Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Questions to Ministers

Corrections, Minister—Confidence

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

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister believe that the Minister of Corrections has done the right thing in failing to hold his department to account for misleading the Ombudsman, an Officer of Parliament?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not aware that the Minister has failed to hold the department to account for that matter. I am prepared to discuss further with the member the issue of the exact nature of the reports of the Ombudsman.

Hon Bill English: How is it that the Prime Minister is unaware of whether the Minister has held anyone in the Department of Corrections accountable for misleading the Ombudsman; is it the case that she is not taking any notice because she does not think it is important and it is just time to move on?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I assume that the member is referring to the annual report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 2005, in which it was stated that in March 2004 the department had approved new standards in relation to certain matters, and that since August all new vehicles had been fitted with the appropriate heating and ventilation systems so that they met the required standard. That, in fact, was correct. It was also true that the department, by the stage of the release of that report, had made a decision to withdraw those standards but had not done so at that point.

Hon Bill English: What discussions has she, any member of her staff, or Cabinet had with the Minister of Corrections about the many weaknesses and continuous flow of scandals coming out of the Department of Corrections, and about whether that Minister is capable of fixing any single problem in the department?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A range of discussions have occurred, and, of course, the Minister is responsible for ensuring that there will now be a major review of the head office and changes in the head office organisation to ensure proper lines of accountability, which only a few moments ago the member was calling for.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Prime Minister believe that this Minister is capable of carrying out a full review and correcting all problems, when the record of his stewardship since he took office is one of scandal, mishandling, delay, and misleading the public; and why is she so out of line with public opinion on this issue?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is clear there have been major failings in the Department of Corrections systems. It is also clear that escapes from prison custody have gone down by 78 percent under this Government, and that assaults on Department of Corrections officers by prisoners have reduced by 90 percent under this Government.

Hon Bill English: They can’t escape if they’ve been killed.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is a stupid comment coming from the member. One person, sadly, died in custody. That leaves many thousands of others that under a National Government would have been five times as likely to escape and ten times as likely to have assaulted a Department of Corrections officer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which political party and Government introduced the privatised movement of prisoners, where the Department of Corrections is concerned?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The decision to privatise those services was taken under the previous National Government, which also wished to privatise the entire prison system—a move that was reversed by the incoming Labour Government.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that all the contracts with Chubb were renewed in 2004—under her Government—and that those contracts could be changed at any time but the Department of Corrections did not do so, and that the result was that Liam Ashley died?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed, the contracts were renewed, but they were not responsible for Liam Ashley’s death. His death was due to a significant number of different failings within the system, including a communications failure between Department of Corrections and Chubb staff.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Corrections’ decision to use waist restraints, which cuff people’s wrists to their waists, on prisoners being transported, when the Chief Ombudsman stated that the practice of Chubb to handcuff all prisoners is wrong and when the report clearly argues against the universal use of restraints on prisoners being transported?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is worth reminding ourselves that this issue has risen essentially because a young prisoner in custody was assaulted and killed by another prisoner. There is indeed a trade-off between so-called humane treatment and security, including security for other prisoners, within the same piece of equipment in which they are travelling. That trade-off is not an easy one. As usual, everyone wants to be wise after the event, no matter what decision was made.

Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister regarded the death of Liam Ashley as so tragic, why did she not attend his funeral?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not think that is a question that deserves an answer.

Nandor Tanczos: Would the Minister please demonstrate to the House, using knowledge of physics, what is likely to happen to prisoners whose wrists are restrained to their waists should the van in which they are travelling, even at 50 kilometres an hour, hit a stationary object?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Very much what happens to any people whose hands are not strapped to their waists and who are not strapped into a seatbelt if they hit a stationary object. I point out to the member that we do not demand that school buses have seatbelts and restraints. I think the public would think it to be very strange if we insisted on such restraints for prisoners while not providing them for schoolchildren.

Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand—Security Guard Services

2. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: Has the New Zealand Defence Force selected a successful tenderer for the provision of security guard services at Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand for the New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): Yes, though no contract has yet been signed. As a result of information I now have about a serious lapse by the company concerned when contracted with another Government department, I have asked the New Zealand Defence Force to reconsider whether granting the tender to the company is appropriate, and whether the tenderer is still compliant with the terms of the contract.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister confirm from his very recent investigations that the directors of the successful tenderer are the same directors who headed Specialised Guard Services, which last year provided two unlicensed guards, one of whom was a gang member with convictions for rape and serious assault, and the other of whom had convictions for dishonesty, to work at the Wellington Central Police Station, supervising a suicidal female inmate?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I can confirm that, and it is the seriousness of that lapse of the company on that occasion that has led me to ask the Defence Force to reconsider the tender. I am advised that the overall reputation of the company concerned is generally reasonably good, but that lapse was clearly a very serious lapse. The same thing would not apply with the Defence Force, of course, with regard to its headquarters, in that a subsequent police vetting is required, followed by an SIS vetting. The vetting process within the Defence Force ensures that inappropriate people do not end up in jobs like that.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister therefore confirm to the House that he is now aware that Defence Force tenders required that the tenderers describe in their applications their experience and expertise in providing appropriate personnel, and to detail the security, vetting, and clearance procedures they use for assessing the staff they employ; and why, despite that clear requirement, was the Defence Force on the verge of signing up this company to a Defence Force contract to provide security at joint force headquarters?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am advised by the Defence Force that at the time the tender process was conducted it was not aware of that lapse, notwithstanding the fact that it had been discussed in this House and was public knowledge. The Defence Force is now going back to look at the overall record of the company. In fact, I would have expected that, given the public nature of that incident, the company would have volunteered that information to the Defence Force, if it had been totally upfront.

Ron Mark: Would it, then, surprise the Minister to learn that, indeed, the Defence Force has known about this lapse in security, it has sought to defend it against inquiring individuals, and IT has not disclosed those facts to him?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am not aware of the material the member has just presented to the House. What I do know is that the contract will be re-examined. It has not yet been signed, so the Defence Force is able to re-examine it. Hard questions need to be asked of the company concerned, notwithstanding its having a generally quite good reputation around the country. This matter is something it should have disclosed to the Defence Force in its tender.

Ron Mark: Would it therefore concern the Minister to know that inquiring individuals were asking questions of the Defence Force at least, I think, 4 weeks ago about its intentions to give this contract to this company, a company that has changed its name and has operated under three different company names, that is still led by the same former National Party candidate for Parliament, Dale Stephens, and that was on the verge of getting that contract until the Minister made his inquiries this morning as a result of New Zealand First laying down an oral question about the matter?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I think it would be a very good thing if inquiring individuals came directly to the Minister; the Minister would take care of it.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

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

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

Simon Power: Did his department deceive the Ombudsmen when it told them, in 2004 and 2005, that it had developed national standards for prisoner transport and upgraded its vans, when it clearly had not, leading the Ombudsmen to make incorrect statements in their own annual reports for those years?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The information I have been provided with, in relation to this incident, says that there was no intention to deceive the Ombudsmen at all, and the information supplied was indeed accurate. I am not sure why the Ombudsmen may have misinterpreted that information, but it is something I will find out more about, and I will be happy to answer that question if the member wants to come back to me.

Simon Power: Does he stand by his statements in this morning’s New Zealand Herald that he had “not yet identified the person who may have sent that report to the Ombudsmen” and that it had “been difficult to isolate who was accountable on the issue”, when surely the people who are accountable on this issue are the chief executive and the Minister?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have one letter that was sent to the Ombudsmen from one of the senior managers. I am checking whether that was the information supplied, or whether there were other letters. That is something I will get to the bottom of.

Simon Power: How can the Minister have confidence in his chief executive, when the executive disagreed with the Ombudsman’s finding that a lack of communication between the national office and frontline staff led to inconsistent practice, yet for a year and a half management did not bother to tell staff that proposed national standards for prisoner transport had been revoked and that in one case local prison staff were delivered a new vehicle and were left to design and fit the interior themselves when they had little or no idea how to go about it?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The facts were, at the time, that the prison transportation system was run on a prison by prison basis. I have instructed the chief executive to change that and to have one national system that will better enable head office directives to go to each and every staff person regardless of the prison he or she works at.

Simon Power: Is the Minister now telling the House and the people of New Zealand that it is the Ombudsman’s fault that he misunderstood the reply of the Department of Corrections in 2004, or does he want to take this opportunity to revisit that answer?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not blaming the Ombudsman at all. What I am saying is that the information I have access to, which was provided to the Ombudsman, is accurate. It may not have included all the information the Ombudsman wanted—that is something I am investigating—but it is reasonable to assume that the Ombudsman could have misinterpreted that information.

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s view that Barry Matthews is “an exceptional chief executive”; if so, how does he reconcile this with his statements to the media in the past 24 hours that his senior managers were “on notice”, that Mr Matthews “stays for the moment”, and that “he’s not a disaster every week”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The chief executive is exceptional but he has an exceptionally challenging job. He has to get on with that job and make the changes following the restructuring of the head office to ensure that clear lines of communication and accountability go from top to bottom in the Department of Corrections.

Nandor Tanczos: Can the Minister explain to the House his confidence in his department when one of the key criticisms in the Ombudsman’s report—which is the lack of ability to monitor prisoners while they are in transportation—is an issue that would seem to be a question of basic prisoner safety and public safety; and how can he explain that his department has paid, seemingly, no attention to that matter to this date?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are paying attention to that, and all new prison vans, as they come into the system, have been redesigned to better facilitate the observation of each and every prisoner. The situation we have at the moment is not ideal, but as new prison vans come on stream and as the design standards are nationalised, we will have a better ability to observe each and every prisoner.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister have confidence that the Government will commit to providing the resources necessary to implement the recommendations of the Chief Ombudsman’s report on prison transport, which is estimated to be a $30 million investment, in order to ensure safe and humane transportation of prisoners?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have said we accept all the recommendations. However, some of them are going to be difficult to implement and some of them require further negotiation with the Ombudsman—such as his wish to see prisoner vans stop whenever a prisoner wants to go to the toilet. I do not think that is reasonable. He also wishes to see prisoners have access to escape hatches. I think that is potentially dangerous and we need further discussions on that. There are a few issues that have yet to be resolved, but we accept the recommendations in the spirit in which they are made.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister has actually misrepresented the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Simon Power: Does he stand by his statement in the New Zealand Herald this morning that the department will implement all recommendations in the report?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We will do so in a cost-effective and practicable manner. We will not implement ridiculous proposals that may put the public, prison staff, or prisoners in danger. We have to work through a number of those key recommendations to make sure they can be implemented in a sensible way.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was pretty straightforward. It required only a yes or no answer, and the question was whether he would implement all the recommendations of the Ombudsman, as he stated in the New Zealand Herald this morning. I simply required a “Yes” or “No”.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member well knows, he cannot require an answer “Yes” or “No”, but the Minister in this case did address the question.

Question No. 2 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I apologise; I should have done this at the end of my question, question No. 2. I seek leave to table the New Zealand Defence Force tender application documents, which require tenderers to describe their experience in providing appropriate personnel.

Leave granted.

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table a list from the Ministry of Justice website that shows that the successful tenderer employed only 26 registered security guards.

Leave granted.

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table an article from the Dominion Post dated 22 June 2006 that clearly identifies Specialised Guard Services and its failures at the Wellington Central Police Station.

Leave granted.

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave of the House to table documentation that New Zealand First was able to glean from the Minister of Justice and the Companies Register in 10 minutes—information that the Ministry of Defence could not seem to find out in about 3 months.

Leave granted.

Student Loans—Interest-free Policy

4. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What reports, if any, has he received on support for the interest-free student loan scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): I received a report that states: “There are half a million New Zealanders who’ve now got used to not paying interest and we have to listen to that pretty carefully.” and: “… you’ve got half a million New Zealanders now with zero percent loans and that’s a pretty hard thing to turn around and say it’s over.” That is Mr Key’s answer to the question: “If elected Government, would National keep the student loan interest write-off scheme?”. It sounds like a tentative “Yes”.

Moana Mackey: What reports has he received indicating concerns about the student loan scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have received a number of written questions expressing concerns that “… interest free student loans are directing saving resources away from other priorities … while at the same time creating no obvious educational benefits.” and “What is fair about taxing people without tertiary education in order to pay for an interest free student loan scheme?”. Those questions came from the Opposition spokesperson on tertiary education, Dr Paul Hutchison. Those statements sound like a definite “No” to the question that Mr Key was asked.

Moana Mackey: What are the benefits of the interest-free student loan policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The student loan interest-free policy “cuts the cost to students of tertiary study and encourages skilled New Zealanders to stay in New Zealand.” It should be noted that Mr Key campaigned against it and voted against it.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister consider it reasonable that the number of students who must borrow living costs is almost the same as the number of students eligible for the student allowance; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Ever since the modern form of student allowances was introduced—many years ago now—the allowances have been income-tested on parental income. Even now, despite the large number of people who go into tertiary education, there is still some bias towards people from higher-income groups compared with those from lower-income groups. I would not consider it unreasonable that those on higher incomes made some contribution to the cost of their young person’s education.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Additional Fees

5. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Why will some parents pay more in fees because their child is attending a kindergarten that has decided to offer 20 free hours of early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I am not aware of any instance where parents who use their 20 free hours at a service that is a member of a kindergarten association would pay more fees.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister pretend that 20 hours free is free, when parents will pay for the policy through increased fees overall, reductions in service quality, and cross-subsidies from other preschooler-aged groups?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because I am not aware of that.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What advice has the Minister received about a proposal to abolish free early childhood education and reimpose fees on thousands of New Zealand families?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My understanding is that there is a secret plan to that effect but it is being kept quiet at this moment. The aim at the moment is to sabotage free early childhood education and deny parents savings they would gain from it. But I know that as this policy proves to be the success we all know it will be, on the National Party side they will undoubtedly come around to John Key’s view that they have to flip-flop and support 20 hours free.

Katherine Rich: How can free be free when some parents will pay more for 20 hours free than they pay for early childhood education at present, and how can the Minister stand in the House and say he is not aware of any examples, when he needs only to read a newspaper or his in-tray of correspondence?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member knows, 20 hours free means free. However, of course, as part of the policy there is an acknowledgment that in some centres they do things above the regulated level of quality education. So in some cases people offer an optional charge to be paid for some of those services. However, 20 hours free is 20 hours free.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister know that the word “free” usually means no payment whatsoever, and how does he reconcile his own definition with the number of centres up and down the country that are planning to recoup costs by seeking charges from parents, reducing quality, and, in some cases, asking workers to take a pay cut?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If the member has an example of that, she might like to bring it to my attention, because one of the things we are doing is visiting centres where they are not clear, and making sure that they are. For example, I thought that today the member might have raised the example of a private service that has identified itself as a kindergarten, since she has been asking questions about it. It is identifying itself as offering a surcharge of $20 a day. It previously charged $36. I have asked my officials to have a chat with that centre to make sure it understands that 20 hours free means 20 hours free, and that optional charges have to be genuinely additional and they have to be explained and agreed to by the parent.

Paula Bennett: Why do high-quality, responsible early childhood education centres, like The Treehouse Private Kindergarten in Tauranga, have to bend the free rules by announcing to parents that they will receive 20 free hours per week with a top-up quality education surcharge of $20 per day to cover things such as interesting and educational guests, and a beautiful and aesthetic learning environment; and how is this free?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I know that the member had lined up that question and therefore did not listen to my answer previously on this very centre, so let me just repeat it. That centre is asking for a $20 surcharge and has identified a range of services that it believes are above the regulated level that it wants to provide. I have asked the Ministry of Education to drop by and have a chat with the people at the centre to make sure they understand that 20 hours free is free and that optional charges have to be agreed to by parents.

Paula Bennett: As it is merely one example, if 20 free hours is really free, why has The Treehouse increased its fees for 2-year-olds, charging $20 per day for 3 and 4-year-olds, and why do those people on a Work and Income subsidy who were getting their early childhood education for free now have to pay $20 a day, as for them 20 hours free has simply morphed into $20?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have no doubt there are some centres that are confused about this policy, given that Miss Bennett herself has been moving around the country trying to undermine it. As I said, I am well aware of this particular example. It is the only example the Opposition is giving today, and the ministry will be going to see the centre. But I say to the member too that I do appreciate her recent visit to Gisborne. As a result of her visit the number of people in free early childhood education has gone up. If she wants help to go to any other centre, I am more than happy to help.

Rodney Hide: Is the Minister not concerned that he is enhancing his reputation for being unnecessarily tricky, given that, with a solemn election promise of 20 free hours, he cannot tell the people of New Zealand just how many young preschoolers will qualify, what the actual cost to parents will be, or what the actual commitment from the Government is; what sort of election-year promise and policy is that, when the Minister cannot give us a clear answer on those three points?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member is enhancing his reputation for being premature, because if he had been following this policy he would know that since April people have been getting attestation forms, and filling them out and giving them to their centres. During June those forms are being put together, and those centres that are coming into the scheme are sending in their applications to be part of the scheme. At the end of this month, I think, there will be some reliable figures to tell the member. So if he just waits till then, I am sure I can give him the figures.

Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would just like to give the Minister an opportunity to correct his answer. The last time I was in Gisborne was in January at our caucus retreat, so he might like to take advice from the people I spoke to—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member was in Whakatāne but she is welcome in Gisborne, because I am sure they have got it there as well.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I noticed the Minister said he had seen only one example. I seek leave to table this week’s community newspaper in my own area, where Paula’s Preschool says that its 20 free hours policy will require a new, additional charge.

Leave granted.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Availability

6. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps are under way to provide New Zealand families with 20 hours of free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Coincidentally, I happen to have a similar answer to that to the previous question. In April early childhood services began ordering forms for parents to claim their free hours, and are now starting to have meetings with parents and to talk about the policy. The initial applications from services to take up free early childhood education are now making their way through the Ministry of Education, and the signs are looking good. This will result in tens of thousands of New Zealand families receiving 20 hours’ free early childhood education from 1 July, and as the policy rolls out over the next year I am confident that even more services will offer that policy to parents.

Sue Moroney: What feedback has the Minister been getting about the free early childhood education policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The New Zealand Childcare Association says it is “an important step in the direction of publicly funded ECE and creates a level playing field where parents can choose the service they want, regardless of cost”. The Waikato Kindergarten Association calls it a wonderful initiative. The Lower Hutt Kindergarten Association says it is a fantastic opportunity to reduce costs to families. I was pleased to see yesterday that the Auckland Kindergarten Association, with over 5,500 children, is taking up free early childhood education. The Ministry of Education reports positive feedback from the 165 face-to-face meetings with services around the country, and I do want to repeat that I am delighted with the progress that Paula Bennett is making in promoting this policy. As I said before, after her visit to Whakatāne the numbers went up.

Katherine Rich: What sort of death wish does the Minister have, in arranging a patsy question to himself on the subject of 20 free hours, when the decision of the Auckland Kindergarten Association to implement his policy is the most reluctant so far, with its press release today using phrases like “reluctantly agreed”, “still real concerns”, “continual review”, and “If the financial position of the AKA is threatened, we will seriously consider withdrawing from this policy.”—it is hardly a ringing endorsement?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I just want to say to the member that I know this hurts, but the association is in.

Capital and Coast District Health Board—Chair and Deputy Chair

7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Has he discussed the circumstances of the “serious conflict of interest” involving his appointee as deputy chair of the Capital and Coast District Health Board, Ken Douglas, with the chair of the board; if so, when?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): No.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why does the Minister think that the chairwoman of the district health board was concerned enough about Ken Douglas’s involvement to get two legal opinions, but this Minister will not even raise any concerns with her?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because she is a conscientious and hard-working chairperson.

Barbara Stewart: Would Mr Douglas receive any pecuniary advantage in the event of a contract being awarded to Healthcare of New Zealand Holdings Ltd; and how does his situation compare with that of Dr Bierre?

Hon PETE HODGSON: A pretty interesting question! Mr Douglas stated in a letter to the chair a month or two ago—before he was deputy chair, actually—that he does not have any direct pecuniary interest arising from his shareholding as a non-executive director in Healthcare of New Zealand, and that he has no contractual—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Why has he got a shareholding?

Gerry Brownlee: Don’t try that one. He’s a director, a shareholding director, with no pecuniary interest?

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please be seated. Members wish to hear the Minister’s answer. Would the Minister please start again.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me quote from a letter that Ken Douglas wrote to his chair on 29 March, where he says: “As a non-executive director I do not have any direct pecuniary interest arising from Healthcare of New Zealand Holdings Ltd’s contracts, and I have no personal contractual relationships with Capital and Coast DHB or any other DHB.” I would contrast that with National Party member and good mate of Jackie Blue, Dr Tony Bierre, who had a 15 percent shareholding in Labtests Auckland, and therefore a 15 percent share of the profits of a half-billion-dollar contract, when his contribution to the working capital of that company was zero—or zilch, or diddly squat—and that pecuniary interest was acquired through what Justice Asher labelled an improper use of knowledge. So there is the contrast: upfront honesty from a member of the Order of New Zealand, versus insider trading from another Tory.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it appropriate for a district health board member to participate in discussions on a proposal to later contract out services, knowing that a company of which he is a director is going to bid for those contracts, without declaring that specific interest at the time—or does the Minister not care?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The management of conflicts of interest remain the problem and property of the boards. That is the law.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, pass the buck.

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is the law—the law. That is the law. You see, black-letter law—that is what I follow. I follow the letter of the law. Let me give the House another quote from the letter from Ken Douglas to his chair of 29 March: “It would be helpful for the management to inform me of all possible areas of conflict, both current and in the future.” This is a man who not only declares his interests but who wants help from the management in managing his interests proactively—and that compares with a dirty Tory who decided that he would not tell all the truth, and therefore a half-billion-dollar contract went to ground.

Madam SPEAKER: Oh, that is inappropriate.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why will the Minister not answer the question of whether he would approve of a district health board member participating in a discussion on the later contracting out of services, when that member is a director of a likely bidder for those contracts and did not declare that specific interest at the time nor excuse himself from those discussions—why will the Minister not answer that question?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Staff from the Ministry of Health, who are my advisers, advise me even this week—even today—that they have no reason to believe there is anything untoward in conflict of interest management in respect of Ken Douglas or in respect of any other member of the Capital and Coast District Health Board.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister saying that because Ken Douglas wrote on 29 March to advise that he had an interest as a director in contracts between Healthcare of New Zealand Holdings and the district health board, that excuses his behaviour of attending a meeting of the Capital and Coast District Health Board on 7 February 2007 where he participated in a discussion on the later contracting out of community health care services, and where he did not specifically declare his interest as a director of a company that would be a likely bidder nor excuse himself from those discussions?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member forgets that conflicts of interest are recorded in a conflicts of interest register that is itself a matter of public information that the member can easily get hold of should he wish. He can trail through the register and trail through the business of the board, and see whether he is comfortable. My advisers advise me that they are comfortable.

Maryan Street: For the information of the House, what is the difference between a conflicted district health board member who openly declares a conflict of interest so that it may be properly managed and a conflicted district health board member who does not do that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is precisely the point; that is precisely the difference between Mr Douglas and Dr Bierre. Mr Douglas has gone to great lengths to declare his interests in detail, so that they can be transparently managed. Dr Bierre’s history can be found in a High Court judgment on a case in which the contrast could not be more stark. He was a National Party member, a friend of Dr Jackie Blue, and the judge said that he made improper use of knowledge—he was an insider trader.

Hon Tony Ryall: In giving his answer to these questions and quoting from Justice Asher’s ruling, is the Minister also aware of Justice Asher’s ruling that in allowing Dr Bierre to continue to be involved in discussions about the services while he wished to bid for them himself, the board permitted that process to be damaged and that it was impossible for Dr Bierre to divorce himself of his knowledge of the board’s philosophy and wishes; Ken Douglas did not declare a specific interest involved in the contracting out of community services at the Capital and Coast District Health Board meeting of 7 February 2007, doing so only on 29 March, and will the Minister now answer the question of whether he would approve of that behaviour?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The board manages conflict of interest issues, but here is a clue: one person has a non-executive director role, and cannot be advantaged or disadvantaged by that company getting some value or not from a contract—cannot be personally advantaged, as he said in a letter. The other person had a 15 percent stake in an interest in a company, and would have picked up 15 percent of the profits of a half-billion-dollar contract had the High Court judge not stopped him. That is the difference between the two people. I wonder whether the member who asks the question can see the difference; I can.

Hon Tony Ryall: If Ken Douglas’ conflict of interest is so well handled, why has the chairwoman of the Capital and Coast District Health Board called for two detailed legal opinions on Ken Douglas’ behaviour, and does the Minister expect to wash his hands, like Pontius Pilate, of every seedy conflict in the district health boards?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because she is a conscientious and hard-working chairperson, I strongly support her getting legal support if she feels that she needs it—[Interruption] The member is yelling back at me. Does he want to hear the answer, or does he not? He does not want to hear the answer; that is fine.

Taxation—Thresholds

8. GORDON COPELAND (Independent) to the Minister of Finance: Why has he now abandoned his Budget 2005 commitment to a small adjustment to the current tax thresholds, from $38,000 to $40,324 and from $60,000 to $63,672 to offset, at least to some extent, inflation for the 3-year period between 2005 and 2008?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker—[Interruption] Those members opposite just cannot wait for their extra $5 a week! Because that would have injected a further $400 million into the economy in 2008-09, and that would not have been responsible in the current macroeconomic environment. It was more responsible to enhance KiwiSaver. That is why I was pleased that at a pre-Budget meeting the member accepted that trade-off—however reluctantly.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister realise that a person on the then average wage of $36,000 in 2002 now needs to earn about $44,000 to cover the increases in the cost of living, and that as a result of moving from the 19.5c to the 33c tax bracket, that person is now almost $2,000 per annum worse off, after tax; if so, does he intend to fix that while he still has the opportunity to do so?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Real after-tax incomes have increased over the last 7½ years. Real household after-tax incomes have increased significantly over the last 7½ years. The member may have noticed that the Reserve Bank recently put up the interest rate. Had I injected another $400 million a year into demand, it is likely that those increases would have been higher, thus reducing people’s real incomes.

Hon Mark Gosche: Does he stand by his statement: “There will be a time for personal tax cuts as fiscal and economic pressures ease.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I indicated before the Budget, I hope to be in a position to announce the timing and shape of personal tax changes over the long term, in my next Budget. I note that Mr English has said that now is not the time for extensive tax cuts, thus agreeing with me. He has quantified the maximum amount available as $500 million a year, which would give most taxpayers no more than about $1 a week, and $5 a week if spread equally across the entire range of taxpayers. That is what $500 million a year is, I say to Mr English.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that our current high dollar and interest rate led to the intervention by the Reserve Bank on Monday; if so, does he believe that increases in tax thresholds at this time would only add to inflationary pressure?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the governor said quite clearly, the major factor in the rise was the proposed Fonterra payout injecting some $2 billion extra into the economy. [Interruption] Well, that is what the Governor of the Reserve Bank actually said. If the member wants to show the same contempt for the governor as he shows for the legal system, that is fine by me.

Coroners—Appointment Process

9. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Attorney-General: Is he satisfied that the appointments process for the new coronial system has worked well; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General): Not entirely; overall success was marred by the fact that one of the proposed appointees in Hamilton had to withdraw over an oversight in the process, for which she was not responsible.

Christopher Finlayson: Is not the truth of the matter that the process is a shambles and an embarrassment to the Government, because the Minister, having been rolled by backbenchers Marian Hobbs and Charles Chauvel, has had to back down from his petty and catty decision not to make Garry Evans a full-time coroner, and now offer him a temporary position?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: First of all, I bow to that member as an expert on pettiness and cattiness; there is no doubt about that particular fact. Secondly, I have not been lobbied by Marian Hobbs and Charles Chauvel. Thirdly, Mr Evans has been appointed as a relief coroner, because Judge MacLean has discovered there is a 1,900 case backlog, which shows how much the system needed changing.

Charles Chauvel: What reports has he seen on whether those involved in the appointments process were satisfied with the outcome?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report from the Napier coroner, Warwick Holmes, who was not appointed to the new, full-time position. He said: “You’re not hearing complaints from me or any other coroner of the appointments. What should be understood is that we endorse it, because we have been the people who have been collectively urging the changes.”

Christopher Finlayson: Will the Attorney-General now confirm that both the new chief coroner and the interview panel recommended the appointment of Mr Evans as a full-time coroner, and that the Attorney-General rejected those recommendations in his usual vindictive manner, much to the disgust of trade unions, Marian Hobbs, Charles Chauvel, the press, the legal profession, victims’ families, and, indeed, most of Wellington, and will he release that advice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I certainly will not. I would never release advice of that sort in relation to appointments. The member is falling into the same trap as the editor of the Dominion Post. Nobody was sacked. All current part-time coronial positions ceased, as the member should know because he participated, I assume, in the development of that legislation. One-third of the previous part-time positions became full-time positions. Many coroners were not reappointed. The new coroner for Wellington is a very outspoken person. The new coroner for Rotorua appeared on television opposing Government legislation.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare. Has the Minister read the comment from Rima Edwards, the Chairman of Te Rūnanga o Muriwhenua, who said that the Coroners Act “will mean that bodies may be held for up to 6 days before being returned to whānau for tangi; that should the implications be devastating, as we think they will be, then we think our community should up rise to a peaceful protest”; and what will he be doing to resolve the concerns of Māori and others in the far north about the fact that from next month on there will be no registered pathologist north of Whangarei?

Madam SPEAKER: That question is quite wide of the original question, which related to appointments.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask the member whether he meant to say “coroner” not “pathologist”?

Hone Harawira: Coroner.

Madam SPEAKER: The issue really is that the primary question quite specifically relates to appointments. That supplementary question was quite broad. I do not know whether the Attorney-General would wish to make a comment anyway.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have not seen those comments. I am concerned that there may be long delays. This is a matter has been the subject of legislation since as long ago as the 1980s to try to improve matters in that regard. I would expect the new, full-time, professional body of coroners to be able to achieve, on average, faster results. The fact that 1,900 cases from the previous, part-time coronial system remain unresolved shows the need for change to that system.

Christopher Finlayson: What is more humiliating to the Government: Marian Hobbs rolling Rick Barker on funding for the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary, or Marian Hobbs rolling Michael Cullen over the appointment of Garry Evans?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I hate to disappoint the member’s fantasy life but I have not been rolled by Marian Hobbs—much as I might wish I could be.

3-D Digital Industry—Developments

10. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Has he received any reports on recent developments in New Zealand’s 3-D digital industry?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Acting Minister for Economic Development): Yes, I have received a report on Nextspace, the research and innovation centre linked to Right Hemisphere. Nextspace will receive $7 million in funding over the next 3 years for a series of initiatives aimed at bolstering a range of Kiwi 3-D digital content and graphics firms and research institutions. Nextspace will leverage the Government’s agreement with Right Hemisphere by building an online graphics technology cluster for New Zealand.

Dave Hereora: Has he seen any reports on this Government supporting the development of a 3-D digital industry in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes. I saw one in the New Zealand Herald that stated: “Officials and Ministers should not be searching the country for such opportunities.” The report was from Katherine Rich—who, incidentally, recently sided with Mr Key against Mr English on broadband. Unlike the National Party, this Government actively and unapologetically pursues well-targeted opportunities for New Zealand business. 3-D technology is a multibillion-dollar industry, where New Zealand already has an edge. The Government is committed to building on that edge.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Since the Minister has raised the issue of two members of the same party having a different view, particularly when they come from the front bench, and I know that he has not been in Parliament very long, but can he recall any time in the history of parliamentary parties since, for example, the days of John Marshall and Rob Muldoon, where two leading members of a party constantly and publicly dispute what the other one has said?

Madam SPEAKER: As interesting a question as that is, it is outside the scope of the original question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister put the matter at issue when he said that two members had sided in one party against their deputy leader. With that being the case, where he has put it at issue, I am trying to think of any time since John Marshall and Rob Muldoon, for example, way back in the 1970s, when that has ever happened. I think it is pretty apposite that the country needs to know.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I also draw the member’s attention to the fact that there is no ministerial responsibility for that.

Greater Auckland Council—Establishment

11. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: Does she stand by her statement that “The proposal for a Greater Auckland Council, with clearly defined responsibilities, would provide enhanced regional government as well as good local government.”; if so, will the Government be introducing legislation this year to actually establish a Greater Auckland council?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues): Yes. The Government is yet to complete its discussions with Auckland’s local authorities and the Auckland Regional Council on proposals for strengthening Auckland’s regional governance. The need for, and timing of, any legislation will be made once final decisions have been taken.

Dr Wayne Mapp: In the event that the House ever actually sees this legislation, will the legislation ensure that all decisions of regional significance—for instance, regional roading or, indeed, the redevelopment of the waterfront—would be made by the Greater Auckland council?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: The Local Government Act 2002 makes very broad provision for regional and local government taking responsibility for roading and other resource management issues.

The Auckland waterfront is jointly owned by Ports of Auckland Ltd, which is owned by Auckland Harbour Holdings; the Auckland City Council; and private owners. There has been significant discussion chaired mainly, I think, by the Auckland City Council on the future development of the waterfront. Local roads are now the responsibility of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Transit and local authorities, through the regional land transport committee, are responsible for strategic development of the transport network. I am sure that the work being done in Auckland will improve that process. It is reasonably well understood now by people in Auckland—except for the member.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Now that the Minister has outlined her plethora of organisations in Auckland to deal with all these important issues, including, apparently, the local crescent near my neighbourhood, will she ensure that one plan—one plan; not a series of ideas and strategies—would involve the amalgamation of all the district plans, so that ratepayers and businesses would have a single set of planning and consent rules to comply with?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: There is a process, which is being described as the One Auckland Plan, which will bring together the strategic alignment of roading, economic development, some environmental water quality and air quality, and other issues, being developed now within the general framework of the regional growth strategy, whether Auckland chooses to have one scheme. But my particular concern is that we get on and do things practically, together, that we can now, as well as plan well for the future, rather than worrying about the structure first and the projects later.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Given the enthusiasm of the Minister to get things done now, what has she actually done to secure legislation to ensure that one plan will be introduced, or is she more interested in her busy diary and attending events like the brick exhibition, or the arrival of an 80-year-old tram; would it not be better for her to spend her valuable time dealing with the real, pressing issues of our city?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Events at the Museum of Transport and Technology, and arts, culture, and heritage events featuring one of New Zealand’s most well-known ceramicists at a new gallery in west Auckland, in Waitakere City, are great fun and also very useful. I have no trouble in multitasking, regardless of how hard that member would find it.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe to the Minister. Does she think a Greater Auckland council would have avoided the disastrous public relations disaster that occurred over moves to register the city’s volcanoes as Unesco World Heritage sites without bothering to consult tangata whenua, and what is she proposing to do about the cultural offence caused by that typically JAFA demonstration of cultural insensitivity?

Madam SPEAKER: Again, that is rather broad of the original question, but if the Minister would like to answer.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I know that the tangata whenua of Auckland have been involved with the Metro Project, the START project, most of the transport work, and many other processes that are happening in Auckland. I need to remind the House that Auckland does cover over one-sixth of New Zealand’s land area and has nearly one-third of New Zealand’s population. Things are not quite as simple as they are in Kaitāia. But I am very happy that Ministers, agencies, and local authorities are working very hard with iwi authorities and urban Māori authorities to consult thoroughly and well on all of these processes. Sometimes someone drops the ball, but I do not think it was anyone here.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you heard that, or intend to overlook it, but surely, so close to the proclamation of this very important code of conduct yesterday, which was signed by the Māori Party, we cannot have the kind of language we just heard, referring, appropriately or otherwise, to a member being just another JAFA. We know what that expression means, and I think if we are going to have a code of conduct, then surely it should last more than 24 hours.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I am sure that those who were listening have noted the comment and, obviously, will take that into account.

Māori Potential Approach—Assessment

12. Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: How does he measure the success of the Māori Potential Approach?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): The Māori Potential Approach is about how Te Puni Kōkiri thinks, and about the approach it uses to prioritise all of its efforts. The basis for measuring Te Puni Kōkiri’s effectiveness is described in its statement of intent; so are the outcome indicators that measure Māori success. Te Puni Kōkiri will monitor Government contributions towards Māori success.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Does the Minister count as one of the successes in terms of realising his Māori Potential Approach the fact that Māori unemployment has dropped more slowly than the drop for non-Māori, with the result that almost 37 percent of people now on the unemployment benefit are Māori, compared with just 31 percent when he first took over as Minister?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: If we move it back to the percentages, let us remember that when we came in the unemployment rate was riding at 22 percent. That member is playing around with figures in different quantums. Right now more Māori are in work than there have ever been. The increase in the average income of Māori in the workforce is better than it has ever been. More Māori are getting degrees, more Māori are owning their own businesses, and more Māori children are in early childhood education. We are not a dependent people. More Māori are working, with different skills and at different levels, than ever occurred in the time that those people over there were in Government.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: How will the Government help Māori to realise their potential, when it fails to address underlying issues recently identified by the World Health Organization in April this year, such as a shorter life expectancy, fewer disability-free years, higher rates of preventable illness, a poor prognosis for cancer, and increasing school truancy rates for Māori?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: In relation to when we came into office, dare I mention that this Government has been talking about arresting obesity—dare I mention those issues—and diabetes, and everything else. We have made sure that schoolchildren are better fed, more healthy, and whatever else. Those issues have been around for a long, long time. I also say there has been a dramatic decrease in health issues under the great effort of this Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: How can Māori trust a Minister who promised to close the gaps between Māori and non-Māori, but who participated in cancelling the closing the gaps policy, then tried to hide his failure by telling the House in August 2001 that internal reports on closing the gaps would continue, although admitting in answer to a written question in April of this year—2007—that he has not received any such reports since May 2000, which is 15 months before he indicated that he was receiving some?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It was Tau Henare who said he would close the gaps; it was us who picked it up. Let us get the story right. At the end of the day, as we said in the select committee this morning, when we first came into Government monitoring and evaluation was about blunt instruments like policing at the end of the activity. This ministry and this Government have ensured that we get in at the front end, in the sense of developing the outcomes and making sure that a whole lot of the outcomes that are positive for Māori are recognised in this nation.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave of the House to table a series of papers. The first one is a document showing Ministry of Social Development statistics that indicate that the gap between Māori and non-Māori is widening.

Leave granted.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave to table a paper referring to the World Health Organization report of 2007 that details inequalities among Māori communities.

Leave granted.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave to table a paper outlining a series of question and answers before the Māori Affairs Committee in August 2001, in which the Minister indicated he was receiving reports.

Leave granted.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave to table an extract from Hansard in 2007 with questions on closing the gaps and monitoring reports, which shows that 15 months before the Minister said he was receiving them, he was not.

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

Questions to Members

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill—Postponement

1. PAULA BENNETT (National) to the Member in charge of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill: Is she intending to postpone the second reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill; if so, why?

LYNNE PILLAY (Member in charge of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill): As the member should be aware, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has only just been reported back to the House. The bill is a local bill and I will be consulting with the respective councils, Waitakere City, Rodney City, and the Auckland Regional Council, in my capacity as the MP for Waitakere and the sponsor of the bill.

Paula Bennett: Is the member purposely delaying the second reading of the bill—as the Business Committee reported yesterday that the bill would be read for a second time today—because she no longer has the numbers in the House for it to pass?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has to be some relationship to the truth, and the Business Committee yesterday was clearly informed the bill was still below the line today. So it cannot come up for debate.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that was a point of information. Did the member want anything more—

Paula Bennett: No, Madam Speaker. The Minister has answered appropriately for me. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: That was a clarification, which is often given in this House when there is a misunderstanding as to the nature of the House’s affairs, and it was to the assistance of members.

ENDS

© Scoop Media