Questions And Answers - Thursday, 14 June 2007

Questions to Ministers

Kiwisaver—Employer Support

1. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any reports of employer support for KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes—indeed, many. Just today Coca-Cola has indicated it is moving immediately to match employee contributions at 4 percent for those of its 1,100 workers who joined KiwiSaver. This is 4 years earlier than required. This follows Air New Zealand and the New Zealand stock exchange. I note that the New Zealand stock exchange chief executive officer, Mark Weldon, said that the cost of the employer contribution was “far outweighed by the value it brings to our talent recruitment and retention”.

Charles Chauvel: What reports has the Minister seen of possible changes to KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report that Budget 2007’s enhancements to KiwiSaver may be scrapped by a National Government. When TV3 recently asked National leader John Key whether he supported the enhanced KiwiSaver scheme he said: “I can’t give you a yes or no.” This, of course, would be quite consistent with moves like the cutting of New Zealand superannuation in 1998-99 by the outgoing National Government.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister seen the estimates by his own department, Treasury, that show that the increment to household savings arising from KiwiSaver will be less than the fiscal cost to the Government of the incentives it will apply to KiwiSaver, and can he explain why the taxpayer would be spending more on incentives than the country gets in savings?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Treasury provided a variety of estimates over a period of time. I think that the reaction to KiwiSaver once the announcements were actually made indicates we will see a significant rate of take-up and far less of the behaviour that Treasury was forecasting.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So Treasury got it wrong.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes.

Gordon Copeland: When does the Minister expect to have the detail of the mortgage diversion aspect of KiwiSaver in place so that information will be available to both employers and employees?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Regulations in relation to that have already been proceeding through, so I will try to get information to the member about those details.

Budget 2007—“Top-down Adjustment to Spending”

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the reason for the $700 million “Top-down Adjustment to Spending” recorded in the 2007 Budget?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): It is because, as with the member, things sometimes happen more slowly than they should.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell the House whether this top-down adjustment to spending, which reduces his appropriations by $700 million, means he has so much money coming through that he cannot spend it in this financial year, or does it mean he is taking the Opposition’s advice and trying to slow down the growth of Government spending?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member cannot have it both ways. It means some anticipated spending is not occurring this year. In relation to capital spending, it will tend largely to mean that that will occur next year. This is a normal Treasury adjustment that has actually happened for many, many years, including those while the member was in Government, but this is the first time that the numbers have been made publicly available.

Tim Barnett: What reports has the Minister seen on any other proposed adjustments to Government spending?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report that a National Government would cut half a billion dollars from the recent Budget and every Budget thereafter. Of course, it has yet to be explained how that would be achieved without cutting into the spending on health, education or superannuation. I remind the House again that when the member opposite was last in Government, he cut New Zealand superannuation.

Hon Bill English: Pretty desperate.

Hon Annette King: The member was desperate.

Hon Bill English: We know he is getting desperate now. [Interruption] What has happened to the therapeutic goods bill?

Madam SPEAKER: Order, please. Members have had their opportunity to express themselves. Now we will hear the supplementary question from the Hon Bill English.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm to the House that this top-down adjustment to spending means he is cutting $700 million off the appropriations he made in the last Budget because he cannot spend the money this financial year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, it does not. Actually, it means we are cutting $700 million off the forecast at the half-year update.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that that answer means that as recently as December, he forecast to spend $700 million more than he can actually spend; and which doctors, nurses, and teachers is he sacking?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I leave that part to the member opposite. He is the one who wants to sack doctors, nurses, and teachers. What it means is firstly, we do actually have spending under control. Secondly, we have fewer people on benefits than we had anticipated. Thirdly, because there is a very tight economy due to the excellent growth we have seen and the very low levels of unemployment, some capital spending, for example, has been deferred. I remind the member—and I will tell him again—that this adjustment has happened almost every year for many, many years. It is the first time that the top-down reduction has actually been published.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister explain why, when I suggest in public that the Government spend a bit less of the forward allocation he calls that fiscal lunacy and sacking doctors and teachers, but when he actually adjusts the appropriations to take out $700 million of his planned spending he calls that a top-down adjustment?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not call it that; Treasury calls it that. Putting that aside, the member has not got it right. This money is coming off this year’s—

Hon Bill English: We’re planning a top-down adjustment—

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member should know about top-down adjustments, he has had the odd one in the past. This money is coming off this year’s appropriations, and the consequences of that are already built into next year’s appropriations. In order to lower those appropriations, one would have to cut out items of spending. The member is being unusually coy about his inability to say where he would cut $500 million from.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why on earth would the Minister not follow the National Party’s style of Government, which was to rubber-stamp anything and everything that Treasury said, no matter how bad it was for the economy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I believe that Treasury, which is an excellent department, is there to give me advice. I believe that I am paid a very large salary to read that advice carefully, then, with my colleagues, to arrive at decisions. One can get a rubber stamp for a matter of a few dollars.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm, for the benefit of the House, that the top-down adjustment to spending, which was in the Budget that he signed off—so presumably he agrees with it—amounts to a situation where he appropriated a certain amount of money in the last Budget, he defended every dollar of that as being absolutely needed, he confirmed that back in December, and now, on the books, he has cut that allocation of spending by $700 million, apparently with no consequence at all in this fiscal year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So much sloshing around.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed, far from that money sloshing around, as the member notes, it is actually gone. That is what a top-down adjustment is; it takes the $700 million out. If it were still there it might be available for sloshing around, but it has been drained out of the Budget. The reason for that is simple: forecasts are not always accurate about spending in key areas. I have to note, though, that Treasury does indeed sometimes get its forecasts wrong, and one reason is that it is impossible to forecast accurately the growth rate of the economy, and that has a significant impact on the total level of spending.

Hon Bill English: If the Minister is looking after every dollar carefully, how is it that his forecasts, given just in December last year for the remainder of the financial year, have turned out to be $700 million wrong?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I know the member has forgotten that he once was a Treasury Minister, but the updates on forecasts are done primarily in March, with the March baseline update. Some departments do not fully calculate their appropriations at that point. Some departments have agreements to carry forward expenditure from one year to the next, but that is not taken account of in the Estimates document in terms of the detail. That is why a top-down adjustment occurs, to allow for that fact. I seek leave, as this is highly technical and complex, to table a Treasury report on the adjustments to expenses forecast.

Leave granted.

Question No. 3 to Minister

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although I recognise that the Government does have the right to transfer questions from one Minister to another, I do want to note that my question, accepted by the Clerk as correctly directed to the Minister of Fisheries, has been transferred to an absent Minister. I am concerned that the use of the Government’s power to transfer a correctly directed question to an absent Minister may come uncomfortably close to an abuse of the process and of the Government’s power.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): The member is quite correct, in that the Government does have the right to transfer questions. But, more important in this particular case, although the Clerk’s Office may have accepted the question, the Minister of Fisheries has no ministerial responsibility for the question that has been asked. It falls within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Conservation, who is the Minister responsible for the marine coastal area.

Madam SPEAKER: I also note for the member that what the Clerk’s Office accepts in terms of the allocation of a Minister is always provisional, but if there is no ministerial responsibility, then, as has been pointed out, the question is transferred.

Māui’s Dolphin—Prospecting for Ironsand

3. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Is he concerned that one of the world’s largest mining companies has begun prospecting for ironsand within the habitat of the critically endangered Māui’s dolphin, and will he support Forest and Bird’s proposal for a marine mammal sanctuary from Maunganui Bluff to Cape Egmont?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Acting Minister of Conservation): I am advised that the aerial prospecting currently taking place on the west coast of the North Island does not involve any activities that would affect the Māui’s dolphin. Any future mining activities would be allowed only if the effects on the marine environment, including effects on dolphins, were acceptable. A draft threat management plan for the dolphins is shortly to be released and will seek public feedback on creating marine mammal sanctuaries, along with other conservation measures.

Metiria Turei: Will the plan recognise the threat of seabed mining, and require nationally consistent fishing restrictions throughout the full range of the Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins, including a set-net ban to a 100 metres depth, given the Minister’s comment that: “Australia has banned set nets for some time … that’s something that I would certainly think is worth considering in New Zealand as well.”; if not, why not?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: I would encourage the member to read the draft threat management plan when it is released, and I expect there will be much in it that she will be happy with.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister inform the House what action the Government is actually taking to protect Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: The Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries will shortly issue a draft threat management plan to protect Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. In developing this plan, we have been exploring options to manage the full range of fishing and non – fishing-related threats, which include the use of marine mammal sanctuaries. Our intention is to see that this plan is in place by this coming summer, to coincide with the breeding seasons of the dolphin.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister why he would entertain the idea that some groups of people—political or otherwise—could advocate a sanctuary going from Maunganui Bluff in the Kaihu Forest all the way down to Cape Egmont, with no dialogue, communication, or consent with the local Māori or Europeans, the people of northern Wairoa, or anybody else—why would a Government listen to a group of people who are so arrogant as to think that they have the right to close up those places for all sorts of sanctuaries, without even talking to the local people?

Hon Member: Come on, Flipper.

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: Thank you, whale! I understand that any proposal of that nature will fulfil all the consultation requirements that are necessary.

Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that set-nets are responsible for 60 percent of Hector’s dolphin deaths where the cause of death is known, and that alternative and cost-effective fishing methods exist for all species of fish caught using these nets?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: As I said before, I encourage the member to read the draft threat management plan. The Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation are very aware of the issues that have been brought forth by that member.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is exactly the concern I raised earlier in my previous point of order. Ministers are supposed to be able to answer the question, where it is correctly directed. It is important for the Minister who is responsible for, and knowledgable about, those areas to be able to answer the question. This is clearly not the case here, with the redirection of my question. That is evidenced by the failure of the Minister to answer it effectively.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The problem the member has is actually quite a simple one. In the primary question she asked, it is absolutely clear that the primary responsibility lies with the Minister of Conservation. She has then gone on to ask questions about set-net fishing, etc., which are the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries. She has mixed those two up, and she needs to think about that in terms of which way she frames the original question, in order to get the right Minister to answer it. The original question was clearly to the Minister of Conservation in his area of responsibility.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, there is a difficulty when a question is followed up by supplementary questions that go into another area. But the member has another supplementary question.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you might give some consideration to the fact that members ask questions by way of a primary question, then follow up with requests for other information through supplementary questions. That is the role that members of the Opposition play. It is quite reasonable that those supplementary questions will expand on the issues raised, and that when a member puts a question to a Minister that is accepted as being correctly directed, it might be expected that other issues might be raised. That is not a good excuse for failing to be able to address questions properly.

Madam SPEAKER: No. I think the difficulty is that when the supplementary question involves another ministerial responsibility, it is difficult for the Minister who addressed the primary question, because he or she cannot answer for some other Minister. I do not know whether the Minister wants to add to his answer, or whether that would assist the member? The Minister does not wish to add to his answer.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to assist the House a little by pointing out that the Minister of Conservation, while dealing with conservation issues around the Hector’s dolphin, would be intensely involved with questions around what causes their deaths—which is set-net fishing—and he would have known the answers to those questions. It is the transfer of the question to a Minister who is not here that has caused the main problem.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think that still does not actually address the primary point, which is the fact that some Ministers might know something about other Ministers’ portfolios, but that is not the issue. Ministers in question time are responsible for answering those questions within their ministerial responsibility.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is another point of order. I know that you have been addressing the issue of transfer of questions. My point of order is that it seems to me to be quite clear that the Minister did not even address the question that my colleague asked, which was quite specific and had nothing to do, at all, with the plan he referred to.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. I did ask the Minister whether he wished to add to his answer, and he did not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been following this dialogue on points of order raised by the Greens. What those members are doing, of course, is challenging your ruling, which is something that every MP should hesitate to engage in. But I wonder why you are indulging them, given that mining companies have never—and, to the best of my knowledge, do not—engage in exploration using fishing nets. That is where the member has got herself.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I must note that the members who have been raising these points of order do not do so very often, but I ask them now for the next supplementary question.

Metiria Turei: If, as the Minister of Fisheries has said, Māui’s dolphins are “our kākāpō of the sea”, does the Minister not agree that continuing to allow a set-netting within the Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins habitat is akin to permitting duck shooting on a kākāpō island sanctuary; if not, why not?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: I am not qualified to talk about ducks at this stage. I must reiterate that the Department of Conservation and others are concerned about the continued survival of the Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins, and they are taking very positive steps towards the preservation of those species.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

4. 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 I have made it crystal clear to the chief executive that he is responsible for making further improvements, with clear lines of accountability.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that under section 172 of the Corrections Act a security monitor should have been appointed to oversee Chubb’s contract and make regular reports to the chief executive; and if a monitor was appointed, what concerns did he or she express to the chief executive about the safety of prisoner transport?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware that that is a requirement. That issue is covered in the Ombudsman’s report. I do not have the details of the advice provided, but I know that the advice provided by the Ombudsman’s report will be taken on board, changes will be made, and we will have an improved system in place.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Minister have any report advising him on the accuracy of the allegation made by Simon Power of corruption involving inmates being required to work on a correction officer’s yacht; if so, what does that report say?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: In similar fashion to many claims made in the House by the member Simon Power, investigations, although not complete, have not identified any 40-foot yacht. In fact, the only boat that has been identified is a 13-foot plywood dinghy that was being repaired in the prison workshop for use by the Sea Scouts.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that not only did Chubb write to the department in September 2005 raising concerns about prisoners’ inability to communicate with staff in vans in a medical emergency or assault, but also the security monitor backed up these concerns twice in reports to the chief executive in October and November 2005, meaning the chief executive would have been told about the problem at least three times in the year before Liam Ashley’s death, yet nothing changed?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: In the House yesterday that member claimed that the Department of Corrections had misled the Office of the Ombudsmen in providing information. That concerned me, so I went to the State Services Commissioner and asked him to investigate. The commissioner has come back to me with advice on that. He has spoken to Mr John Belgrave and to Mr Mel Smith, who have told me that they do not consider that they have been misled by the department. In fact, they both assure me that this section in the report was not intended to imply that the department had been misleading the Ombudsmen about those matters.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is all very interesting, except that my question related to the chief executive’s knowledge of the monitoring regarding prisoner transport safety. The Minister did not address that question in any way, shape, or form.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister care to add anything to his answer?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am very aware that those issues have been referred to in the report. That member can read the report. I am not prepared to accept accusations made by that member in this House that have been proven today to be completely inaccurate.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm the allegations—unlike the inaccurate allegations made by Simon Power—that prison labour has been misused, that in fact eight staff were dismissed from Rangipō Prison for requiring inmates to panel beat their cars inside the prison, but that that happened in 1999, under a National Government; and did the then Minister, Nick Smith, ever offer to resign over it?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table my ministerial warrant as Minister of Corrections, which shows that I was not Minister at that time.

Leave granted.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of that and many other incidents through the 1990s under that Government. The difference is that those Ministers did nothing. I am insisting that change occurs, and that is up to the chief executive to carry out.

Simon Power: How does he reconcile his statement made in the House on Tuesday that—in addition to the Chubb letter that was not acted on—“The report also identifies other areas where there was a breakdown in communications.”, with the emphatic denial by Barry Matthews that a lack of communication was “a major ground of criticism for central management”, as the Ombudsman found?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have stated in this House before that I accept there was a breakdown in communication. There has been a head office restructure. The chief executive has to carry out the changes, the improvements, to ensure that no further breakdown in communication occurs within the corrections system.

Simon Power: Does he stand by his statements made in the House yesterday that he will “investigate and clarify the points that have been raised in the report”, because although the information provided to the Ombudsman was accurate, in his view, “it may not have included all the information they wanted.”; if so, is he now saying he will be appealing or relitigating, or does he simply refuse to accept the findings of the Ombudsman?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes. The information provided to me and passed to the Ombudsman was accurate, but, in my opinion, incomplete. Therefore, I considered it plausible that the Ombudsman may have drawn incomplete conclusions. I too was concerned about the accusations made. That is why I asked the State Services Commissioner to investigate. He did so last night, and today he has reported back to me, having spoken to both Ombudsmen—John Belgrave and Mel Smith—that they both told me they do not consider they had been misled by the Department of Corrections, at all.

Simon Power: Can he confirm that the Ombudsman’s report into his department uses the words: “unacceptable”, 11 times; “unsatisfactory”, 38 times; and “saddened”, once; and when Parliament’s watchdog uses such language, what does he think that says about his department?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have read the recommendations. I have read the report. Unlike that member, I have not had the time to count every word in the report. I accept the recommendations. We have already moved on the majority of them. We are working through some of them with the Ombudsman to make change, to give effect to change, to improve the transportation system across the corrections system.

Nandor Tanczos: What advice did his department provide him, or did he receive through any other channel, from traffic safety experts, on his proposal to lock all prisoners’ hands to their waists when they are transported in vehicles—and which the House notes are not fitted with seatbelts—especially in light of the fact that the proposal directly contradicts the considered recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Some of the advice I have received on restraints states that in utilising restraints it may be possible to safely utilise seatbelts. That is one of the issues that we are looking at in the implementation process. However, I will not guarantee that seatbelts will be used, because in the past they had been abused and used by prisoners to harm other prisoners or harm themselves. That is why they have not been used.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have warned members before about multiple supplementary questions. I restricted mine to ask specifically about advice from traffic safety experts. The Minister talked about whether seatbelts would or would not be fitted. I did not ask about that; I asked about advice from traffic safety experts

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister actually addressed the question. I listened really carefully to what was said. As members know, they cannot have a specific answer to their question. They cannot predetermine the answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there are not handcuffs or manacling to the prisoner’s body or torso in the vans—which, as has been suggested by the Ombudsman, have escape hatches—how long exactly does he think prisoners will remain in the van when it comes to a red light or a crossing?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Not very long.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I seek leave to table a letter from the State Services Commission to me, pointing out that the Ombudsmen considered that they were in no way misled by the Department of Corrections.

Leave granted.

Unemployment Benefit—Youth

5. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on the number of young people receiving an unemployment benefit?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I can report that in December 1999 there were 17,514 young people in the 18 and 19-year-old age group receiving an unemployment benefit. In March this year that figure was 1,566 young people. It is with considerable pleasure that I am now able to tell the House that at the end of May that number was 1,227. That is a massive 93 percent reduction since this Government took office. That success is mirrored by equally impressive results for Māori and Pacific young people. Māori 18 and 19-year-old unemployment numbers at the end of May were only 477—a 92 percent reduction since December 1999. Pacific 18 and 19-year-old unemployment numbers for the same period are now 125—a 91 percent reduction. Let me stress that of the 1,227 young people receiving that support, only 407 have been on an unemployment benefit for more than 13 weeks.

Moana Mackey: What further information has he received about the distribution of this success across New Zealand?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: As at the end of May 2007, there are 73 Work and Income service centres—that is, more than half the Work and Income service centres in the country—where fewer than 10 unemployed 18 or 19-year-olds receive an unemployment benefit. There are also 26 Work and Income service centres in the country with no 18 and 19-year-olds receiving an unemployment benefit. I know that the member—and other members—will be particularly pleased to hear that the Gisborne Work and Income service centre has only seven 18 and 19-year-olds in receipt of that support. Ruatōria has a very creditable four, and in Kaiti the total is zero.

Judith Collins: Why is there such a discrepancy between the figures he has just quoted and the official numbers of the household labour force survey data, which show that the number of 15 to 19-year-olds unemployed has actually increased by nearly 4,000, from 24,000 in 2002 to 27,800 in 2007; and is it not misleading to quote only the unemployment benefit numbers, when his own answers to written questions reveal that the number of 15 to 19-year-olds on benefits overall is 13,000?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: There is not. One of the shortcomings of the household labour force survey is that it does not fully capture the range of activities of young people. The question and the answer were quite clearly about receipt of unemployment benefit, which is the most important—and, indeed, the most costly—measure for this economy.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Additional Fees

6. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the statement of an early childhood education provider on 20 free hours that “free doesn’t mean free in every instance.”; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): No; because no parent is required to pay fees for the 20 hours of free early childhood education that his or her child receives. A service may ask a parent to agree to pay an optional charge. It is up to the parent to decide whether he or she chooses to do that, and a child cannot be denied a place at an early childhood centre because a parent will not pay an optional charge.

Katherine Rich: Why does he pretend that 20 hours’ free is free, when centres are planning new fees to cover day-to-day costs—not optional extras—such as a $10-a-day morning tea fee or a $10-a-day music appreciation fee; and how many 3-year-olds does he know who can chew their way through $10 worth of morning tea or music appreciation in a given day?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because 20 hours’ free is free. If the member has any particular concerns, she may like to give them to me, and we will look at them.

Dianne Yates: What proposals has he seen to extend the free early childhood education policy even further?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen an ambitious proposal to extend free early childhood education to playcentres and to services in rural areas that are not teacher-led, so that children at those services do “not miss out on this excellent policy”. I discovered that proposal in the National Party discussion paper on rural education, where National is looking forward to the introduction of 20 hours’ free. It is not clear how that statement fits with the campaign by Katherine Rich and Paula Bennett against the policy nor how National would afford it, with tax cuts being proposed as well.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Did the Minister ever play rugby in his youth; if so, did he ever receive such an awful hospital pass as that delivered by his predecessor, Trevor Mallard, in the form of the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I have played in a rugby team, along with people like Trevor Mallard, of course, who has played rugby himself. I think that this is the kind of pass one gets from Dan Carter: it is perfectly placed, and we are running to the scoreline with it.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister pretend that 20 hours’ free is free, when some centres are planning new fees to cover day-to-day costs—not optional extras—such as an $80 payment for DVDs that one has to buy if one wants to get one’s child into a centre, a $20 per day “quality surcharge”, or $100 a week per child for access to reading materials; and does he accept that no parent in this country believes that a payment should be made for access to reading materials that we all expect from our childcare centres?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because 20 hours’ free is 20 hours’ free. Given the member’s propensity to make things up, I would like her on this occasion to give us the list of centres that are doing that, and we will look at it for her.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister accept that after the implementation of the 20 free hours policy, where centres put in place planned fees, such as a $7 per hour extra fee for “quality updates”—that is, newsletters—a $10 per day morning tea fee, a $10 per day music appreciation fee, a $20 per day quality surcharge, $100 per week for access to books, or a compulsory purchase of DVDs in order to get one’s child in at the centre, most parents will not see 20 hours’ free as free, at all?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member needs to know that 20 hours’ free is free. If there are optional charges at a centre, they have to be agreed to. If parents do not want to pay them, then they do not have to. She can list as many fictitious charges as she likes, but they do not have to be paid if they are optional charges.

Heather Roy: Will he be responding as Minister to the petition of Amy Malcolm and others, calling on the Government to honour Labour’s election promise that “20 hours’ free education will be provided for 3 and 4-year-olds at any licensed teacher-led service in New Zealand from July 2007”; if he will not be responding as Minister to the petition, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Ministry of Education officials have been in touch with the people involved with that petition, and they have discussed the issues with them in depth.

Paula Bennett: Can the Minister tell us the number of centres that will opt in to 20 free hours on 1 July, as the RS7 funding claim forms had to be in by 7 June in order for a centre to be eligible for funding?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I have said numerous times, the policy kicks in on 1 July, and at around that time we will be able to give people a very clear indication of the number of centres, the number of children, and all the details that go with that. As the member herself will know, because I know that she has been travelling a lot and driving up the number of people who are increasingly getting into free early childhood education—and I thank her very much for the Whakatāne visit; if she wants to go anywhere else we will help her to go there, because she is certainly helping with the policy—centres are still able to enrol. Even though the date was 6 June, centres can continue to enrol if they wish to, and they are doing that.

Paula Bennett: Can the Minister not simply have his ministry count the forms it had to have back by 7 June in order for the centres to be eligible for funding come 1 July, and let parents know how many centres have opted in for early childhood education under the 20 free hours policy—it is not hard?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That may be important for the Opposition’s campaign against the policy, but from the point of view of parents, their relationship is with their local centre and the staff there, whom they talk to. Of course, around 1 July I will be more than happy to make available all the details of which centres are in the scheme, how many children and how many parents are involved, where they are, and so on. The member can work with the data from then.

Algerian Refugee—Costs

7. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: What are the total costs to date to the Government relating to the Ahmed Zaoui case and what does the Government estimate the final cost of this case will be if the security risk certificate review report is in the Minister’s hands by the end of the year as planned?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): As at the end of May 2007 the costs to the Department of Labour relating to the Ahmed Zaoui case were $916,603.09—presumably the 9c predates the recent currency change. I do not have responsibility for other departments or votes. The Department of Labour has not undertaken an estimate of future costs.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that in the years Mr Zaoui has been here, the cost to the Government, which the Government has been willing to reveal, is in excess of $3 million, is he aware that the unrevealed cost will take that total closer to $4 million, and is it his intention to drag this matter out as long as possible, so as to make Mr Zaoui the first New Zealand “Six Million Dollar Man”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have not sought to receive the total costs for the departments for which I am not responsible. I am aware that the cost is considerable. I can reassure the member that this Government is concerned to see that case resolved as quickly as possible, and I will make my decision expeditiously when matters are reported to me.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister satisfied with the effectiveness of our current deportation system, which dictates that even if the security risk certificate is upheld, and he as Minister decides to deport Mr Zaoui, Mr Zaoui could end up joining the growing list of people who simply refuse to sign travel documents and remain here by default—is he happy about that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Let me answer that question in two parts. Firstly, no, and that is why I am changing it. But, secondly, let me point out that there is only one country that requires a signature on the travel document of an outgoing deportee, and that country is not Algeria.

Peter Brown: Noting that answer, is the Minister willing to pursue agreements with other countries to allow the return of undocumented persons, so that we can be the ultimate decision makers here in New Zealand regarding who gets deported, rather than the deportee as it currently stands; if he will not agree to that, will he tell the House why?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: To the best of my knowledge the Government already has that understanding with all countries except for Iran, and we have that matter under discussion with the Government of Iran at the moment.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that under no circumstances will he approve access to New Zealand for any of Mr Zaoui’s family, which would add ultimately to any deportation costs in this sorry saga?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That request has been made to me formally twice, and I have declined it formally twice. It would be inappropriate of me to prejudge future requests on which I have not yet seen supporting information, but I cannot currently think of the evidence that would be likely to make me change my mind.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a reply to a written question from Peter Brown, answered by the Attorney-General, that gives the costs to the Crown Law Office—

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

Aquaculture—Government Policy

8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Fisheries: How is he supporting the recently announced goal for aquaculture of becoming a “1 billion dollar business by 2025” now that the Government’s reforms have been in place for 2½ years?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): The aquaculture industry’s goal is, as the member says, to be a $1 billion business by 2025. I believe that this goal is more than realistic and achievable; probably it is even conservative. The Government is committed to helping the aquaculture industry to achieve that goal. The Government’s Our Blue Horizon strategic document, which the member had in his hand, is a five-point plan to support the future growth of aquaculture in New Zealand, and copies of that document are, of course, publicly available.

Phil Heatley: What happened to this Vision 2020 glossy put out before the reforms, when the aquaculture industry was to make $1 billion by 2020, and why has it been replaced by this new glossy, Our Blue Horizon, put out last week, which shifts the target date to 2025?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All I can say to the member is that the aquaculture industry has in fact grown by 48 percent in the last 6 years. If the member can name any industry that he has been associated with that has had that sort of growth, I would be interested to hear about it.

Phil Heatley: Can he give this House an explanation as to why, before the reforms, the industry was set to make $1 billion by 2020, and after his reforms it will not achieve that until 2025; why has the goal been shifted back 5 years after the Government’s reforms?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All I know is that under the previous National administration, this industry had a turnover of $50 million. It now has exports of $300 million and employs six times more people than it ever did when National was in power. I would have thought the member would celebrate that rather than commiserate with himself.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate the point of order—it is about addressing the question as to the time.

Phil Heatley: Yes.

Madam SPEAKER: Maybe the Minister would like to add to his answer in that respect.

Phil Heatley: Why have you lost 5 years?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government has not lost 5 years. The member, of course, refuses to contemplate the fact that nearly 200 aquacultural applications have been approved during the last 4 to 5 years and that the industry has grown by 48 percent. If there is anything about those facts that the member does not understand, I would like him to put it to me in writing.

Tariana Turia: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. What response will the Minister make to Mayor Alistair Sowman of Marlborough District Council, who said the aquaculture law reforms requiring local authorities to allocate aquaculture management areas were unworkable for the region, as was the required allocation of space to Māori, because most of the space has already been allocated—or do Māori have to wait until 2013 and miss out on another potential opportunity?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As far as I am aware, the present system was one that was supported by regional government, which wanted to remove from central government’s authority, and the Minister of Fisheries’ authority specifically, the power to make those decisions. It is one of those lessons in life to “never ask for what you want; you might get it.”

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What has been the estimated economic loss, if any, resulting from the lack of expansion within the aquaculture industry during the moratorium introduced by the Government while it worked on the industry reforms?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As I have indicated to the House, the aquaculture industry is actually growing at a much faster rate—2 to 3 times, actually—than the rest of the economy. We still have to see how the new aquaculture management area method of administration of aquacultural space will work its way through. It is new. The Government has allocated nearly $3 million for the ministries of fisheries, conservation, environment, and economic development to work proactively with regional councils to develop aquacultural space opportunities in our regions. We are monitoring that very closely.

Phil Heatley: Why has not a single new aquaculture management area been created in an area where marine farming was not already happening since the Government’s reforms of 2½ years ago?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There are two tranches to this answer. Firstly, I have already indicated to the House that the Ministry of Fisheries has processed over 200 applications that were held as previous applications before the new legislation was passed. Those 200 applications have been processed. They have increased the space from 9,000-odd hectares to 13,500 hectares, and that is an increase of 48 percent. So I think the member should at least tell the whole story. The second part of the answer of course, is that this is new legislation. It will take a while to work its way through. The Government is working proactively with the industry and regional councils, and it is being congratulated by all those stakeholders on the proactive role it is taking.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I let the Minister go on, in the hope that he would address the question. My question asked specifically why not a single new aquaculture management area has been created under this Government’s reforms.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry—

Phil Heatley: He talked about space—

Madam SPEAKER: I am on my feet.

Phil Heatley: —created under the old legislation—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Heatley. Be seated. When I am on my feet the member sits, if the member wishes to stay in the Chamber. I listened very carefully to that answer, and although it went on at length, I think it did in fact address the question.

Phil Heatley: How can the Minister expect aquaculture to triple its growth to $1 billion by 2025 if there is no more space being provided for aquaculture under the new legislation—not under the old legislation but under the Minister’s new legislation?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: We are yet to see whether the new legislation will work effectively, and the Government is putting resources into doing that. If the member wants to know whether the industry itself supports what the Government is doing and the activities it is engaged with, he has only to read the recent press releases from Aquaculture New Zealand about the Government’s response to the aquaculture sector’s strategy. They show that the industry is enthusiastic and supportive of the way that this Government is working with it—something it never said under the previous administration.

Phil Heatley: Why did the latest glossy document, which puts things back 5 years, itself show a decline since 2000 in export earnings if the Government’s reforms are actually working; why does the Minister’s own graph show a decline in export earnings since 2000 if his reforms are working?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There will be ups and downs, of course, year by year. That is true. But if we look at the period when the member’s party was in Government in this country, we see there was $50 million worth of exports and now there is $300 million worth of exports. If there is anything about that the member does not understand, I ask him to please let me know.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the pre-reform vision of $1 billion at 2020.

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

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the post-reform vision of $1 billion by 2025.

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

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Marlborough District Council’s push for a cash payout because it is not getting the space.

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

Public Health Directorate—Disestablishment Proposal

9. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: How will the proposed disestablishment of the public health directorate, and the consequent split across at least five separate groups, affect the capacity of the ministry to carry out its public health advisory functions, which are a statutory requirement set out in section 3E of the Health Act 1956?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): It is intended that the ministry’s change and development programme will strengthen public health’s influence across the whole system, by ensuring public health leadership is more widely spread rather than remaining concentrated in one directorate, where it is now. Of course the changes are compliant with New Zealand statutes.

Tariana Turia: What reassurance can the Minister provide that the ministry has the capacity to respond effectively to possible public health emergencies. such as the recent outbreak of severe respiratory syndrome (Sars) in Toronto, or environmental disasters such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Gulfport, Mississippi?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member raises a really good question and raises, I think, two really interesting examples. The effective response to Sars, and the effective response to civil defence emergencies of various forms, depends on mobilising a great many more officials and a great deal more assistance than can possibly be found in any public health directorate. It is important, however, to recall that, for example, with Sars, we are going to be reliant on public health technical expertise, which will always be at the centre of our response—and that, I am sure, will continue.

Jill Pettis: Further to the answer that he has just given, can the Minister advise the House how he can be sure that something as important as, for example, pandemic planning preparedness will be reliably undertaken in the new ministry structure?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is another good example. An influenza pandemic is a very good example of a significant public health risk. Public health officials have been heavily involved in New Zealand’s planning, but they have not been the only ones. In fact, the planning has been led by the risk and assurance group within the ministry. That group has been involving staff across all directorates in the ministry and, actually, across most of Government. If we think further, we know that planning also involves business, local government, and civil society. So it is a good example of the importance of better coordination, and that idea of better coordination sits at the heart of the ministry’s change and development programme.

Tariana Turia: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who in the debate on the Health and Disability Amendment Bill in August 1995, said: “I will tell the House why we need statutory protection. As easily as the positions of deputy director-general of public health and the public health group were created, just as easily can they be removed. Just as easily as they were created, so can they be destroyed.”; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I strongly agree with my colleague’s remarks back then, and I strongly agree with the sentiments behind the member’s question. I have the new organisation chart here—the new one. The public health group is in the top left-hand corner under the strategy directorate. That is a proper place for something as important as that group. I would be happy to make this chart available to the member, should she have any interest.

Benefits—Single Core Benefit

10. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he stand by his statement that he expects the Government to make decisions on the single core benefit in 2008; if so, why?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): As the member is well aware, the Government split this policy process into two phases last year. [Interruption] I refer the member and those other interjectors to my policy announcement of 26 October 2006. Phase one, I am pleased to say, is almost complete and the supporting legislation is currently before the House in the form of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Phase two is about further simplifying the benefit social support system and reducing the number of benefit categories to better align with our support services. Phase two is currently being worked on by officials and as I have previously said on a number of occasions, including 3 weeks ago at question time, final decisions about the detail of phase two will be made in 2008.

Judith Collins: If the Government is not planning to make any decisions until 2008, why did Steve Maharey say on 22 February 2005 that a Cabinet paper to be released that day would show that the Government expected to save between $40 million and $70 million a year from merging seven welfare benefits into the single core benefit?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: My colleague Mr Maharey says a great deal of accurate and completely sensible things. I say to the member that she should not be surprised, nor indeed should any New Zealander be surprised, to see that the Government has been completely focused on the area of policy development that delivers the most quality of life changes and improvements for New Zealanders—specifically, a reduction in unemployment from 161,000 when that party was in power, to fewer than 24,000 now, and the extraordinary reduction in youth benefit uptake that I detailed in an earlier question today.

Lynne Pillay: Can the Minister advise the progress made to date with this project?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: This Labour-led Government is clearly keeping its commitment to help families young and old by reducing, amongst other things, welfare dependency. Unemployment benefit numbers have fallen by the extraordinary numbers that I have just detailed. The total working-age benefit numbers—which I tell Mrs Collins includes everything—have reduced by 35 percent, and that is the lowest figure since 1988. Working New Zealand, which is the first phase of this policy development, recognises that there are still areas for improvement, by expanding and developing new employment services that support people into work where appropriate. The new service approach helps to determine the most appropriate services for a client based on his or her individual circumstances and need for assistance, and the new job search service is for those who are ready for work. Access to employment and training assistance has been significantly widened for all clients. There is more funding for wage subsidies, and greater in-work support assistance to help new employees with travel, childcare, and financial bridging costs. We will work with people not yet ready to enter the workforce, for whatever reason—be it health, ill health, or caring responsibilities—to plan for an eventual return to work, if that is appropriate.

Judith Collins: What extra information does Cabinet need, when in 2005 the Minister’s predecessor, Steve Maharey, refused to name the single core benefit reports that had already been taken to Cabinet, for the reason that they were too numerous to list?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not very interested in the member’s semantic confusion or her obsession with what something might be called. I, like the members of this Government, am absolutely focused on delivering real gains for the people of this country, and nothing could better demonstrate that than the extraordinary change in the unemployment numbers.

Judith Collins: Will there be a single core benefit under this Labour Government?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I cannot understand why the member has such difficulty with an unequivocally clear answer. I said at the select committee investigation yesterday, during the last session of the House, and earlier today, that those decisions will be made by Cabinet in 2008.

Judith Collins: Why does the Minister think that his predecessor Steve Maharey announced on 22 February 2005 that legislation for the single core benefit would be introduced that year if, as the Minister now says, Cabinet has not decided on it yet?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Because like our Cabinet colleagues, we are interested in good policy development and in the sort of things that deliver real gains for New Zealanders. Although Mrs Collins and some of her colleagues may find this difficult to understand, I think that most New Zealanders understand the difference between 161,000 people on the scrap heap under a National Government, and fewer than 24,000 now.

Judith Collins: How would the Minister explain these two divergent statements—Helen Clark announcing at her post-Cabinet press conference on 14 February 2005 that Cabinet had approved plans for a new single core benefit, or this Minister repeatedly telling Parliament, and again today, that Cabinet has not made those decisions yet—because both of them cannot be right?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, they can. Phase one and phase two are different. Phase one is the first step, and I tell Mrs Collins that phase two is the second step.

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table some documents. The first, which is headed “Universal benefit listed as current priority policy work”, is dated 19 September 2001.

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

Judith Collins: The second is headed “PM set to unveil universal benefit” and is dated 31 January 2005.

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

Judith Collins: The third is headed “PM fleshes out single benefit plan” and is dated 21 February 2005.

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

Judith Collins: The fourth, from the Manawatu Standard, is headed “Single benefit announced” and is dated 22 February 2005.

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

Aviation Safety Certification—New Zealand / Australia

11. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What benefits are being seen as a result of the new joint New Zealand and Australian arrangements for a mutual recognition of aviation safety certification?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): On 30 March 2007, joint arrangements between the New Zealand and Australian Governments took effect that allow mutual recognition of airline safety certification between the two countries. The Civil Aviation Authority has since issued authorisation to a New Zealand airline, Airwork Holdings Ltd, to operate Boeing 737 freighter services within Australia. It is the first company on either side of the Tasman to receive authority under the mutual recognition regime. As a result, Airwork did not need to obtain equivalent Australian certification, thereby saving the company significant time and expense, and obviously giving this New Zealand company a head start advantage in the market.

Sue Moroney: What is the basis of the mutual recognition regime?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Although there are differences in individual standards, the safety regime operates on the basis that the whole airline safety system of each country achieves equivalent safety outcomes. Thus, the home airline safety certification can be recognised for operations within and between both countries.

Telecommunications—Trans-Tasman Markets

12. Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Communications: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “My dream would be to see two trans-Tasman telecommunications markets offering one domestic rate of calling.”; if so, what is he doing to bring this dream to reality?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): I frequently agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Did the Prime Minster share that dream with him before announcing it in Australia; if so, was he in it?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: One lives in hope, and one is also careful what one hopes for.

Dave Hereora: What steps has the Government taken to improve the delivery of communication services to the public?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Only a year after the telecommunications stocktake was released, we have completely revised the Telecommunications Act. We have the Telecommunications Commissioner working hard to deliver on local loop unbundling, unbundled bitstream, and naked DSL on time and in full. The Telecommunications Carriers Forum pulled together industry working-groups to implement local loop unbundling. We have a draft form of operational separation for Telecom New Zealand on the table. We have anti-spam legislation in place, and we have delivered on number portability with the Telecommunications Commissioner’s help.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Can the Minster inform the House as to whether a dream is higher in status than an aspiration, lower than a vision, equivalent to a wish, but lacks the strength of commitment of a whim?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I understand that, in the member’s case, a dream is what he does when he is asleep, which there is ample evidence of over the last decade.

Hon Maurice Williamson: On a scale of one to 10, can the Minster tell us what chance he believes he has of implementing the Prime Minster’s Martin Luther King - type “I have a dream” aspirations, when the member for Waimakariri has been trying for some time, through a petition, to even get local calling across a paddock between Kaiapoi and Rangiora?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Some people see things the way they are and say why, and occasionally Prime Ministers dream of things that are not yet, and ask why not.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Which of the Prime Minister’s wishes does the Minister believe will come true first: the dream to see local calling between Dunedin and Dubbo, and Wellington and Wagga Wagga; the vision to see us in the top half of the OECD; the aspiration to see us carbon neutral; or the simple old wish to have 20 hours of free early childhood education?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That one is an easy one. First place goes to the determination for us to be a four-consecutive-term Government.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I seek leave of the House to table a schedule of the 26 Work and Income service centres where there are no unemployed 18 and 19-year-olds.

Leave granted.

ENDS

© Scoop Media