Questions And Answers - Tuesday, 4 September 2007

Health, Minister—Confidence

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

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

John Key: Is she satisfied with the care provided by neonatal intensive care units where, despite warnings in 2004, intensive care units are now routinely full nationwide and hospitals are so desperate that they are currently considering transferring pregnant women to Australia for care; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am aware that those units are under pressure at the moment. Since 2002 there has been about a 10 percent increase in the number of births in New Zealand, and clearly if this is ongoing there will have to be more capacity.

John Key: Is she satisfied with Dunedin Hospital, where last week an urgent warning was issued for patients to stay away due to overcrowding and the district health board suggested transferring patients to motels in order to free up beds; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am aware that at certain parts of the year, when there are seasonal pressures with regard to flu and colds, our hospitals come under a lot of pressure. I might say that it was ever thus, and one could flourish long lists of newspaper headlines from the 1990s that say exactly that.

John Key: Is she satisfied with Wellington Hospital, where the hospital was so full recently that it declared itself to be in code red status because there was no capacity to admit patients, and where resources usually reserved for natural disasters are being used regularly; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I refer to the pressures I referred to before. What I am very satisfied with is that under a Labour-led Government 4,000 more nurses and more than 1,200 more doctors are employed, and there is a $1.2 billion infrastructure programme in our hospitals. All I am hearing from the National Party is that it wants there to be more privatisation in the health sector.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with North Shore Hospital, where patients wait for hours—sometimes days—for treatment in the emergency department, and where last month the wait was so bad that ambulances were parked outside and used as makeshift emergency rooms; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, or course not, and that is why I am looking forward to the announcement I understand will be forthcoming of an expansion in its facilities, because when we have a Labour-led Government putting $1.2 billion, already committed, into new facilities we can deal with those pressures—unlike the National Government in the 1990s, when there were headlines such as: “Nats kid us they care”, and “Unfair policies pushing oldies into the grave”. That was a National Government.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with Palmerston North Hospital, described as a nightmare, where a man waiting for treatment was forced to bleed into a bucket, and where an 8-year-old child waited for 5 hours for pain relief after breaking both her arms; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am satisfied that we can always do better than we are doing, but I am also satisfied—and I hope the National Party will listen carefully to this answer—that in the 1999 Budget $6 billion was provided for health. In this year’s Budget there is $12 billion—twice as much in nominal terms.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the reason the health system is in such a mess under Labour is that her Minister of Health has one of two problems: either he is totally distracted by trying to dig dirt on the Leader of the Opposition or he is just completely out of his depth; and can the Prime Minister assure us that when she gives Pete Hodgson the flick in her reshuffle, she will put in place a Minister of Health who actually cares about the health of New Zealanders, instead of one who is totally distracted?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: This is a Government that puts its money where its mouth is by doubling health spending, unlike the previous National Government, which always prioritised tax cuts for the rich over health care for ordinary people.

Heather Roy: Does her confidence in the Minister of Health extend to his handling of the district health boards, and can she tell the House of a single thing that boards can decide without getting the approval of either the Minister or the Ministry of Health; if she cannot tell us even one thing, why do we go through the expense and the rigmarole of electing people to boards that have absolutely no autonomy?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: District health boards are elected to be responsive and accountable to their communities, and they work very closely with their communities. But I take it that ACT and National would get rid of all elected boards again, as they did in 1991 in the horrible night of that year’s Budget, when they took away local democracy. That is National Party policy.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister had ample opportunity to explain the National Party’s policy. Explaining National Party policy, or hypothetically what it might be, in answer to a direct question from the ACT party is hardly helpful in terms of addressing the question. The question asked specifically what autonomy district health boards had and whether they could decide one thing without getting either the Minister or the Ministry of Health’s permission or authority, and the Prime Minister resolutely refused to address that question.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Prime Minister did actually address the question. Obviously it was not to the satisfaction of the member, but the question was addressed.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister explain to New Zealanders why, if tax cuts are a problem with regard to solving health care issues and would prevent health from being delivered better in New Zealand, her Government chose to cut the company tax rate before fixing up the many and varied issues I have just outlined?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What an extraordinarily incoherent question that was, but can I take it that the National Party leader is continuing his opposition to the business tax package, which is designed to help our economy grow and transform? If that is what we are to infer from that rather dopey question, we know that National could never run an appropriate economy.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows that despite the extra $5 billion a year now being spent on health, fewer New Zealanders are getting to see a doctor.

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

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows that despite the extra $5 billion a year, crowed over by the Prime Minister—

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

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table newspaper reports that show that in the 1990s Kaitāia Hospital was under threat of closure, Wairarapa—

Leave granted.

KiwiSaver—Uptake

2. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the uptake of KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): As of last week the total number of KiwiSaver enrolments received by the Inland Revenue Department had reached approximately 130,000. It is encouraging to see that just 2 months since the launch of the scheme, so many people are already indicating the likelihood of saving better for retirement, through KiwiSaver.

Hon Mark Gosche: What other support has he seen for KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There has been massive support amongst a wide range of the community, but I have also seen some various, and often conflicting, reports on whether the extensions to KiwiSaver announced in this year’s Budget are supported by the Opposition. In particular, I have seen reports of Mr English indicating that the extensions to KiwiSaver announced in this year’s Budget are supported by the Opposition. In particular, I have seen reports of Mr English indicating that New Zealand is too generous in its support for retired New Zealanders—an indication that I am sure we will want to remind senior citizens of in the run-in to next year’s election.

Hon Bill English: Will the Inland Revenue Department’s regular releases of the uptake of KiwiSaver be able to distinguish between those higher-income people who have moved from existing schemes into KiwiSaver, and lower-income people who have actually signed up through the opt-on procedure?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think we will have an indication, in the early returns, about the spread of KiwiSaver in terms of different income groups. I think further down the track we may have some better indications around that.

R Doug Woolerton: Has the Minister seen reports showing that public opinion towards compulsory savings—something New Zealand First has long advocated—is changing, with 63 percent of respondents to a New Zealand Herald survey stating that saving for retirement should be compulsory; if so, has he reconsidered his position on making savings compulsory?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the last point, no I have not. It seems to me that the view on compulsory savings is a bit like people’s views on road tolls and people’s views on wind power: they tend to be in favour of it, until it gets quite close to them.

Hon Mark Gosche: Is KiwiSaver uptake likely to be affected by the current difficulties being faced by finance companies?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It should not be, as long as people understand there is a substantial difference between the operations of superannuation schemes, especially KiwiSaver, and those of finance companies. Finance companies borrow and lend, and are essentially in the business of pricing risk. Superannuation schemes invest savers’ money in a wide range of assets. Since the current legislation on superannuation schemes came into force in 1989, no such scheme has fallen over. Indeed, the design of KiwiSaver would make it almost impossible for there to be a run on KiwiSaver schemes.

Electoral Finance Bill—Amendments

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Have officials been asked to draft amendments to the Electoral Finance Bill; if so, what are those amendments?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I am advised, no.

Hon Bill English: Does the Electoral Finance Bill, as sent off to the select committee, reflect Government policy on electoral law changes; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member has asked this question a number of times, in a variety of forms, and each time the answer has been that the intention of this bill is to produce a fair electoral system, and to ensure that during election campaigns people who might be seeking to influence the election campaign are legitimate and upfront, and that we know what they are on about. There are issues that will undoubtedly be debated in the select committee, and that is the appropriate place to do just that.

Lynne Pillay: Has the Minister seen statements that indicate that this bill will restrict people’s freedom to have a say on important issues, in an election year?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, he has seen a letter that actively seeks to mislead the public about the intent of the bill’s proposals. The Government has no intention, at all, of restricting the ability of legitimate groups that want to play an active role in the public debate during election year, and that is not what the Electoral Finance Bill proposes.

Hon Bill English: Why has the Minister written a letter to community groups, telling them that the bill does not restrict their ability to play an active role in public debate during an election year, when the bill makes them register with the Chief Electoral Officer as a third party, spend no more than $60,000 from 1 January of an election year, nominate a financial agent, hire an auditor, send in a return showing expenses and donations, and get audited under certain circumstances—is that what he means by “no difference”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I understand that the Minister of Justice wrote a letter to those groups in order to correct a letter from the member that went out to many of those groups. The Minister felt that it was important that they got information directly from his office.

Hon Bill English: Why did the Minister write that letter to community groups, saying that electioneering activities were “those activities designed to influence votes for or against a particular political party”, when the definition of an election advertisement in the legislation is quite different from the one he says it is—which he has read out word for word in this House—when it is far wider, and when it includes any position on a proposition associated with any candidate or party; and why did he misrepresent the bill so completely in his letter?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think that the intention of the Minister’s letter was simply to ensure that groups understood the intent of the bill. There will be opportunity, of course, to debate this during the select committee procedure, if there is any lack of clarity. The Minister wanted to make sure that groups understood that that was the appropriate thing to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many letters or written submissions has the Minister received from the National Party spokesperson on justice and the National Party spokesperson on electoral law; and is it, in both cases, zero?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My understanding is that it is zero.

Hon Bill English: Why in the letter that the Minister wrote to community groups does he say that what the bill intends to capture are advertising activities by those who wish to be active in procuring electoral success for a particular party, when in fact the bill captures advertising about almost any political position one can think of, regardless of whether it is focused on supporting one party, and why did he so deliberately mislead community groups about the nature of the bill?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the letter contains a statement that what the bill intends to capture are advertising activities by those who wish to be active in procuring electoral success for a political party or parties, because that is the case.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it true that the Minister has not received one letter from the National Party spokesperson on electoral law—

Katherine Rich: So what?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —well, it is a good question when we think about who the spokesperson is, so “So what?” is a good answer—or one letter, at all, from the National Party spokesperson on justice on this issue; and does he expect, or has he received, a letter from the Exclusive Brethren church from those spokespersons writing to him on that group’s behalf?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: To my knowledge, no.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us why the Labour Party used public money to deliberately mislead every community group in the country, in fact lie to them, about the content of the Electoral Finance Bill and expect to get away with it by stating: “This is the Government’s intention.”, rather than being honest about what is in the bill; and should not taxpayers be outraged about the lying this Government is carrying out over the Electoral Finance Bill?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that conduct in the last question, and certainly the wording of it, was unparliamentary. I take offence to being described in such a way, and I think that the member’s question should be ruled out of order and he should be required to put it in parliamentary terms.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, there has normally been a rule about the use of the word “lie” to a member of the House, and certainly I can see how members may have interpreted that.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will, of course, be aware that another person acting as Speaker as little as 3 weeks ago made quite an interesting ruling on this matter and said that unless the allegation was made personally to a member, then no offence could be taken.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but Mr Brownlee should have raised that at the time, and if he did, it was done accordingly. I am the Speaker who is ruling that it has been a long-established convention that one cannot impute lying to any member of the House. I can understand how that question could have been interpreted in that way, and I merely ask the member whether he would like to rephrase it, please.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us why the Labour Party has spent thousands of dollars of public money writing a letter to every community group in the country, and in that letter deliberately misleading those community groups about every major point that it makes in the letter; and should not taxpayers be appalled that their money is being used by the Government without restriction, without having to register as a third party, and without any fiscal cap, to misrepresent a bill that has been debated in Parliament and extensively questioned, and deliberately mislead community groups?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the reason the Minister of Justice wanted to send out this letter was that a letter sent out by the member opposite—I do not know who paid for this particular letter—

Rt Hon Helen Clark: It has the parliamentary crest on it.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, it has the parliamentary crest on it, but I do not know who paid for it—seemed to be misleading the people whom the letter was sent to. So I think the Minister of Justice felt that it was very important that people understood what the intention of the bill was.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister refer to the primary question asked by Mr English and ask what select committee process it would be when, before the select committee had a chance to hear the submissions and to make its mind up on the various arguments put by the people around the country, a Government decided to draft all the amendments without any regard to those submissions?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member quite rightly puts his finger on what is at the heart of the debate about this bill at the present time, and that is that the bill clearly will attract a good deal of interest from parties right throughout this House and around the country, as it ought to, and the appropriate place to have that discussion, of course, is in the select committee, and I would urge members opposite to do exactly that.

Hon Bill English: Well, who is the strategic genius in the Labour Party behind a process where Labour has spent 18 months muscling up about what it is going to do, produced a bill that does not do what it says, ended up with the support of nobody, leaked changes to the media, said: “No, there are no changes.”, has now written to community groups misleading them about the content of the bill, and all of this while the public are meant to be making submissions to the select committee when they do not know what the Government policy now is?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the genius on this side of the House was seeking to ensure that we have fair, open, and transparent elections. The member was seeking to ensure that National members, for example, could come to debate GST. In this bill, there is an opportunity for National members to find out what GST is, how it applies to elections, how they might pay for it, and when they should pay for it. This is a golden opportunity to do exactly that.

Question No. 4 to Minister

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): My question is directed particularly to the Minister of Māori Affairs. Because he is not here, can I defer the question to another time?

Madam SPEAKER: Are you seeking leave?

Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am seeking leave.

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

Human Rights Council’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Te Puni Kōkiri's Advice

4. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Kua whakarato tohutohu anō Te Puni Kōkiri ki a ia e tūtohu ana, kia tautokongia e te kāwanatanga te whakapūmautanga o Te Whakapuakanga o ngā Tika Iwi Taketake a Te Kaunihera Tika Tangata; ā, meina āe, i whakaae anō ia ki tā rātau tūtohutanga?

[Has Te Puni Kōkiri ever provided advice to him, recommending that Government should support the adoption of the Human Rights Council’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; if so, did he agree with its recommendation?]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: I roto i ngā mahinga, e hangaia ana e Te Puni Kōkiri he pūrongo i te wā e whanake ana te Kāwanatanga i tōna tūranga mō ēnei tū momo kaupapa hei hāpai ake i ngā āhuatanga mō ngāi Māori.

The Minister has received a number of briefings from Te Puni Kōkiri as the Government develops its position on a range of matters that focus on improving the lives of Māori.

Dr Pita Sharples:

FTR end 14:27:30

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: One of the issues that I have been informed of is that there have been a number of representations to try to modify the text to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and because some parties have taken a no-negotiation stance, that has staggered the way in which this declaration has gone through its consideration. In response to the member’s question, I say that I am also informed that at the 61st session, this matter will be voted on conclusively, primarily because the chairman had made changes to the declaration that were not consulted on at all by member States. So that matter is yet to be voted on finally at the 61st session.

Dave Hereora: What is the most recent report that the Government has seen from the United Nations in relation to New Zealand?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Government has seen an advanced, unedited version of a report from the 70th session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which recognises the reduction of socio-economic disparities between Māori and Pacific peoples and other New Zealanders, and an increase in Māori language proficiency across all New Zealanders.

Dr Pita Sharples:

FTR end 14:29:58

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In the first instance, Te Puni Kōkiri contributes to international policy that is largely led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the second instance, I think that Māori have had enough of empty promises and that the member may care to reflect on that. Indeed, the Government is in the position of needing to reach a position on the rights of indigenous people where it is able to give effect to such undertakings internationally and domestically. I relay the concern expressed by Dr Cullen, and alluded to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that a number of countries indicated that they are voting for the declaration but have no intention of implementing it. The Government is mindful of the efforts taken to improve the lives and opportunities of Māori at home—and that is where it counts. People generally expect that this Government will act consistently in that regard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the position of the Government that the Human Rights Council’s so-called Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in fact runs counter to the rights of so many indigenous people around the world; and is it a fact that no amount of Nicaraguan coffee planters collectives’ visions of the world will change that?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Indeed. Certainly the Minister is well aware that New Zealand has called for open and transparent consultations on the text, and he is disappointed that such consultations did not eventuate, despite the continued efforts of a number of countries, including New Zealand, to trigger such a process.

Dr Pita Sharples:

FTR end 14:33:03

What response does the Minister have to the fact that his Government not only has been the subject of early warning and urgent action procedures by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination but is now prepared to side up with the countries opposing the declaration, notably, the United States, Canada, Australia, Colombia, Ghana, the Russian Federation, and Surinam; and—this is the real question—what confidence can Māori have in a Minister who is prepared to give away indigenous rights?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I think that when one reflects on those countries that have supported it—Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala—one will see that we have taken a considered position on this matter. More important, our international position must reflect our domestic policy, and all along we have focused on improving the lives of Māori back here, back home where it counts.

Dr Pita Sharples: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I specifically asked what confidence Māori can have in a Minister who is prepared to give away indigenous rights.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister certainly addressed that question.

Teachers—Serious Misconduct

5. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he have confidence in the Teachers Council to monitor compliance with conditions placed on teachers with a history of serious misconduct including sex abuse, assaulting children, and drug dealing; if so, why?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes, I do. The Teachers Council has assured me that it has robust and appropriate systems in place to monitor conditions, based on a teacher’s registration. We are currently drafting an amendment to the Education Act to enable the Teachers Council to access payroll data in order to monitor all teachers, not just the ones with conditions. However, I am advised that in a specific case where there is good reason, data matching with the Ministry of Education’s payroll system is already taking place.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister have confidence in the Teachers Council to monitor teachers found guilty of serious misconduct when the principal of Kawerau College, Steve Hocking, followed proper processes but found out to his horror, through text messages from students at other schools, that the school had hired an art teacher who had uploaded over 50 pornographic pictures of himself on the Net and actively attempted to recruit younger girls, and when he says that the Teachers Council system is “limp” and that any teacher “could quite happily and merrily be a paedophile” and the principal would never know?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Hopeless!

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member raises a very important point, unlike the member next to her who could do with being quiet for a change. As I mentioned in my answer to the earlier question, the system currently focuses on those people who have conditions attached to their teaching. This person, of course, did not. This is a person who has lost his practising certificate. In that case I think there would be some debate about the school and its ability to check through the information that was available, for example checking through the person’s history and doing the normal checks as it employed the person. This might have been something that the school had done. Certainly, to avoid that kind of problem I asked the Teachers Council, in respect of an earlier question between myself and the member, to come back with anything it thought might help close all loopholes. The council suggested it needed total access to the entire payroll for the Ministry of Education. That is what the legislation will do, which will allow the council to run names against that database so that no one will be in a position in the future of being able to avoid the council catching up with him or her.

Moana Mackey: What steps has the Labour-led Government taken to strengthen teacher registration requirements?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: People will remember that back in the 1990s the National Government made teacher registration voluntary. Although it reinstated registration in 1997, there was no professional body for teachers and no requirement for police vetting before a teacher was employed in a school. In other words, it was basically open slather during National’s time in Government. Since then we have established the Teachers Council, which has the power to deregister teachers and impose conditions on their registration, and which requires all teachers who take up teaching to be police vetted. Unlike the previous National Government, which removed teacher registration at the same time that it introduced registration for vets, we are serious about student safety and ensuring that our schools provide a good environment for students.

Katherine Rich: Why is the Minister giving answers in the House today that are almost exactly the same answers he gave when asked questions back in October, and why was he so confident back in October when he said of the teachers sanctioned for a range of issues such as beating up children, sexual abuse, supplying drugs, and having sex with students that “there is close monitoring of conditions attached to any individual teacher allowed to remain registered as a teacher”, and that he had also received assurances that “conditions put into place have been followed to the letter”, when a Teachers Council memo from the same time says: “I cannot find any evidence of the research team monitoring conditions placed on teachers” and that “it also appears there are problems in the monitoring of the conditions placed on a teacher’s registration”; and why did the Minister say in the House that the council was monitoring it when it was not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In answer to the first part of the question, to be consistent. We try to be consistent in our answers to these questions. In answer to the second question, the member will know that the newspaper article that highlighted this was the Herald on Sunday article, and she will know that in that article the Teachers Council made it very clear that the member of staff who answered that question was a new member of staff who at that time was unaware of the conditions. The member needs to be clear about this. The Teachers Council is the body that looks after teachers. Unlike the member’s Government, which focused on vets, we are focused on teachers. The person concerned was a new member of staff. Yes, this person did not know about the conditions, but that does not make it any different: the conditions do exist.

Katherine Rich: Why is the Minister trying to diminish the findings of a new employee, a woman who held a similar position at the Medical Council, who has worked in the Department for Courts, who is obviously a capable person, and who was charged with finding out whether there was evidence of monitoring, or there was not—she found that there was not, so how does he explain that?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No one is trying to diminish anything. I am just simply relaying to the member what the chief executive of the organisation made clear to the Herald on Sunday. I am sorry if the truth is not adequate for the member, but sometimes one just has to accept it.

Katherine Rich: Why is the Minister making a song and dance of his reluctant decision to allow the Teachers Council to share payroll information—the only sure way of tracking censured teachers—when the council has been monitoring the ministry for years to get access to that information, only to be stonewalled, and asked the Minister about this a year ago, and he is doing something only now?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I know the member’s own history on this issue. Her party’s history would lead them to be anxious about it; I understand that. But what I am saying is that the member opposite will know exactly when she asked me the question about this, and that led to me asking the Teachers Council to submit to me any changes it would like to have that might improve the situation. That is when the council told me. That is when we acted upon it, that is why we are drafting legislation, and that is why we will pass it through the House, unlike the member’s party.

Katherine Rich: Why should parents believe the Minister, when last year he said that the Teachers Council system of monitoring was robust, when it was not; that teachers were being monitored, when they were not; and, just recently, when asked about whether a particular art teacher was teaching in a classroom, he said he was not, and we found he was teaching at Kawerau College?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Starting at the back, it is because when I answered the question he was not teaching at Kawerau College. It is an appropriate system and it is robust. I say to the member on the other side that the reason I would trust the Labour Government on this particular issue is because, unlike her party, which deregistered teachers while it registered vets, we have done the opposite and have made sure they are properly supervised.

Defence—Policy Changes

6. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What reports has he received on changes in defence policy?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did Mike Moore say?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): Take your pills, Nick—come on! I have seen a report indicating that the policy of scrapping the air combat wing in New Zealand, which National has spent 8 years vehemently condemning as “dangerous and irresponsible” and “freeloading off its friends”, has now been embraced and adopted by the National Party. I, of course, welcome this latest flip-flop by the National Party, but I understand that the issue remains bitterly divisive within the National Party and we cannot be sure that it will not again flip-flop in the opposite direction.

Russell Fairbrother: Has he seen any further reports explaining proposed changes in defence policy?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have seen the transcript of Television One’s Agenda programme where Murray McCully admits that the Labour Government was correct in its decision that New Zealand’s defence expenditure needed to focus on capabilities that it could execute really well, and I welcome National’s support for Labour’s policy. However, I am aware that the National Party is still run essentially by the same core of people—Bill English, Lockwood Smith, Tony Ryall, Maurice Williamson, and Murray McCully—all of whom vehemently criticised that policy just a few months ago. So one wonders about either the shallowness of its current policy or the shallowness of its previous policy.

Dr Wayne Mapp: When does the Government intend actually ever to get an unconditional sale of the Skyhawks, given that it is over 2 years since the Minister made his dramatic announcement of their sale, and he said he would follow it up when he went on his trip to the United States—or do they keep reminding him to not keep making the cheap shots against Australia and the United States that he has become expert at?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member, of course, is inaccurate in his statement, because I was not the Minister of Defence 2 years ago—so he cannot possibly have that right. But the short answer to the question is the answer that the member already has—[Interruption] Perhaps that is why he is still interjecting—because he has asked a question and he knows the answer. The answer is that the decision about the sale of the A4s to the Tactical Air Services company is in the hands of the Department of Defense and the Department of State in the United States. The United States has made it abundantly clear—and the member is aware of this, as well—that there is no fault on New Zealand’s side, and that the problem exists within its system.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister seen reports of a political party that, when last in Government, signed up to purchase 28 F16s at a cost of around $650 million, that campaigned vigorously against the Labour Government’s decision to disband the air strike capability, that promised hundreds of Royal New Zealand Air Force staff at a public meeting in Bulls that it would reinstate that capability when elected to Government, and that has now stated it would not reinstate the air strike combat wing; if the Minister has seen those reports, what aspect of National’s flip-flop defence policy does this Government see value in, or has he concluded, as New Zealand First has, that National cannot be trusted with the defence of New Zealand?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have seen those reports and I have seen those exuberant promises made by the National Party. It has broken its word. The member is right—National members cannot be trusted. They could never be trusted. They have done it in the past, and they would do it in the future if ever the country had to put up with their being in Government again.

Russell Fairbrother: What reports has he read that seek to explain the change in defence policy?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have read an article in the Sunday Star-Times of 2 September that refers to past National criticisms of Government policy on the air combat wing as being New Zealand “freeloading” and “dropping leaflets on rogue fishing boats”; the journalist who wrote that report reached the conclusion: “So National is now either prepared to countenance bludging on its mates and leaving the [exclusive economic zone] unprotected, or it has decided that its former rhetoric was hysterical nonsense.” Either way, the National Party has egg on its face.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister consider the sale of the Skyhawks and the Aermacchis to be a trade issue; if so, would he consider appointing a former World Trade Organization leader to negotiate the sale of those particular aircraft on behalf of his colleague the Minister of Trade?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is, of course, a defence issue, but I read in the paper just today that the man who climbed Mount Everest first, the man who invented rugby, and the man who did a few other things would, obviously, be a very good man to help sell those planes!

Health Services—Rating

7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his previous mark of the health system of 5.5 out of 10; if not, what mark would he give it now?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Noting that the same question was asked by the member on 1 May and on 16 May, I reply in roughly the same vein, on behalf of the Minister. He marks the health system as continually improving and expanding, because this Labour-led Government has always made health investment a high priority, and will continue to do so.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister aware that, according to the latest information from the six neonatal units around the country, if a highly at-risk premature baby is born this afternoon, not one suitable intensive care cot is available for that child anywhere in the country, when this Government was warned 3½ years ago, under Annette King, that this crisis was on the way?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am aware that extra neonatal units have been installed in New Zealand, and I am also aware that on the watch of the National Party babies were being shipped out to Australia for a long time, and that the member who asked the question was in that Government.

Maryan Street: Has the Minister received any recent reports on New Zealand trends in basic health indices, such as life expectancy?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes, I have. Life expectancy is perhaps the most basic index of national health, and New Zealand’s continues to improve, with a gain of 2.2 years for females and 3.5 years for males, between 1995-97 and 2002-04. [Interruption] Additionally, there is more good news, which, of course, the member interjecting never wants to hear because her glass is always half empty. [Interruption] I see; the National Party was in Government between 2002-04—I must have missed that period; I must have been somewhere else. Additionally, the gap between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy, after some years of widening, has narrowly and slightly, of course, over recent years improved.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it not churlish to be talking about life expectancy at a time when no suitable intensive care cot is available anywhere in New Zealand for a highly at-risk premature baby born today, when 3½ years ago this very document that I am holding landed on Annette King’s desk, telling her that there was a desperate need to increase the number of those most serious intensive care beds, and we find today, 3½ years later, that there are two extra beds?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It is interesting that the member has raised the issue of the care of infants, because infant mortality rates in New Zealand—seeing that the member has raised the issue—are steadily declining, down from 7.1 deaths per 1,000 in 1997, when the member’s Government was in power, to 5.1 per 1,000 live births in the year ended 31 March 2007. That is a 28 percent reduction in infant mortality. I would have expected that the shroud-waver from Whakatāne would be celebrating that, rather than being as miserable as he always is in this House.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister agree with me that the Government can talk all it likes about the $5 billion a year extra in spending or the $1.2 billion being spent on hospital buildings, but the fact is that when it comes to providing suitable intensive care beds for the most at-risk premature children in this country being born today, there are only two more of those cots available than when this Government was warned 3½ years ago about this crisis?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It may come as a great shock to the member, who asks me whether I agree with him, but I have never agreed with anything that member has ever said in this House, on either side of the House. I point out to him that an infant born today in New Zealand has a greater life expectancy and a greater chance of living than an infant born under the care of the Government that he represented.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is the Minister aware that in the past few days Dunedin and Timaru hospitals have told patients to stay away from their accident and emergency departments because they cannot cope; and given that in 1996 Helen Clark said: “We know that winter brings an increase in health problems … But our hospitals must be ready to cope with the problems. It just isn’t good enough to have basic services break down …”, how does he explain his total failure to address the problem in our accident and emergency departments?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Even the meanest of minds knows that this Government has made extraordinary increases in investment in the health sector. Given that fact, we wonder what kind of health system we would have had under the billions of dollars of tax cuts promised by National in every single election since we have been in Government. I would like the smoking doctor over there to explain that to the people of New Zealand sometime.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the latest hospital cot status, which shows there are no—

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

Hon Tony Ryall: The second is the Ministry of Health’s review of neonatal intensive care provision—

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

Plunket—Funding

8. GORDON COPELAND (Independent) to the Minister of Health: Is the Government prepared to increase funding so that Plunket can provide a full service involving house calls on all new babies and their mothers for the first year of a baby’s life, with clinical visits thereafter?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Government funding for Well Child services has been increasing for a number of years now. Each year, this Government spends $41.4 million on Well Child services to mothers and babies. The funding for the Plunket provision of Well Child services has increased by close to 91 percent over the past 7 years, to reach close to $36 million each year. The Government has committed a further $23.4 million over the next 4 years for the B4 School health check.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister accept that instead of pouring millions of dollars into a variety of attempts to rein in child abuse, it would be better to fund a comprehensive Plunket service with in-the-house, face-to-face contact; and surely that is much to be preferred to, for example, one of his colleague’s exhortations that New Zealanders need to “look over their neighbours’ fences”, as if child abuse normally occurs outside?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: If the member is asking about face-to-face child visits by Plunket, I can inform him that Plunket is funded to provide additional visits to all first-time parents it enrols, which are an additional four face-to-face visits per first-time parent, and to other families assessed as having high needs. I think that the lowering of infant mortality and the extending of New Zealanders’ life expectancy are both very good signs that this Government has a very clear hand and a strategic direction that it is following, to the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Sue Moroney: Has the Minister seen any reports on child health outcomes?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes. As I indicated earlier to the House, New Zealand’s infant mortality rates are steadily declining, down from 7.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1997 to 5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in March 2007. As I say, that is an improvement of 28 percent in recent years, and I would have thought that most representative Parliaments in the world would be very cheerful at that sort of news. I am waiting to hear the cheers from the other side of the House.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister have an appreciation of both the huge importation of knowledge and the confidence boost that new mums receive from regular Plunket visits, not to mention the multiple health benefits that result from Plunket’s Well Child contacts; if so, can he think of a better return to our society than that flowing from the reinstatement of a comprehensive, year-long home Plunket service?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Of course I agree with that, and I say, as I have indicated to the member, the Government is funding Plunket for an extension to its services, particularly to new parents.

Fire Service—Funding

9. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he stand by his statement in announcing proposals to change the Fire Service funding system that: “The proposals represent a new way forward that will meet New Zealand’s needs for the next 30 years and beyond,”; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: Yes; because a long list of problems have been raised and acknowledged, since the review of the legislation began in 2004. Most of those who are required to work within the current legislative framework acknowledge its shortcomings. This process is about expanding coverage, and ensuring that those who are benefiting from the service are making an appropriate contribution.

Sandra Goudie: Can the Minister confirm that he declined my Official Information Act request for details about how much this new structure will cost, on the basis that “the information does not exist”; if so, on what does he base his claim that these proposals will meet New Zealand’s needs for the next 30 years?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm that officials report that the total cost that we currently pay for the Fire Service levy, of about $290 million, should not increase under the new structure but that it will be broadened to cover those who are not already paying a levy. So it is about extending the service and making everybody contribute to it; it is not about increasing costs.

Lindsay Tisch: What message does he have for Fonterra, which stated in its submission that the proposals were “flawed and inequitable”; and what message does he have for the Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand, which stated that the Minister’s proposals would shift the burden “to weigh more heavily on responsible businesses”; and is this what he had in mind when he said that these proposals would “meet New Zealand’s needs for the next 30 years and beyond”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: What I can confirm is that this document was put out as a discussion document. Submissions were called on it, and, as every member of this House knows, whatever we put out for discussion, inevitably draws a range of different opinions.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister acknowledge there are some serious reservations in regard to the fire and rescue services proposal, which basically revolve around the lack of full analysis of the service, and therefore the likely unfairness of the funding regime, and the problems associated with free-riders; and if the Minister is aware of these concerns, will he advise the House as to whether they will be addressed; if not, how in the dickens can his plan last for 30 years?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can confirm there have been strong points of view both for and against these proposed changes. I can also confirm that submissions have closed and they sit with my colleague the Minister of Internal Affairs, who will be making an announcement in due course.

Sandra Goudie: Does he agree with rudimentary costings published in the National Business Review newspaper of 27 July, which suggest levy cost increases of more than 2,100 percent for the Department of Corrections, and 1,950 percent for district health boards; and how can he disagree with these estimates, given his own admission that costings have not been done?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: In the 5 years that I have been privileged to be a Minister, I have agreed with very little I have ever read in the National Business Review.

Sandra Goudie: I seek leave to table a letter from the office of the Hon Rick Barker in response to my Official Information Act request.

Leave granted.

Sandra Goudie: I seek leave to table a press release made by the Hon Rick Barker pointing out that the proposals represent a new way forward.

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

Emissions—Reduction Targets

10. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Can she confirm that New Zealand’s delegation to the United Nations climate change talks in Vienna tried to block non-binding emission reduction targets of 25 to 40 percent for industrialised countries; if so, was this delegation acting on her instructions or instructions from a member of her Cabinet?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): No, I cannot confirm that matter. Indeed, New Zealand’s plenary statement began: “First, I would like to reiterate New Zealand’s readiness to take on new quantatative commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is he telling the House that reports from delegates and observers at the conference, which have been widely reported in the global media over the last 4 days, stating that New Zealand did line up with the countries that were opposing those targets, have got it all wrong; if so—which would be good news—why has the New Zealand Government not publicly corrected them?

Hon DAVID PARKER: If the Government chose to respond to every exaggerated bit of rhetoric from non-governmental organisations, we would never get down to business. It appears that Greenpeace is actually quite happy with the result from Vienna, but it appears to suggest this was obtained against the allegedly shameful wishes of the New Zealand delegation. In fact, the truth is the reverse: the New Zealand delegation, at the request of the chair of the meeting, was instrumental in drafting the text that unblocked the negotiations.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister received any reports on how climate change got on the APEC agenda

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, in respect of the APEC agenda it is, of course, well known that New Zealand’s Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, was instrumental in getting climate change on to the APEC agenda. It is true—and it was reported accurately that way last year—that this Government has been advancing climate change solutions for many years. We are not johnny-come-latelys, and we have never said that climate change was a hoax.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can this Government have any credibility on climate change negotiations, either in Vienna or Sydney, when official UN figures show that New Zealand’s emissions are up 10 percent from when Labour came into office, and are growing at twice the rate of Australia’s emissions and five times the rate of the United States’ emissions; and do not these figures, and the Government’s opposition in Vienna to emission targets, make a mockery of the Prime Minister’s talk of carbon neutrality?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I disagree again with the characterisation that Dr Smith has of Australia’s emissions. I also put on record that it is absolutely clear that both the United States and Australia have far, far higher rates of emissions than does New Zealand. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of most that New Zealand already has a substantial number of emission reduction initiatives under way, and of course we have more coming soon.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can I just confirm that the Minister is saying that contrary to news reports, New Zealand did support a target of a 25 to 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2020?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that we said we—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, just answer the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am, Dr Smith, if you give me the chance. I can confirm that the representatives of the New Zealand Government explicitly noted that we are willing to take on binding targets. Further, the New Zealand Government has always been of the view that we need a multilateral agreement that works; we are not willing to subscribe to agreements that will not work.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will New Zealand be supporting the leaked draft APEC declaration that proposes replacing the real emission reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol with a plan to allow an increase in emissions, as long as that increase is slower than the rate of economic growth; and is that one of the sorts of agreements that would work?

Hon DAVID PARKER: An international agreement that was focused solely on intensity would not work and would not be supported by New Zealand.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is there any risk to our European Union export market as a result of the Government’s perceived or real actions to weaken the international climate change regime; if so, what will the Minister do to address that perception?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There is no doubt that, internationally, New Zealand is regarded as being one of the countries that wants to find a meaningful, practical, but real means of reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions. It is very rare—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But they are going up.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Settle down! There is no doubt that New Zealand’s efforts in that regard, internationally, are well regarded. Indeed, we are the only southern hemisphere country to have taken on binding annex 1 commitments.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the official record of greenhouse gas emissions, showing that New Zealand—

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But those are going up—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but there is objection.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table New Zealand’s plenary statements, which reiterated New Zealand’s—

Leave granted.

Equine Virus—Containment

11. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What measures, if any, has the Government taken to protect New Zealand from the equine virus that has broken out in Australia?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity): In order to decrease the risk of equine influenza entering New Zealand, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has suspended the importation of horses from Australia, suspended the transit of horses from Australia through New Zealand’s airports, required that any horse equipment imported into New Zealand be cleaned and either disinfected or fumigated at the border, and required stricter screening of incoming passengers who have been in contact with horses. The ministry is working with the transitional facility for horses to ensure that biosecurity measures are strengthened during the post-arrival quarantine of horses from countries with epidemic equine influenza.

Shane Ardern: Why were travellers who had actually visited stud farms in equine flu - infected areas able to enter New Zealand unchecked for 2 days after the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had imposed a ban on horse imports, or why were travellers who had travelled around Australia then able to come back and declare they had done so to New Zealand officials but still be allowed to go through the border unchecked?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have seen reports over the weekend to that effect. I am advised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that all of those reports have been checked, and that none of the passengers involved were deemed to be of any risk to New Zealand in terms of equine influenza.

Sue Moroney: How is the Government working with the equine industry to respond to the threat of equine influenza; and what plans does the Government have in place to respond, should equine influenza work its way into New Zealand?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has worked with the equine industry to trace all horses imported from Australia since 1 August, and has tested those horses to ensure they do not have equine influenza. All those horses tested negative for equine influenza, and the ministry’s investigation is now complete. In addition, the New Zealand equine industry is assisting with passenger screening by providing useful information about potential risk travellers. The equine industry has also put in place its own measures to mitigate risks. For example, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing has invoked strict rules on disinfecting and washing procedures that arriving stable workers and riders have to follow before being allowed to work here.

Shane Ardern: What were the “procedural issues” that prevented an order being given that would have required passengers to be questioned or their luggage to be checked; and does the Minister think it is acceptable in terms of New Zealand border control processes that some people were able to come through without those processes being adhered to?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised by Biosecurity New Zealand that immediately following advice from the Australian authorities of an equine influenza outbreak, key front-line managers were advised by phone on Saturday, 25 August 2007. Heightened risk screening was in place from that date. Some passengers felt that the actions implemented were not stringent enough over the weekend. However, from follow-up investigations the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is satisfied that the passengers involved posed no risk. I am advised that the equine influenza virus is unlikely to survive beyond 8 to 12 hours on organic material, which includes both shoes and clothing. A standing order was issued on Monday, 27 August to advise front-line managers and staff of amended border requirements for the cleaning and disinfection of risk goods accompanying air passengers from Australia.

Lindsay Tisch: Why did he not inform New Zealand’s horse racing and bloodstock industry that its members’ livelihoods were left vulnerable to an incursion of the equine virus by travellers for 2 days, when the New Zealand Equine Health Association has highlighted the risk of people transmitting the virus through clothing because “It spreads like wildfire.”?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised that the first informal news of equine influenza in Australia was on the Friday, and at that point the information was that it was still in a quarantine situation. On the Saturday, when official information was given to Biosecurity New Zealand that there was now a risk outside of quarantine, the actions that I have detailed to the House were taken immediately. I believe that the industry has worked cooperatively with Biosecurity New Zealand and there has been no undue threat to the industry. We do not have equine influenza here. The steps taken by Biosecurity New Zealand over the years have made sure we have not had it. I must remind the House that equine influenza is endemic in most countries of the world, so on a daily basis New Zealand takes precautions against it, not just when there is an outbreak in Australia.

Family Violence—Initiatives

12. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): What recent initiatives has she announced aimed at reducing family violence in our communities?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Today the Prime Minister and I launched a public awareness campaign for action against family violence. The aim of this campaign is to build a stronger sense of community responsibility to end family violence in our country. The campaign has a simple message. Family violence is not OK, but it is OK to ask for help.

Dianne Yates: What other initiatives has the Government put in place to help reduce family violence?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Our Government has a long history of combating family violence. Some highlights are: the funding for Child, Youth and Family Services has been increased from $291.8 million when our Government came into office to $468.3 million this year; funding to community-based family violence prevention agencies has been boosted by 32 percent over that period; in 2002 the Minister of Social Development and Employment, Steve Maharey, launched Te Rito, the New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy; and in 2005 we established the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families. Last month the Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, launched the Ministry of Health family violence intervention programme, which is focused on providing practical advice and tools to thousands of health professionals who come into daily contact with the impact of family violence.

Dianne Yates: Has the Minister received any recent reports regarding the public awareness campaign she outlined in her primary answer?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. I received a rather ill-informed statement saying that people do not need a TV advert to tell them that abuse is unacceptable, and that it will not work.

Hon Chris Carter: Who said that?

Hon RUTH DYSON: That statement was from John Key. I am very pleased that Judith Collins ignored that statement and showed her support for the campaign with her attendance at the launch. It is my view, with that attendance and the attendance of every other political party at the cross-party working group to prevent family violence, that, finally, our Parliament can say with a united voice: “Family violence is not OK, but it is OK to ask for help.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media