Questions And Answers - Wednesday, 22 August 2007

Questions to Ministers

Water—Drinking Water

1. ANN HARTLEY (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any recent reports on the cost of providing healthy drinking-water?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have. I have seen a copy of a speech by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Key, to the AGM of Local Government New Zealand, in which he said that the cost of providing healthy water to the community of Ōwaka in the Catlins would be $500,000. He is wrong; the highest estimated cost is about $50,000. I doubt whether Mr Key would have added the extra zero by mistake, given his career as a global money trader. Therefore, I invite him not to deal in irresponsible scaremongering around publicly funded essential services. Mr Key should try to stick with the truth.

Ann Hartley: Is there agreement on the policies for the provision of healthy drinking-water?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No; there is not agreement across the parties in this House on that matter. The reason for that is that there is not agreement within the National Party. One view is that no action is required at all in this area, as it is “a totally non-existent problem”. Another view is that 24 percent of our water fails to meet bacteriological standards, and “a coordinated plan with local government is required to progressively upgrade water supplies”. The first statement is from Jonathan Coleman from the National Party; the second statement is from the National Party’s Nick Smith.

Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister concerned that the growth of irrigated dairy farming in Canterbury is posing a risk to water quality and to public health, in light of the warning from the Canterbury medical officer of health about the potential for significant health effects from the proposed Central Plains Water irrigation scheme to irrigate 60,000 hectares of farmland in Canterbury?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There are many causes of poor quality, or insufficient quality, in New Zealand’s drinking-water—dairying being amongst them, but by no means the only one. New Zealanders enjoy good drinking-water standards in cities and often nowhere near good enough standards out in the countryside. We have a lot of waterborne illnesses as a result of that.

Nandor Tanczos: In that case, can the Minister tell the House what he makes of a report from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research that proves a link between intensive dairying and drinking-water contamination by campylobacter, cryptosporidium, and E. coli; and is that the result of a 4-year Government sustainable water programme of inaction?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not sure where the member is coming from. I thought we were on roughly the same page, with the only difference being that I thought not all substandard water was due to dairying, and some of it was due to other causes.

Justice, Minister—Confidence

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Justice; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

John Key: Does she agree with the Minister’s statement in the House in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill that “the third-party provisions in the bill do not unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression”; if so, are all the interest groups that are making submissions to the select committee to protect their democratic rights, simply wasting their time?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Certainly, no one making a submission is wasting his or her time. Indeed, I note that the Coalition for Open Government states that it believes that the problems it sees with the third-party rules in the Electoral Finance Bill can be fairly easily fixed.

Tim Barnett: Has the Electoral Finance Bill been designed with any overseas precedents in mind?

Rt Hon Helen Clark: Indeed, it has. One could instance the United Kingdom where the electoral finance period extends for a year prior to a general election, and also in respect of the role of third parties in election campaigns, in the United Kingdom they must register if they wish to spend more than a certain amount on campaigns. They may not receive anonymous donations; nor may they receive donations from trusts where those contributing to the trust cannot be reasonably identified.

John Key: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister when, despite constant questioning, he cannot even answer questions on things as simple as the definition of election advertising?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Having seen and heard a number of those questions, they are clearly trying to seek legal opinions from the Minister, which would not normally be given at question time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the motivation for this bill to remove the negative, unfair, and malignant influences of certain businesses from electoral campaigns, and if the answer is yes, then what is the evidence for there to be public concern on this issue?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Certainly the motivation for the bill is to deal with the most regrettable influence of very big money on New Zealand election campaigns. I note in this respect that Mr Key’s speech today said that organisations should not be allowed to spend unlimited sums of money trying to influence an election—an interesting statement from someone who clearly was one of the bagmen for the National Party campaign. We can go through The Hollow Men and find all sorts of references, like the one in Mr Key’s diary of August 2005, which stated he was scheduled to be “Meeting with loads of big donors in Northland with John Carter (full day and night).”

John Key: If the purposes of the changes to the proposed Electoral Finance Bill were not to advantage the Government, why did the Labour Party not consult the National Party, the Māori Party, and the ACT party?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: To the best of my recollection, the National Party has been consistently pretty hostile to trying to rein in the role of big money, because it has had so much of it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just a cheat.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take exception to the allegation that Dr Smith just made, and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise for it.

Madam SPEAKER: The member has been asked to withdraw and apologise for his comment.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What do we call spending $800,000 illegally on a pledge card, if it is not cheating?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, as the member knows. Please be seated.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that fundraising up north all day and night may be just a temporary apparition, surely the Prime Minister has more evidence than that for making the allegation that Mr Key was the bagman, in respect of fund-raising for the National Party?

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not within the Prime Minister’s responsibility for the activities of other parties.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, this issue concerns the involvement of big business in campaigns. That requires there to be a relationship and communication between political parties and big business. If we cannot even ask that question, then how can we even discuss the issue—that is, by the Prime Minister’s admission, the motivation behind the bill?

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member; please be seated. The member is perfectly entitled to ask a question that relates to those matters, but that question must be within the terms of the Standing Orders; in other words, that there is ministerial responsibility for it. Is there another point of order? I was not encouraging one.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have encouraged it, because you allowed the Prime Minster to make a statement regarding evidence in The Hollow Men, uncontested or disputed by anyone in this House, so if the Prime Minister could refer to that, why can I not ask questions as to whether there were other examples in The Hollow Men of such activity? That was the nature of my question.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, but the whole purpose of your question did not relate to any ministerial responsibility. I think it was Mr Key’s question that did relate to ministerial responsibility and the Prime Minister was responding accordingly.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: What reports has the Prime Minister received that justify the claims that she has just made to the House?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Certainly, The Hollow Men is full of such references—for example, Rob McLeod of the Business Roundtable approaching Dr Brash and Mr Key to help arrange a donation to National from heirs to the Spencer family fortunes; for example, the dinner Mr Key apparently attended on his birthday, which was hosted by Bill Birnie, formerly of Fay Richwhite; and another one hosted by Rod Deane, at which Mr Key is said to have been present. That is why I made the statement about Mr Key being a bagman for collecting very big money, and I am sure it is still going on.

John Key: What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for the Electoral Law Reform Bill, given she chaired Cabinet and was responsible for the provisions of the bill, as introduced into the House?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course I chair Cabinet; that is the role of being Prime Minister. I am also a Prime Minister who is always open to intelligent and informed contributions; I am waiting to hear one from the Leader of the Opposition.

John Key: So is the Prime Minister telling the House that she has no responsibility for the provisions in the bill?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: For the rather new parliamentarian opposite, I just set out that, of course, I chair Cabinet. It goes with the job!

John Key: Is the reason the Prime Minister will not answer the question, despite this being the third time I have asked it, that she is quite simply embarrassed by a piece of legislation she knows should be ripped up?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Over here, we accept collective responsibility. There is little evidence of it over there.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with the editorial in the latest New Zealand Law Journal, regarding the Electoral Finance Bill that states: “The bill is fundamentally obnoxious and should be scrapped. It will penalise private citizens who have the temerity to interfere in politics while doing nothing to deal with the major electoral funding issue we face—the misuse of taxpayers’ money on a huge scale to ensure the re-election of the incumbent Government.”

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would like to name the editor of the New Zealand Law Journal, a certain Bernard Robertson, a well-known, right-wing commentator, and guaranteed to take a position against the Labour Party anytime, anywhere. I prefer the judgment of the Coalition for Open Government, which states that the problems with the rules that it sees can be fairly easily fixed, in the bill before the House.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister confirm for New Zealanders that that is exactly the sort of opinion she is trying to close down with the provisions of the electoral law reform bill, because she does not like it when people publicly say they disagree with her?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Most certainly not. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I have never been to the editor of the Sunday Star-Times asking that Rod Oram be shut down—or was it the business editor of the Sunday Star-Times?

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that our democracy is a precious thing, owned by the people of New Zealand, and that, in light of the damning report of the Auditor-General and the implications of our electoral law reform, in actual fact taking cheap shots across the House is not the best way to get the best law and the best outcome on this most important issue?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I absolutely agree with the first contention of the member that democracy is a precious thing. The second point I want to make is that The Hollow Men showed how exposed our democracy is to big money in politics. Had the Leader of the Opposition come in here today and tried to make good on what he said in his speech about discussions around multiparty approaches, he may have been taken seriously, but his approach in the House today has been completely inconsistent with the speech he gave barely 2 hours ago.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Government received any reports from the Campaign for Better Government—which she will recall had so much to say about the 1993 elections, when the elections were overt—comprised Peter Shirtcliffe, his wife, and his daughter, who spent millions to try to skew the MMP choice in that election; is that the kind of business involvement we do want in this country?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think it is clear that New Zealand law on big money in politics has been far too open for too long. That is what there needs to be some genuine discussion about, in this House.

Australia—Migration Patterns

3. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: What was the number of permanent and long-term departures of New Zealanders to Australia in the year to July 2007, and what was the number of permanent and long-term arrivals to New Zealand in the same period?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Immigration), on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I am advised that the Minister has no portfolio responsibility for the departure of New Zealanders to Australia. I am, however, able to advise the member that figures from the Statistics New Zealand website show that the net permanent long-term outflow to Australia of New Zealand citizens departing for 12 months or more was 25,500 in July 2007, and that in the year ended July 2007 there were 82,500 permanent long-term arrivals, up 1,800, or 2 percent, from the July 2006 year.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister satisfied that 25,500 Kiwis—roughly 500 per week—are departing for Australia, and is he aware that that is about 5,000 more than last year; and does he share the concern that those departing to Australia are being replaced by a mishmash of migrants, some of whom make little or no commitment to this country?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I can confirm the figures I have just stated from the Statistics New Zealand website. We all know that there is a global exchange of skills. Kiwis have travelled for many, many years, and many come back to New Zealand. I also remind the member that since the New Zealand Residence Programme has been in place, 60 percent of migrants approved have been skilled. This policy requires a number of factors, including the establishment of considerable specialist, technical, or management skills, and work experience or recognised qualifications, to name just some of the criteria.

Peter Brown: Noting that answer, does the Minister agree that rather than operating an immigration policy, his Government and previous Governments have operated what is more like a replacement policy, replacing our best and brightest with whomever we can find; if not, how would he describe the current policy?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No. The Government has operated a policy that is aimed at attracting skilled migrants, as I have said, to New Zealand. I repeat for the member’s benefit that since the New Zealand Residence Programme was put in place, 60 percent of migrants approved have been skilled. I say for the benefit of the member that the other criteria are a relevant job offer that requires the use of those skills and qualifications, a good level of English, an acceptable standard of health, and a good character. In addition, I note for the member’s benefit that our top source of migrants wanting to settle in New Zealand is the United Kingdom.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What number of the 25,500 going from New Zealand to Australia, as at the last count, were short-term residency holders from abroad who had come to New Zealand and have now relocated to Australia; and if the Minister does not know, why on earth would the department not be collecting those figures?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I do not have those figures in front of me at this point, but I will endeavour to get them for the member.

Electoral Finance Bill—Neutral Referees

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement in relation to matters of election campaigning in the Electoral Finance Bill that “A neutral referee is provided for in this legislation to exercise judgment on those matters.”; if so, who is that neutral referee?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I do. The quote refers to the role of the Chief Electoral Officer in relation to determining whether publications by third parties and candidates fall within the definition of election activity. The Chief Electoral Officer will also be in a position to generally provide advice and guidance on what is and is not included in the bill’s definitions. In some cases that advice would be very straightforward, such as in the case of publications by the news media. There is an exemption for the news media, and it includes material that the news media disseminates on the Internet, such as an online newspaper or a journalist’s blog.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the role of the Chief Electoral Officer is absolutely unchanged by this legislation, that the Chief Electoral Officer has always been available to offer that guidance and advice, and that, contrary to his statement to the House, this legislation does not provide a new, neutral referee; so why did he say it?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member should be careful to be accurate. I did not say “a new, neutral referee”. I said it provides a neutral referee; it does, and it provides an extended role and responsibilities for the Chief Electoral Officer.

Hon Bill English: Why is it that whenever this Minister is asked a question about this legislation, he either does not know the answer or thinks he does and gets it wrong, and occasionally just makes it up?

Hon MARK BURTON: That has got to be the ultimate case of the pot attempting to call the kettle black. I have answered each question factually and correctly, but, frankly, I say to Mr English, the making-up is something we have seen as recently as in the last question the member asked.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us whether he knows the answer to this question, and if he does not know can he please not attempt to answer it. Can he confirm that unincorporated societies, such as churches, can qualify as third parties under this bill and therefore be allowed to spend over $5,000 in election year only if all their members are registered electors, and that, therefore, any church that has a member who is aged 17 or under is thereby excluded from participating?

Hon MARK BURTON: The question the member raises is a matter of interpretation of one of the clauses in the bill. It is a matter that I have asked officials to look at, because I think it is important that the intent of the bill is clear in all matters. That is, of course, why we have a select committee process.

Hon Bill English: Now that the Minister has had 24 hours since I asked him about whether blogs on newspaper websites count as election advertisements, can he now inform the House what his best advice is on that matter?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member clearly did not listen to the answer I gave to his principal question.

Hon Bill English: Can I give the Minister 24 hours’ notice of an answer to this question: is it correct, under this legislation, that, regarding the Labour Party pledge card and the spending of $800,000, which exceeded the expenditure limits at the last election, the Labour Party would not be liable for anything if it did the same again, and that the only person who would be is the party’s financial agent, who would have to pay a $40,000 fine, but that Labour would be able to run the pledge card and not have to repay the money if it did it illegally?

Hon MARK BURTON: That matter is not covered by this legislation, as the member should well know. This legislation covers the activities of candidates in election campaigns, not parliamentary activity. But if the member does want to put a question down for 24 hours, of course he is eligible to do so. I have to say to the member that what this bill will not allow, which happened at the last election, is the $1 million rort that the National Party, and Mr Key in particular, actively knew about and encouraged—that $1 million rort at absolute odds with the sentiments of the speech that that member gave just 2 hours ago in this building.

Hon Bill English: Can the member confirm that under this law, he, as the member for Taupo, will be able to spend $65,000 of public money next year promoting himself, and anyone who tries to challenge him will be limited to $20,000 expenditure for the whole year; and does he agree that even with a three to one advantage he will get trashed?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yet again the member is factually incorrect on every point. As a member of Parliament, like that member—although I do visit my electorate on a frequent basis—I will be entitled to continue to meet my responsibilities, and expenditure related to those, as a member of Parliament. I will not be entitled to spend any of that money in my capacity as a candidate in winning a sixth term to the Taupo electorate.

Formaldehyde—Safety of Textiles and Clothing

5. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: Will the Government issue legally binding standards on formaldehyde in textiles and conduct an extensive investigation into the safety of clothing sold in New Zealand, in the wake of TV3’s Target programme last night?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): The Ministry of Consumer Affairs has opened an urgent investigation into formaldehyde levels in imported clothing, and a swift, comprehensive, and appropriate response will be made once the results of the investigation are received.

Sue Kedgley: How wide-ranging will the investigation be, how many clothes will be tested, and will she use her powers to recall any clothes and textiles that exceed the World Health Organization safety limit—and are therefore unsafe—and initiate the random testing of imported textiles and clothing?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I understand from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that it is looking at making a reasonably wide range of clothing available for testing. It has been talking with the Ministry of Health and the Environmental Risk Management Authority. It is also in contact with our Australian counterparts. I would like to point out that neither New Zealand nor Australia has a standard for formaldehyde levels in textiles, and that the international levels vary wildly from those of Japan, which has a level of about 30 parts per million, through to those of some European countries, which allow up to 10,000 parts per million. So what we are also doing is looking for appropriate levels and appropriate testing procedures, but we will do that as quickly as possible.

Kate Wilkinson: Why is it that the European Union has had standards on formaldehyde in children’s clothing since 1999, the US has standards on formaldehyde in clothing, and clearly the issue was raised in Australia in the middle of the year, yet the ministry that she has been in charge of for 5 years has done nothing about this issue until this week, when the TV cameras turned up?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: New Zealand has overarching requirements in the Consumer Guarantees Act, which requires all goods to be safe and fit for the purpose for which they are sold. If any consumers have any concerns, then they should complain first to the retailer and refer the complaint to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, or go to their general practitioner. We also recognise that formaldehyde is quite a common chemical. It is used in textiles to fix dyes and for the permanent pressing process. It is also used as a biocide and an anti-mildew process for goods that come here by sea. This is not a new issue, and it is constantly reviewed. I believe that all New Zealanders should be assured that the Government does have very good processes, but they also need to read labels and follow them.

Sue Kedgley: How can New Zealanders have any confidence that the pyjamas and T-shirts their children are wearing are safe, when on the one hand this Government encourages a flood of cheap imports into New Zealand from countries with poor consumer protection and safety regulations, and on the other hand it fails to set standards, conduct random tests, and issue recalls of unsafe products, leading to New Zealanders being exposed to toys with lead paint in them, to toothpaste with industrial chemicals in it, and to clothing and now blankets today that are contaminated with alarmingly high levels of formaldehyde, which, despite what the Minister has said, is a known human carcinogen?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: New Zealand is a relatively small market, so it is very difficult for us to dictate to the whole world how its manufacturers should work and what the standards should be. Indeed, there are conflicting, or different, standards in different areas. What I can say is that New Zealand does have standards. The standard is absolute: every good must be safe, every good must be properly labelled, and every good must be suitable for the purpose for which it is intended. Every consumer has that assurance, and anyone who is concerned about any good should go back to the retailer. There is a chain of responsibility from the manufacturer to the importer, to the retailer, and to the consumer. The Government has very good laws and very good standards, which should be good protection for everyone.

Shane Jones: What standards do exist to protect New Zealand consumers from imported products?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: We have absolute standards. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, all goods must be safe and fit for their purpose. That Act is, in the first instance, self-enforcing, and the test is reasonableness. Under the Fair Trading Act, goods must be adequately labelled as to fibre content, care instructions, and, for clothing, the country of origin—

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How is it that a member can ask a question from a sheet, give that same sheet to the Minister with the answer on it, and then the Minister gives the answer? For goodness’ sake!

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. We will hear the answer in silence, but the answer will be succinct.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Under the Consumer Guarantees Act and under the Fair Trading Act a number of standards are set out, but they are overarching standards and specifics where we know that products have been unsafe. We are concerned about goods from all countries, but what we cannot do, and what I do not want to do, is to add massive costs to New Zealand consumers by assuming that all imported goods are unsafe. The vast majority of them are perfectly safe.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would help the House enormously in its judgment on that answer if Mr Jones could explain whether he wrote the answer or the Minister wrote the question on the piece of paper.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. We are starting to be show ponies again.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Consumer Affairs’ roles, which show the Minister can make mandatory standards, ban unsafe products, and recall—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Does the member have several documents?

Sue Kedgley: Just a couple; that is all. I seek leave to table a release today showing that Superlux blankets are now being recalled after tests that—

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document outlining the string of consumer complaints, from Wednesday, 22 August this year.

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

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I seek leave to table the release from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs labelled “Investigation into Formaldehyde in Clothing”.

Leave granted.

State Services, Minister—Records of Environment Ministry's Discussions

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: Do the “Minister’s records” referred to in answers to question for oral answer No. 7 yesterday confirm she first learnt of David Benson-Pope’s discussion with Hugh Logan regarding the employment of Madeleine Setchell on 3 July 2007; if so, who told her?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): No, I did not hear of the discussion between Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Hugh Logan on 3 July, as I have told this House before. At that time, 3 July, I was advised by Mr Rennie that an employment problem existed. To make it crystal clear to the member asking the question, I repeat what I said in response to his question No. 3 on 9 August, which is that I was first advised of the comments of Mr Benson-Pope to Mr Hugh Logan on 25 July.

Gerry Brownlee: On what date did the Minister learn that Steve Hurring from David Benson-Pope’s office had phoned Hugh Logan to express concern about the appointment of Madeleine Setchell?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will have come back to the member. I do not have all the times and dates in front of me, but I am happy to come back very shortly.

Darren Hughes: Has she received any reports on file notes that were made by the State Services Commissioner, Dr Prebble?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I told this House on 16 August that I have not asked Dr Prebble whether he kept file notes on his discussion or interactions with Hugh Logan re the Setchell affair. Such matters are now before the independent investigation by Mr Don Hunn. Yesterday Mr Brownlee tried to mislead the House by implying that I had seen a file note and that I knew about the issue of whether the file notes existed. I repeat that I had no idea whether such notes existed, and that is a matter for Mr Hunn to investigate.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the first she had heard of this matter was in the discussion she held with the Acting State Services Commissioner on 3 July, despite the fact that the ninth floor of the Beehive knew, the Ministry for the Environment knew, the State Services Commissioner knew, the Leader of the Opposition’s office knew, and numerous journalists knew and had known of the matter for some 5 weeks; and will she further assure the House that none of her ministerial office staff knew of this matter before that date?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister then agree that although from 30 May the ninth floor of the Beehive knew about this matter, the State Services Commissioner knew about this matter, the Ministry for the Environment knew about this matter, David Benson-Pope and his office knew about this matter, the Leader of the Opposition and his office knew about this matter, and numerous journalists knew about the matter and were beginning to write about it, she apparently did not know anything for 5 weeks and would have us believe that she did not know anything about David Benson-Pope’s intervention for some 8 weeks; and does not this make it look very much as if she is part of a “cover up until you are caught” deal?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can do no more than say that those are the facts. I was not, informed about this issue until Mr Rennie told me, in a routine meeting, and he told me about an employment matter problem with the ministry. It was not a matter of going into issues about Mr Benson-Pope or Mr Logan, as this member is trying to imply, and I take exception to the idea that there was a cover-up. In fact, I think that most people have had enough of that member trying to make out that the Public Service and senior public servants have been trying to cover up anything. I believe that that member does not have a feather to fly on but that he is trying to find one.

Gerry Brownlee: If there was—[Interruption] What was that? Madam Speaker, the paint is starting to peel off the walls; it is unfortunate that Mrs Pettis is back to her old tricks again.

Madam SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

Gerry Brownlee: I do, Madam Speaker. If there was no cover-up, if there was no problem, and if the State Services Commissioner is beyond reproach, why is Don Hunn investigating this matter; and will his eventual report be just another part of the whitewash of this whole issue?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Mr Hunn is investigating so that we can stop the sort of kangaroo court and innuendoes that have been coming from the National Party for weeks over this issue.

Gerry Brownlee: Just tell the truth.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take exception to the comment just made by Gerry Brownlee.

Madam SPEAKER: Exception has been taken. Would the member withdraw and apologise.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On no less than eight occasions last week the Government screamed across to members on this side of the House: “Tell the truth.” , and no offence was taken. In fact, there was—

Madam SPEAKER: I understand what the member is saying—

Gerry Brownlee: Madam Speaker, it is important—

Madam SPEAKER: Please would the member be seated. The point is that if members do take exception, it is the convention in this House that the member withdraws and apologises. There is nothing to stop members from taking exception or not taking exception, but when they do, that is the procedure we follow. Would the member please withdraw and apologise.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could convey that convention to your assistant, Mrs Hartley, who did not follow that through numerous Committee stages last week.

Madam SPEAKER: No. The member knows that he cannot raise that in this context.

Waitangi Tribunal—Te Wānanga o Aotearoa [Wai 1298]

7. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: He aha nga mahi kua kawea e ia hei tautuku i nga tutohutanga a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi mo Te Wananga o Aotearoa, ara, a (Wai 1298) i panuitia i te rua tekau ma toru o Hakihea, i te tau rua mano ma rima, a, ahea te Kawanatanga tuku ai i te katoa o tana urupare whai tikanga mo ia tutohutanga?

[What action has he taken to comply with the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal concerning Te Wananga o Aotearoa [Wai 1298] released on 23 December 2005, and when does the Government expect to release a full formal response to each recommendation?]

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): Discussion on a partnership agreement with the three wānanga has been proceeding for some time. I also expect to take a full formal response to the tribunal’s recommendations to Cabinet in the near future for approval.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What strategies have been developed to ensure that consultation and negotiation with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa take place between the wānanga and the Crown at the level of the council, the Minister for Tertiary Education, and the Secretary for Education?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There have been intense and ongoing relationships between the Crown and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa over the last 2 years or more, with the involvement, obviously, of the Crown manager and the commissioner. We have had frequent reports and engagement between the Tertiary Education Commission and the wānanga. I am confident that the wānanga is now on a very much more secure basis for future growth and development than it was some 2 years ago.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister agree that the aggressive growth strategies pursued by the previous chief executive officer of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa went way beyond the defined purpose of wānanga and placed that institution at long-term risk; and can he confirm that the current administration recognises this and has set in place policies that will strengthen the institution into the future?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that is a very fair comment. I think it also has to be said, and it was sometimes forgotten in the commentary on the wānanga a few years ago, that any tertiary institution that grew at the rate that that institution did over such a very short period of time would have run into major governance and management problems. It went from well under 3,000 equivalent full-time students to something like 32,000 equivalent full-time students in the space of about 4 or 5 years. It is very doubtful whether any tertiary education institution could grow at that rate without creating very significant difficulties.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What administrative and financial assistance will the Minister provide to assist Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in meeting the costs in carrying out the reviews, audits, and inquiries undergone by that institution, as recommended by the tribunal in Wai 1298?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The wānanga has already had an extremely large settlement in relation to its Waitangi Tribunal claim, in terms of the capital funding of wānanga. We are, of course, still in negotiations with Raukawa, but we are approaching the completion of those in relation to its capital claim. Awanuiārangi has already had its payment in terms of the capital claim. The Government will not be funding the claims to the tribunal itself.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Can the Minister confirm that the cost of having Mr Brian Roche and his team at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa has exceeded $3.2 million for the 2 years to 31 March 2007, is it likely to cost another $2,400 per day plus GST for each day they are on site for the rest of the year, and does he think that this is an acceptable cost to continue to be met by Te Wānanga o Aotearoa; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I do, because that cost and that activity have turned around the wānanga from a position where it was not so much collapsing as exploding and had entered into all kinds of strange activities to one that is now on a secure and safe basis for the future. The progress that has been made, in conjunction with the council headed by Craig Coxhead and the chief executive of the wānanga, means that we have some reasonable confidence that, in fact, Mr Roche should be able to be withdrawn before the end of the year.

North Shore Hospital—Emergency Department Services

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Was the first time he became aware that the North Shore Hospital emergency department is “[not] providing an adequate service” when the Prime Minister told him after her recent visit; if not, when did he first become aware?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I first became aware of problems at North Shore Hospital just over 12 years ago, on 30 May 1995. On that day, Parliament was advised that an elderly woman who had been taken to hospital by ambulance after breaking her arm was left to find her own way home in her nightie, after staff ejected her at 1 o’clock in the morning.

Hon Tony Ryall: Given that at that time the current Prime Minister, Helen Clark, promised she would fix that situation, why, after spending $5 billion and after 8 long years in office, has the Government not fixed it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member may not be aware that since the change of Government the people of Waitematā have moved from a situation where they had one hospital to a situation where they have two. An entire new hospital has been built in the Waitakere area. There used to not be a hospital, under the National Government, in west Auckland, at all—no hospital for quarter of a million people.

Ann Hartley: What advice has the Minister received about the health workforce of the Waitemata District Health Board?

Hon PETE HODGSON: As I mentioned to the House yesterday, 6 years ago the number of doctors totalled 320, and since then that number has increased to 570. That is a 78 percent increase in that district health board’s doctors—an increase of 250 doctors—in 6 years. As for nurses, the increases are even higher. An extra 253 nursing positions have been created, not in the past 6 years but in the past 3 years. That is what one can do when one does not have only tax cuts on one’s mind.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the situation with the North Shore Hospital emergency department occasioned by the huge drain on resources caused by that hospital having whole wards filled with people with Third World diseases, and how on earth did that get to happen in our country?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The health status of the people of North Shore City, which is part of the Waitemata District Health Board area, happens to be the highest in the land. But what is happening on the North Shore is that it is a very popular area to live, it has very large population increases, and it has even larger increases in the growth of its elderly population. That is why the funding increases for the Waitemata District Health Board are higher than those for any other district health board in the country.

Hon Tony Ryall: Which other emergency departments are not providing an adequate service, or is the Minister waiting for the Prime Minister to visit those ones first, as well?

Hon PETE HODGSON: At this time of year, every year, a number of emergency departments struggle. The Capital and Coast District Health Board said about 3 weeks ago that it had had difficulty and had moved into a sort of red zone. The Canterbury District Health Board moved into a red zone for several hours a few days ago. There are difficulties in Timaru. There were—but I do not think there are any now—difficulties in Waikato; they may recur. This is what happens when the flu takes hold and reduces the numbers of nurses and doctors available to go to work, at the same time as it increases the number of patients who need to go to hospital.

Hon Tony Ryall: In blaming the flu for the gridlock in our nation’s hospitals, is the Minister aware of the comment of the current Prime Minister when in Opposition: “We know that winter brings an increase in health problems. It happens every year—some years earlier in the season, some years later. But our hospitals must be ready to cope with the problems. It just isn’t good enough to have basic services break down as they have.”; and why, after $5 billion and 8 years of endless rhetoric, do we still have an 83-year-old woman lying on a trolley under bright lights at North Shore Hospital for 4 days on end, and a woman with a broken shin and on a drip lying in the emergency department waiting room for 12 hours?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me remind the House, yet again, that since the change of Government in December 1999, this country has been on a hospital rebuilding programme of a kind that has never been seen in living memory.

Madam SPEAKER: The member gave his question in silence. Would members please give the Minister the courtesy of giving his reply in silence.

Hon PETE HODGSON: New hospitals have been built from Kaitāia to Invercargill inclusive. Only a few kilometres from here an entire new regional hospital is going up in Wellington. If we go to Waitematā, we find that an expanded emergency department at North Shore Hospital was opened by my colleague Annette King, and that an entire new hospital was opened in west Auckland. That is the sort of thing one can do when one is intent on getting the rebuild under way, and intent on addressing the infrastructure deficit that the current Prime Minister mentioned when in Opposition.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does he think that patients at Palmerston North Hospital are getting an adequate service from their emergency department, when an elderly man spent nearly an hour bleeding into a garden bucket before he was treated at that emergency department; and does he agree with the current Prime Minister’s pledge that a Labour Government would make sure that when someone needs a hospital bed, that person gets it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will repeat this for the member. The member wants to know where the money has gone. He seems to regret the fact that we have invested heavily in health, so he decides he will say that nothing has changed. I tell him that we are on to our 28th hospital rebuild, and we will continue that rebuild. When we are elected for a fourth term we will continue that rebuild until it is done. When it is done, New Zealanders will have the hospital services that we need, and we will not have to put up with the dereliction that was created right through the 1990s when all that that member could do was get out of bed and work out how to cut taxes.

Jo Goodhew: Given the Minister’s answers to the previous questions, is he concerned that despite all of that building and despite spending an extra $5 billion per year, the public’s confidence that they will get treated in an emergency department is at the lowest level that it has ever been, and the horror stories are more frightening than ever?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I say to the member that I am not satisfied with the quality of treatment at the North Shore Hospital emergency department as it stands at the moment; neither is the Prime Minister, and neither is the board of Waitemata District Health Board. It is not satisfactory. However, if the member is going to get up in the House and say that public confidence in our health system is at the lowest level that it has ever been, I shall introduce some facts into her prejudices. I am sorry to disturb the member’s prejudices, but the truth is that we measure patient satisfaction with our hospitals, and it runs at a high 80 percent approval rate.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister received any reports that the last time Mr Ryall was a member of the Government of New Zealand, the Government he was part of closed down 88 hospitals in this country, and how did those closures help the New Zealand health system?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Not only can I confirm there were hospital closures under the National Government; I can confirm that the National Government sought to reduce demand by charging people to go to hospital. I remember those days, and I do not want to ever see them come back.

Madam SPEAKER: Supplementary question? We have a point of order.

Jo Goodhew: I seek leave to table an article—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I had called for a supplementary question, and a member wants to ask one. The normal procedure is that we try to get through supplementary questions before members introduce points of order relating to the tabling of documents. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister to tell me whether I have the score right: the National Government closed 88 hospitals—

Hon Members: That’s not true.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —was it more—the fourth Labour Government closed 29 hospitals, but the fifth Labour Government has opened 28 hospitals, so we are one behind on the Government side, and 88 behind on the Opposition side where National is concerned?

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that requires an answer. [Interruption] Please be seated. I will take the member’s point of order. Would members please keep the level of noise down. It is really difficult to hear.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know why on earth you ruled out that question, because it simply asked for a statement of fact from the Minister. It seemed that, because of the help of Mr Jim Anderton, he had most of the figures at his disposal—first, from Jim Anderton, and, now, from myself. All I wanted to know was whether it was true or not true. The question should not be ruled out because those members cannot stand the truth.

Gerry Brownlee: The member has asked for a factual answer to his particular question. Perhaps he himself should have used some facts in the first place, because there have never been 88 hospitals in this country, let alone 88 closed.

Madam SPEAKER: We are now moving into debate, not points of order. [Interruption] Please be silent; would you please be seated when I am on my feet. I will address the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point of order. He did ask a question, it was in terms of the Standing Orders, so would the Minister please respond.

Hon PETE HODGSON: With pleasure. The fact of the matter is that I could not keep count of how many hospitals National closed, so I am not able to confirm that there were 88. But I am able to confirm afresh that the current building programme, in dollars, in number of hospitals, in number of beds, in tonnes of concrete—by whatever measure one would like to take—is the largest in this country in living memory, and this Government will be back in a year’s time to continue it.

Jo Goodhew: I seek leave to table an article on Christchurch Hospital’s “Worst ‘red gridlock’ in hospital’s history.”

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

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a report showing that although 250 doctors have been employed by the Waitemata District Health Board, well over 200 extra managers and administrators have also been employed.

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

Hon PETE HODGSON: I seek leave to table a document showing that in the last year, although dozens of nurses, dozens of doctors, and dozens of ancillary health professionals were employed by the Waitemata District Health Board, the number of support workers—

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: For the benefit of Mr Jim Anderton, I seek leave to table a list of the 23 hospitals closed by Helen Clark.

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

Energy—Alternative Sources

9. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What reports, if any, has he received on the establishment of a new contestable fund to help bring forward the use of alternative energy sources?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Last night the Prime Minister launched a Low Carbon Energy Technologies Fund of $4 million per year. This will help bring forward the use of further renewable energy sources such as bio-diesel from algae and sewage, biomass, and deep geothermal. There is no doubt that this Government is taking many significant steps towards carbon neutrality.

Steve Chadwick: Is the Minister able to confirm that the Low Carbon Energy Technologies Fund is additional to the marine energy fund launched with the Government’s draft energy policy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can. The low carbon fund is additional to the $8 million marine energy contestable fund. The $800 million worth of sustainability initiatives foreshadowed in the Budget are making a real difference. Yesterday’s announcement also added $2.5 million for dealing with the impacts of climate change on our primary sector and infrastructure—yet more progress towards carbon neutrality—and there are more announcements to come.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is months behind on its work in developing an emissions trading system, and that, far from introducing legislation in October as promised, we are again going to get another discussion document; and is not his reason for manufacturing these minor announcements to try to hide the nakedness of any comprehensive policy around climate change after 8 years in Government?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm the tenor of those comments. I can confirm, in response to the concern expressed by some, including the Greens, that what is going to be produced in respect of emissions trading was only going to be a shell, that the Prime Minister quipped that if it is a shell, then it is the heaviest shell she has ever seen. There are complex technical papers that lie behind it that would weigh down a truck.

Housing—Affordability

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What, if anything, is the Department of Building and Housing doing to improve housing affordability?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): As I advised the member last week in answer to the same question, the Department of Building and Housing is working in partnership with a number of agencies in developing a range of housing affordability proposals, including the investigation of shared equity. This is part of the Government’s wider work programme on housing affordability. Specifically, the department has introduced changes to the building code, as I said last week, on energy efficiency, to save families in new homes between $760 and $1800 per year on their energy bill. The department is also progressing a suite of reforms to transform the sector that include occupational licensing for building practitioners, a review of the building code, and the accreditation of building consent authorities.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the analysis by the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand that the single biggest cost difference between building a house in New Zealand and in Australia is the cost of consents, fees, and levies, and its analysis that these have risen 900 percent under his Government; if so, will he endorse John Key’s call for reform to get these costs down and make houses more affordable?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am aware of the chief executive of the Master Builders Federation, Mr Pieter Burghout, claiming that 30 percent of the increase in the cost of a basic house represents regulatory costs, plus 20 percent labour and material costs. The other 50 percent is the increase in land costs. I am advised that of the 30 percent I have quoted, 15 percent are local authority infrastructure levies and fees—for example, development levies that local authorities choose the quantum of to charge, not the Government—and 15 percent are other local authority charges, Resource Management Act and building consent charges, and costs of delays in variability in the consenting process. The auditing and consenting of local authorities we are undergoing now will alleviate this.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that the evidence submitted to the Commerce Committee by the Registered Master Builders Federation is that the time taken to obtain consents has quadrupled, and that the average construction time to build a new house has gone from 12 to 22 weeks since the new Building Act came into force—a prime example of bureaucratic overkill—and does he intend to do something about it?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In answer to the last point, we are. I am aware of delays in the building consent—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s getting worse!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I tell the member to just breathe quietly. I am aware of delays in the building consent process. The way to address organisational failure in any entity is to go through and organisationally audit the entity to find out whether it has enough staff, whether it has enough resource, and whether its processes are adequate and efficient. That is what one does. One does not do what the member opposite wanted to do in the legislation he tried to put through this House, in which if a council did not meet the 20-day mark, the person who wanted the consent got the consent for free, and the ratepayer took on all the sunk costs. That bill, which that member proposed, was not endorsed by the National Party East Coast branch chairperson—I think her name was Seymour—who called it “daft”.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Minister reconcile the self-congratulatory statement by Lianne Dalziel yesterday in the House that the Government has led “the most effective review of red tape that this country has ever seen” with the statement by the Wellington City Council last week: “A typical house plan 4 years ago was three A3-sized plans and 30 supplementary pages. Now builders are required to file 12 A3-sized plans and up to 300 pages of supplementary documentation.”?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I remind the member that the 1991 building code, which his Government passed—the national building code—sets permissive performance standards for buildings. The code leaves it up to local consenting authorities—that is, local councils—to determine the actual rules and requirements for compliance with the code and the set of relevant charges attached to it. In essence, the code leaves it to the local authorities to set those rules. That is why this Government is in the process of reviewing the building code, in the first review since 1991. The second discussion document is out now, and I invite the member to submit on it as other learned entities are doing.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that according to the Registered Master Builders Federation, drafting and specification work for a new house has quadrupled since the Building Act came into force, and that builders are now drawing plans for the local authority rather than for the builder; and does he agree that in moving to regulation from deregulation we have swung the pendulum too far, thus putting the cost of new houses out of reach for many young New Zealand families?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: For the member’s benefit I will quote again. I am advised that of the 30 percent Mr Burghout quoted before the committee, only 15 percent of those costs were local authority charges, Resource Management Act charges, and building consent fees and charges. If we move back, as John Key said he wanted us to do, in his speech to the New Zealand Contractors Federation of 20 August—where he effectively said he would deregulate the industry again, as the previous National Government did so that there were no rules, anybody could pick up a tool belt and call themselves a builder, and apprenticeships were done away with, which this Government has brought back—then I say to that member: be it on his own head, because that is how we got the leaky buildings scenario we are charged with fixing up now.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What action did the Minister take in response to the letter from the Registered Master Builders Federation to him on 20 October last year that states: “About $30,000 of the cost of the average new home is attributable to unnecessary regulatory red tape”, and does his failure to address these issues after more than a year not show that this Government is part of the problem of home affordability and not part of the solution?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Like all dutiful Ministers on this side, I reply to letters. I say again to the member that these issues are why we are embarked on the first review of the building code since 1991. Under his Government in 1991 that member put in place a permissive performance set of standards for buildings that effectively said, for the benefit of the House: “You must build a house that does not blow over in the wind. How you achieve that, local councils, is up to you. You local councils set the rules, and we will set the performance standards.” That is why we are embarked on a review of the building code, and if the member would like, I am happy to send him a copy of the submission documents so that he can put forward his view.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document that will make an utter nonsense of the claims by Clayton Cosgrove, that document being the speech by John Key.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the speech by the Hon George Hawkins saying that only Labour could claim credit for the—

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the letter of the Registered Master Builders Federation to the Minister on 20 October last year, saying that unnecessary—

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

Question time interrupted.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Prisons—Cellphones

11. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister of Corrections: What steps is the Government taking to restrict the use of cellphones in prisons?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Today the Department of Corrections has signed a formal agreement that provides the department with the ability to block the use of cellphones in prisons. The deal is a world first. Technology solutions will roll out nationwide, starting within 6 weeks at Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison. Between 20 and 30 available technologies have been tested, and we now have a range of solutions that can be implemented across the prison system.

Jill Pettis: What other measures have been introduced to prevent cellphones from getting into prisons?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am glad that question was asked. Preventing cellphones and other contraband items from entering prisons, and apprehending those who do attempt to smuggle them in, have been amongst my highest priorities. I am about to introduce amendments to the Corrections Act that will boost search powers and stiffen penalties for anyone who is foolish enough to bring communications devices, drugs, or weapons into prisons. We already have intelligence-gathering systems in each and every prison. We have doubled the number of drug-dog teams. We have 17 kilometres of new security fencing around our prisons. We have shifted towards a single point of entry at all our prison sites. We are moving on this international challenge.

Simon Power: Will this new technology work at Mount Eden Prison?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Department of Corrections will be working with the telecommunications company to ensure that cellphone jamming technology will be used as long as it does not interfere with legitimate cellphone users. It is possible to use it at Mount Eden Prison, I am told, and the Department of Corrections will work with the companies to ensure that that can happen.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister not agree with New Zealand First’s view that part of the problem we have with cellphone usage in prisons and the smuggling of them into prisons has been the “wet bus ticket” approach that has been taken towards inmates who have been found to be in possession of cellphones; if he does agree that past approaches have been of the “wet bus ticket” types—that is, no extra sentencing; no extra prison term—what will he do about that in the future?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are moving to amend the Corrections Act to ensure that anyone who is in possession of a cellphone on a cell site without full authorisation will be prosecuted, be that person a staff member, a visitor, or a prisoner, and that such a prisoner will receive an extended prison term if he or she is prosecuted.

Consumer Affairs, Ministry—Confidence

12. KATE WILKINSON (National) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: Does she have confidence in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs; if so, why?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): Yes; because it is a small but hard-working ministry. But I am sure there is always room for improvement.

Kate Wilkinson: Why should we believe that the Minister is concerned about consumer safety when she has not recommended a single product safety standard for 2 years, when only six have been recommended in the last 6 years, and when the formaldehyde content in textiles was raised as a concern in the Australian media 3 months ago yet nothing has been done about it until this week?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Because the legislation under which our consumer law operates—which was described by David Russell, the former chief executive officer of the Consumers Institute, as a fine, elegant standard, which is much admired internationally—has absolute standards. Every good must be safe and fit for the purpose for which it is intended. We have good standards, and those standards are very well managed. However, what we cannot do is stand by every consumer and tell them what to buy and what not to buy. We have to be active, intelligent, well-informed consumers. We have done a great deal. We have had mandatory recalls for hot water bottles. We have had mandatory recalls for tongue studs. We have had many voluntary recalls, including, I have to say, in the last 2 hours a voluntary recall of blankets by Spotlight Stores (NZ) Ltd, when high levels of formaldehyde were found after voluntary testing undertaken in Australia. That affects 850 blankets. The system is working.

Kate Wilkinson: Why should we believe that she is concerned about consumer safety when she has not recalled a single product in the last 12 months, or that voluntary recalling of products is working well, when in the last 12 months only 17 product recalls have been made, compared with over 200 for the same period in Australia?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Wherever goods are found to be unsafe they are subject either to a voluntary recall or to a mandatory recall. The system is working very well in New Zealand, and this Government has properly funded the Commerce Commission to investigate the Fair Trading Act. We have increased the number of staff in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. We are working closely with other ministries, and other countries and the absolutely independent former chief executive officer of the Consumers Institute say that our system is both efficient and widely admired.

Dianne Yates: Could the Minister remind the House when and why the Ministry of Consumer Affairs was established and what its role is?

Madam SPEAKER: I hope the question is answered in a succinct manner.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Certainly, Madam Speaker. Since it was established by the fourth Labour Government the Ministry of Consumer Affairs has effectively maintained safety standards. For example, its work covers the development of consumer policy, consumer protection, product safety, and weights and measures. It provides appropriate, accurate, and accessible information, education, and advice to consumers and to businesses on consumer laws and issues. What is more, the New Zealand market overwhelmingly works.

Kate Wilkinson: Why is it that we have a product safety standard for toys relating to small parts, yet we have nothing from the Minister on the hazardous chemical residues on children’s clothing and nothing on the lead content of paint used to paint those toys?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: All goods sold in New Zealand must be safe and fit for the purpose for which they are intended. We have very good standards, and we see them enforced. The recalls are an example of the system working. I am astonished that the Opposition, which despises all consumer support, is trying to attack us and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for an excellent system that works.

ENDS

© Scoop Media