. It is never good to see any breakdown in collective bargaining, particularly in areas such as the health sector. That is one of the reasons that this Government has recently strengthened the code of good faith that is in the Employment Relations Act. I am able to give the House some further information about comparative industrial action within the health sector. The average number of health sector strikes per quarter under the Employment Contracts Act was 2.2, and under the Employment Relations Act it is 1.9—a 15 percent drop in the number of health sector industrial stoppages under our legislation.

Kate Wilkinson: Given that the last 2 years of the previous legislation yielded $6 million in lost wages and salaries in 2006 dollar terms and the last 2 years of the current legislation have yielded $10 million in lost wages, which legislation has therefore been more successful at preventing loss of wages and salaries?

Hon RUTH DYSON: At the risk of being incredibly repetitious, I am delighted to have that question, because, compared to the Employment Contracts Act, the Employment Relations Act has shown that industrial stoppages resulting in losses in wages and salaries have almost halved. To be precise, there has been a 48.3 percent reduction in lost wages and salaries under the Employment Relations Act compared with the Employment Contracts Act.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Minister draw the conclusion from the questions being asked by Kate Wilkinson that the National Party is now prepared to support again the Employment Contracts Act; if so, does she welcome that decision by the National Party?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I do assume that that is the basis for Kate Wilkinson’s questions—that the Employment Contracts Act is now on National’s agenda once more. Although that might be very good for Labour in terms of campaigning, if we ever had a National-led Government it would be disastrous for the public of New Zealand, both employers and employees, given the figures I have already relayed to the House in terms of lost wages, total stoppages, and length of stoppages. Those figures would be doubled under the Employment Contracts Act, compared with the Employment Relations Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Dr Smith’s point of order will be heard in silence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would have expected you to intervene right from the point of Dr Cullen’s question, which specifically asked the Minister to comment on National Party policy. That question is clearly outside her ministerial responsibilities. I know that on every one of the tough questions today Labour has been very keen to talk not about Government policy but about National policy. But I would expect you as Speaker to enforce the Standing Orders and to keep Ministers within their responsibilities.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I interpreted the question to be a continuation of the line of questioning that had come from the previous supplementary question, and that it was not, in fact, asking for a comment on the policy of the National Party as such.

Kate Wilkinson: When will the Minister concede that the number of work stoppages and the amount of wages lost in the best 3 years under the Employment Relations Act is worse than the best 3 years under the previous legislation; and when will she stop scaremongering over a supposed return to the 1990s and begin proposing real solutions to the current problems of low labour productivity and high levels of industrial action?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I just repeat for the member, and for the rest of the House, that under the total time of the Employment Relations Act, compared with the total time of the Employment Contracts Act, the rate of total stoppages has dropped by nearly 20 percent. Stoppages are shorter, on average, by almost a third. The rate of working days lost has halved, and the losses in wages and salaries have almost halved. I would have assumed that the member would want to quit while she was behind, instead of continuing to promote what is clearly a failed policy of the 1990s.

Real Estate Industry—Regulatory Regime

11. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied that the current regulatory regime for the real estate industry offers sufficient protection to consumers?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice): No, I am not. The regime for the real estate industry needs a major overhaul. The latest example is that of a Hamilton real estate agent who was warned by the Commerce Commission, and also fined the paltry sum of $750 by the industry for breaching its code of ethics, who cost John and Caitlin Ottaway at least $35,000. This individual was yesterday named by Harcourts as the top sales consultant for the central region. Harcourts describes the individual as “one of the most highly principled, ethical individuals that we work with.” This level of praise for this individual shows that the senior leadership in the real estate industry is completely out of touch with reality, and that the industry is overdue for major reform.

Lynne Pillay: What reforms does the Minister envisage for the industry?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The industry currently has the privilege of self-regulation. I gave the industry two chances to clean up its act under its own steam and at its own expense. Both times the industry’s proposals fell well short. At the end of this month I will be releasing the Government’s preferred options to clean up the industry and drive the so-called land sharks, who are ripping off good, decent people, out of it. Those real estate agents give the majority of hard-working, honest real estate agents a bad name. The reforms will deliver open, transparent, accessible, fair, and effective discipline and complaints processes. They will revamp licensing, training, enforcement, and industry standards, and, above all, will deliver robust, reliable, and inexpensive consumer protection.

Simon Power: How many more times will the Minister announce this reform before actually producing a document?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I will continue to announce the reform. That member had 9 years to do something about it and did nothing. I will continue to highlight to this House when so-called land sharks, like the person I mentioned, rip off good, honest, individual Kiwis, and also give every other real estate agent a bad name. If that member does not like it, tough! [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the House settle, please. We have only one more question to go.

Truancy—Māori

12. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: Has there been an increase in Māori truancy since 2002; if so, what was the size of that increase?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Education): Yes, there has been an increase of 2.2 percentage points. This Government has committed to accurately measuring and monitoring truancy, which has revealed the real extent of the problem—not like in the 1990s.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether the Minister heard the question. I was asking whether there has been an increase in Māori truancy since 2002.

Hon Annette King: He said “Yes”.

Hon Tau Henare: OK, thank you. [Interruption] Don’t panic.

Madam SPEAKER: Please just ask the question.

Hon Tau Henare: What is he doing about the 46 percent increase in Māori truancy and the more than 11,000 Māori students wagging school every week?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Much more than that member ever did in the 1990s, when he said that his Government would zero in on education. That is exactly what that Government did in relation to truancy—zero.

Moana Mackey: What initiatives have been developed and implemented to improve Māori participation in education and reduce the rate of truancy?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: This Government is doing plenty—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: That is it—be seated. The rest of question time will be heard in silence, or members will be asked to leave this Chamber—and they will be out until the end of the day—because I cannot hear what is being said.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We were only concerned for the member Moana Mackey, who actually had not finished asking her question by the time the Minister started his answer.

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order. The truth is that no one could hear what was being said or not said. Now would the Minister please—[Interruption] I said that question time would be heard in silence, otherwise members will leave the Chamber until the end of the day.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate your advice to the House how a member not being able to complete asking a question under the Standing Orders is not a matter of order. You have just told this House that it is not a matter of order. I would suggest to you that it is a matter of order—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I did not say that—as the member knows. What I was saying was that what the member was raising was demonstrably clear, the Minister had grasped what he thought the question was, and he was on his feet. The question was not finished because he did not hear it. It was the Minister’s judgment on that. So can we please continue—[Interruption] I am sorry; I have ruled on this matter. I have ruled on it and I will hear no more argument, I am sorry, unless it is an entirely new point of order.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is the right of every member of this House to raise points of order, whether or not you like it. Is it your ruling now, Madam Speaker, that it is the right of a Minister to determine whether a member of this House has completed asking his or her question?

Madam SPEAKER: It is certainly the right of every member in this House to raise points of order. There is no question about that. It is also the right of the Speaker to rule on those points of order. I ruled on the point of order. As the member knows, being a long-term member in this House, it was for the member herself to raise the issue, if she felt that she had been disadvantaged—or any member had been—in asking the question. She did not raise it. We will now have a different point of order.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This point of order relates to my entitlement to have a ruling on the point of order that I just raised, and that is whether, Madam Speaker, you have now ruled that Ministers can now determine when a question has been completed—just so that members know what your rulings mean for the future.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, and if the members who are asking the questions feel that they are disadvantaged by that, they have every right to object.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: This Government is doing plenty, like Staying at School, the district truancy service, ENROL—the student management system—Te Kotahitanga, Te Mana, and Ka Hikitea. When this Government realised late last year that there was an increase, we provided an additional $2 million to the district truancy service—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: It doesn’t make any difference.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: —to deliver support to the areas that most need it and reduce truancy—it does.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry; I ruled that question time would be heard in silence, and that those members who intervened would leave the Chamber. Would the member please leave the Chamber.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu withdrew from the Chamber.

Pita Paraone: What proportion of those students granted dispensation from school over the last 5 years were as a consequence of truancy, and how many of them were of Māori descent, and, in particular, Māori males—given the unacceptably high number of this group who leave school without any qualifications?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: A high percentage of Māori males is involved in the truancy area, but I can tell the House that what is significant is the measuring and the monitoring that go on now. We can sort out and know who is missing in the morning and in the afternoon of every week, which certainly builds the numbers. What we are able to do now is to manage it better. I can tell the member that there has been a significant reduction in Māori youth unemployment. The number of unemployed 18 and 19-year-old Māoris—the people who have left—is 600 now, compared with 6,000 in 1999.

Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although the response from the Minister may have addressed some other question, I actually asked what proportion of students granted dispensation from school was as a consequence of truancy.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I do not have that information, but I am more than happy to provide it.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Tau Henare: Has the Minister connected the 46 percent increase with other statistics showing that 50 percent of Māori boys leave school without a qualification, or that one in six Māori 15-year-olds do not have basic literacy or numeracy skills; and what specific programmes has he put in place over the last 7 years to stop the rot?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: We have put seven programmes in place, but I remind that member that as the demographic grows in that age cohort, more Māoris go to secondary school. But, most of all, what we have put in place is one of the lowest unemployment rates in this country. There are more Māori in work. They are doing what they did in the 1980s, a lot of these young blokes—leaving school too early. We are committed to keeping them there—like when they left and went to Wainuiōmata, when there was more work for anybody and anyone.

Hon Tau Henare: Does the Minister agree with Professor Bishop of Waikato University that the official statistics involving Māori students represent a time bomb of problems for the future, and does the Minister take any responsibility for the worsening of the situation on his watch?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I take all of my responsibilities seriously, and take very seriously the partnership I have with Russell Bishop in relation to developing kotahitanga. After being tested over a period of 18 months, it has been expanded to 21 other schools, and we will continue to do that. We have supported and funded Dr Bishop’s research, and we are strongly in support of that.

Hon Tau Henare: Given the Minister’s answer, when will he direct greater resources towards Professor Bishop’s kotahitanga and not limit it to just 20-odd schools in the country, given that the success rate for kotahitanga will be immeasurable to Māori students?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am glad I was one of the architects of kotahitanga, because certainly it pervades this education system. It is about the effectiveness of the relationship between the teacher and the student, and that is where we have moved the resource behind kotahitanga. Dr Bishop is well-resourced and it certainly is growing around the country, with this Government’s commitment. [Interruption]

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just heard a fairly loud interjection from the other side. You ejected one of the quietest members of this House a minute a go, and I think that that member should go as well.

Madam SPEAKER: The member can finish his question, to the end of question time, and then he will leave the Chamber.

Hon Tau Henare: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do apologise to the House. How many more strategies, frameworks, and programmes does he have in the pipeline for Māori education, or is he about to anoint Moana Mackey as the new Tai Rāwhiti candidate for the Labour Party, for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and leave this House, having done absolutely nothing and having seen the statistics in Māori education rise poorly through the roof, and the only people who will benefit are himself and his wage packet for the next 2 or 3 years—[Interruption] Nine months, yeah?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is the sort of cynicism that pervades this House; that shocking member, when he was a Minister, did nothing for Māori. He did nothing for education. I can say that the—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That member made a pointed remark in relation to my role as a member. What I can tell that member is that the degree situation in this country has doubled since I have been here. There are more kura built, there are more issues in relation to Māori achievement, than that member or his party created in their time. At the end of the day, when he gets so smart alec and tries to get personal, he wants to grow up and leave this House. That is a disgrace.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please withdraw and apologise for that last comment. It was disorderly. Please withdraw and apologise.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

ENDS