( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. For corrected transcripts, please visit: http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/hansard )
Tuesday, 10 May 2005
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
1. Immigration Service—Information from MPs
2. Childcare—Grandparents
3. Police—Former Commissioner
4. Research—Health
5. New Zealand Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship
6. Elderly and Disabled—Support Services Report
7. Tertiary Education—Savings Provision
8. Police—Former Commissioner
9. Truancy—Reduction
10. Education—Rural Areas
11. Te Wânanga o Aotearoa—Enrolments
12. Music—Government Support
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Immigration Service—Information from MPs
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Did she say the following: “If Winston Peters had the
interests of New Zealand at heart rather than just grandstanding he would be providing information to Immigration so
things could be checked out. That’s what all our electorate offices do week in week out, where we see a problem we
report it so it can be dealt with”; if so, on what basis did she make this statement?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, on the basis that it is better to sort out such matters behind the scenes and
not give ammunition to refugee status claimants. I do appreciate that Mr Peters has raised other cases with immigration
Ministers in the past and has not always had reports back on them. I invite him to sit down with the Minister, the
Associate Minister, or senior officials to go through those cases.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Prime Minister admit that today when she knew it yesterday, and can I give her a few
examples of files—and these are just a sample, I might add—that close with the words back from the Minister: “I will
notify you of the outcome of this investigation.”, dated July 2004, November 2004, November 2004 again, December 2004,
February 2005, April 2005, and again April 2005; why, when she knows that her Minister has been advised, as was his
predecessor, did she repeat that abject lie on TV?
Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that he cannot accuse another member of being a liar.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I did not accuse her of being a liar. I said that she must have known—because she confirmed it in
her primary answer—that the Minister had numerous communications with me and on not one occasion did I ever receive a
reply. Yet she went on TV and repeated what Mr Swain said.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have taken offence to the statement that a lie was told, and I ask for it to be withdrawn and
apologised for.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw and apologise?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. Can I repeat the question?
Madam SPEAKER: Can we now have the answer to the question?
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We cannot have an answer to the question when the Prime
Minister has objected to it. Surely he should ask the question again.
Madam SPEAKER: She objected to being called a liar. She did not object to the question.
Gerry Brownlee: That was the substance of the question.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Do you wish to repeat the question, Mr Peters?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister make that statement yesterday on morning TV, when she must have known
of the countless occasions on which I have brought files of information to the attention of that Minister, as well as to
his predecessor; why did she then go and say that on national TV?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The statement stands because I can find no evidence that the member wrote to the Minister about the
cases that he has put in the public arena in the last week. I might say that the lawyer for Mr Khashaly has pointed out
that the fear of persecution by his client arises from the publication of Mr Khashaly’s name by Mr Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the track record of the Minister and his department of never replying, why would any member
of Parliament bother writing to them, and why is she now repeating a statement by the lawyer that she knows is
demonstrably false, in that, chronologically speaking, the man was described in this Parliament, although he was not
named, after he had been to Ahmed Zaoui’s lawyers to lodge a refugee application; if she knows that that story is not
true, why is she repeating it?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What I have referred to continually is the chance of success of such applications being increased by
names being put in the public arena. As to the issue of substantive replies, I know that a number of substantive replies
have gone to the member, but there are other cases where he has not had them. I invite him to sit down with the
Ministers and senior officials, and to go through them.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister now outline the number of substantive replies I have received from that
Minister?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the member wants that sort of detail, he should ask the Minister. I have half a dozen substantive
replies in front of me, from the research that has been able to be done since the question was lodged this morning. I
also know that there are a number of letters where there has not been a substantive reply at that time, and there may be
very good reason for that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, what is the very good reason that I have received no details whatsoever on
the case of a successful refugee claimant such as Asha Ali Abdille, who has a string of criminal convictions yet has
attempted to bring 14 of her family members into this country; why have I not received a reply on that?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The fact that the member has not had a reply does not mean that no action has been taken. If the
member wishes to discuss the matter with officials, I have given him that invitation.
Hon Paul Swain: Can the Prime Minister confirm that following the claim on that particular issue, an investigation was
carried out and information was released, but that action was not taken because issues around the severity of the
prosecutions that had been made would not rule that person out as far as refugee status was concerned?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am happy to take the Minister’s word for it.
Keith Locke: Can the Prime Minister recall the Government receiving any submissions from Mr Peters that are supportive
of asylum seekers such as the one he has just referred to, or have all his submissions tried to cast doubt about those
asylum seekers, even when they have been persecuted, imprisoned, or tortured in their home countries?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Without having had the time to go through all of them, I suspect that most of them have the
character of “dobbing in”. But I say to the House that it is important people do come forward with information if they
feel that other people are trying to cheat the New Zealand authorities. [Interruption]
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Very shortly—laugh now, and cry later! They are nervous, are they not?
Madam SPEAKER: Would the House settle please, and let the member ask his question in silence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Prime Minister say: “I have been pushing Ministers of Immigration for the last 2 years to
follow the Australian precedent and bring a lot of the offshore processing back to New Zealand. I think that would be
much better.”; if she did, should the conclusion not be that she is getting nowhere and neither are the Ministers
getting anywhere, so in that circumstance why would anyone on earth trust them with information?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There would appear to be a number of non sequiturs in that question, but suffice it to say that I
think I have finally been heard on this subject.
Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Prime Minister not aware that in some parts of Auckland there is a thriving market for doctored,
forged, and falsified receipts, as in the case of a man who has smuggled in bags of blank receipt forms from the Middle
East, which he sells to members of his community for false insurance claims in return for a cut from the payout?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am aware that in New Zealand there are people who are citizens, permanent residents, and would-be
refugee status seekers, and who try to cheat and lie to authorities. If the member has such information, he should
please make it available to the police.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister of Immigration appraised the Prime Minister of a complaint—on which, I might
add, he has done nothing—involving 15 fraudulent documentation accesses to this country; and when is she going to take
the security of this country seriously?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not ask for reports on each of the approximately 800 letters a year that the Minister gets, and
the 4,000 that the Associate Minister gets. I say to the member that if he has evidence of wrongdoing he should come
forward with it to the Ministers.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Prime Minister not expect a Minister to raise the alarm with her when he learns of
cases like that of one family whose whole documentation is false, but that has got access to and is living in New
Zealand, and would she not expect the Minister of Immigration to say that that is not a one-off but shows a serious
crisis; and should she as Prime Minister, instead of giggling and laughing, not do something about that?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I do not expect the Minister of Immigration to brief me on every such case. I might point out
that last week Mr Peters was in the media on the subject of two people—out of 2.25 million visitors we get a year.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister not concerned that even if one person was of enormous risk to this country,
that would be enough; and how many weeks does she want to keep this Parliament going while we up the averages in respect
of her incompetence?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not know of any country, Western or otherwise, that has yet found an absolutely foolproof way
of stopping people from trying to cheat its border control systems. If we have evidence, we will act on it.
Childcare—Grandparents
2. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is he satisfied that
grandparents who provide care for their grandchildren receive adequate financial support; if so, why?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In most cases, yes. Grandparents and other extended
family caregivers may be entitled to either a foster care allowance, an unsupported child’s benefit, an orphans benefit,
or family support. In some cases they might also receive a family tax credit. I do acknowledge that some grandparents in
receipt of New Zealand superannuation have concerns about the adequacy of financial support when they are raising a
grandchild. I have therefore asked officials to consider what might be done in the future to provide more support for
them, and I am certainly happy to consult with United Future when I receive that advice.
Judy Turner: Why, when the unsupported child’s benefit and child disability allowance are not meant to be means tested,
have there been several cases of Work and Income staff in Rotorua and Christchurch requiring grandparents who provide
full-time care for their grandchildren to state the source and amount of their income in order to receive that support?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am not aware of those particular cases, but, of course, if the member gives me the details of them,
I will follow them up.
Georgina Beyer: What has the Government done recently to give more money to those providing valuable care to children
who are not their own?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Apart from a very excellent dancing programme, we have provided from 1 April this year, as part of
the Working for Families package, an $15 per week increase in the rates of the unsupported child’s benefit and the
orphans benefit. Those benefits provide a contribution to everyday living costs of children in long-term care, and are
paid to people who are providing care to children who are not their own because the parents themselves are unable to do
so.
Judy Turner: Does the Minister think it is acceptable, when the Government’s own policy is to place children who cannot
be cared for by their parents with relatives if at all possible, that a recent survey indicated a disturbingly high
proportion of grandparents in that situation who have found themselves impoverished and in ill health; if not, what
changes does he propose in order to ensure that the Government’s stated priority and the level of support it actually
provides to those grandparents match up?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do think it is sad to see what appears to be now a trend of family members, particularly
grandparents, looking after children. We are now trying to find out whether indeed it is a trend and, if it is, whether
we have to make extra provision for that particular group. In the immediate term we have ensured that we work closely
with grandparents raising grandchildren through their organisations. Those organisations work with the Department of
Child, Youth and Family Services and Work and Income to ensure that their members get their full entitlements. As I
said, we are also now looking at whether we should be doing more.
Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree that caregivers should not be penalised in terms of financial support available to
them by virtue of being related to the child; if so, when will he take action to ensure that the disparities between the
total support received by Department of Child, Youth and Family Services foster carers and those grandparents who are
providing exactly the same service and care are eliminated?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member knows, these are complex issues. Firstly, many people care for a member of their
extended family without ever coming anywhere near the State to look for support, and it is the case that people support
that very much as being the way they should act. Secondly, we are in a situation whereby we need to assess exactly what
the needs of people who are looking after children in those situations are. That is what we are trying to do and, as I
have said, I will share that information with the member.
Police—Former Commissioner
3. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement to the House,
regarding claims that commissioner Doone had said: “that won’t be necessary”, that “I can only imagine that the reporter
put those words to me and I would not have been in a position to confirm them, because they were not in the reports.”;
if so, how does she reconcile this with her signed brief of evidence that states: “I am informed that Mr Alley states he
put those propositions to me and I said words to the effect of ‘you’re not wrong’. I accept that this is correct.”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): By reference to the following sentence in that paragraph in the brief that Dr Brash
has chosen not to quote, which says: “I am certain that I drew attention to the issue that Mr Doone had disputed these
details during the inquiries to which I have referred.”
Dr Don Brash: Can she tell the House which version of events we are supposed to believe: the version she gave the House
last week, in which she denied confirming the words “that won’t be necessary”, or the version she signed in her brief of
evidence to the court last month, in which she agreed that she had confirmed those words? Which version of the story are
we supposed to believe is correct?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member’s submission about what is in the brief is not correct.
Dr Don Brash: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how the words “you’re not wrong”, which she agrees she used to Mr
Alley, could possibly be construed to mean that she was in no position to confirm his statement, as she told the House
last week?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: When a two-part proposition is put to one, and one laughs and says “you’re not wrong”, but
immediately points out that the second point is contested, the facts are clear.
Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister deny to the House that the Sunday Star-Times in a phone call to her explained the
gravity of her assurance by stating: “This is going to cost us a lot of money if we’re wrong.”, and does she accept that
in a subsequent phone call the Sunday Star-Times editor read to her the opening paragraphs of the 16 June 2000 article
so that the Prime Minister could confirm the accuracy of the detail before publication—which, indeed, the Prime Minister
confirmed?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No notes from any conversation with that editor have ever been made available to me. What is
absolutely clear is that the substance of the story was always correct, and that was that Mr Doone intervened in a way
that was inappropriate.
Dr Don Brash: If, as media reports suggest, there are tapes or transcripts of her conversations with the Sunday
Star-Times, will the Prime Minister give her consent to the release of those tapes or transcripts so that we can judge
for ourselves whether it is the version in her court evidence or the version she gave in the House last week that is
correct; if not, what does she have to hide?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I know of no tapes. I know of journalist’s notes from Mr Alley. I know of no notes from Ms Chetwin.
It seems to me that the Opposition’s role is to try to help Mr Doone, through questions in the House. The Opposition
might also like to say whether its friends are bankrolling Mr Doone’s efforts.
Dr Don Brash: Did the Prime Minister state in her signed brief of evidence that she had received a phone call from the
editor of the Sunday Star-Times, in which “Ms Chetwin’s purpose in calling me appeared to be to reassure herself that
the paper had adequately checked and investigated the matter.”,
and does she accept that it was only because she gave that reassurance that the paper ran the story?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That probably was her purpose in calling. The point is that the substance of her story was always
true. Mr Doone intervened. Dr Brash supports that inappropriate action.
Hon Richard Prebble: Does the Prime Minister recall accusing in February 1999 the then Prime Minister, Mrs Shipley, of
“prevarication and evasion” regarding a private dinner between Mrs Shipley and Kevin Roberts; further, does she recall
demanding that all documents be tabled, and issuing an election statement on 23 November in which she said: “Labour will
drive a culture of change, starting at the top.”;
if so, as she has admitted that she leaked confidential documents—for which any member of her administration who leaked
them would instantly be fired—and as she has admitted that she anonymously confirmed a false statement, then allowed the
newspaper to print a false statement on which she had “declined to comment”, is this what she meant by “a culture of
change, starting at the top”; if not, will she take the advice she gave Mrs Shipley and resign?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I lost count after about eight questions there—
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure the Prime Minister can address those questions.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do, indeed, recall my comments at the time, and I make the following observations. No one was
threatening to sue Mrs Shipley—that is the first point. The second point is that Mr Doone went precisely because this
Government would not tolerate two standards of justice, one for the commissioner, and one for other people.
Dr Don Brash: Can the Prime Minister tell the House why it is that although her evidence to the court is littered with
references to her inability to recall important details about her conversations with the Sunday Star-Times, she is now
so certain on the one aspect of those conversations that suits her case, and can she advise the House whether this type
of selective amnesia is going to be the characteristic of this administration in the future?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can assure the member that conversations one has 5¼ years ago are not uppermost in one’s mind, but
I can also assure the member that I was assisted by journalist notes made available to my lawyer, and I challenge the
member to say that he can recall every aspect of what he said 5¼ years ago.
Rodney Hide: Did she tell the Sunday Star-Times after it had published the article that Peter Doone would not get a cent
out of the Sunday Star-Times, because the Cabinet papers that she had seen would vindicate the Sunday Star-Times when
they were released, and did she also state to the Sunday Star-Times that, anyway, Peter Doone was running out of money,
having spent $40,000 fighting the Government to keep his job?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The substance of the story was always true, and I challenge members opposite to say how Mr Doone is
bankrolling his case—with support from their friends.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, as the Prime Minister, was she having one communication, let alone five communications, with
the media on this matter, knowing that there were issues yet to be settled, and is it not in line with the same
performance with respect to Dover Samuels where, on 18 December 2000, it was reported that she said: “He could not be an
effective Minister with allegations swirling around him.”, when she, in fact, was the person who was the chief swirler,
who passed on a vicious, malicious, totally false allegation that saw him lose his job, and is that not a fact?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There was a time when I used to pick up journalists’ phone calls; that time is largely now gone. One
does learn from those experiences.
Dr Don Brash: I seek leave to table, for all members of the House and backbenchers of the Labour Party, the brief of
evidence of the Rt Hon Helen Elizabeth Clark dated 13th day of April 2005 for the High Court outlining the Prime
Minister’s recollection of these events.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is that in full?
Madam SPEAKER: A clarification—is that in full?
Dr Don Brash: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no objection. The document will be tabled.
Rodney Hide: Is there anything in the statement of evidence by Mr Oskar Alley or Ms Suzanne Chetwin about their
interaction with her that she contests, and if there is, why will she not share that with the House?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said at my press conference yesterday, there are matters in those briefs where no doubt content
and context would be cross-examined if a matter ever went to court.
Research—Health
4. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What is the Government doing to
increase investment in health research and strengthen the health research workforce?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): I have today announced a $70 million health research
package. Sixty-one million dollars more funding over 4 years for health research will provide a major boost to research,
with the potential to address the specific health needs of New Zealanders.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How many years?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Over 4 years, I repeat for Dr Smith’s edification. I know the member is stupid but he should
concentrate on the answer.
Madam SPEAKER: That comment was unnecessary. Would the Minister please withdraw that comment.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It was; I agree. I withdraw. Some of that funding will go towards providing more training fellowships
for health practitioners who want to get involved in research. It is a $70 million package overall.
Steve Chadwick: How does this increase for health research compare with previous levels of investment?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It builds on previous increases put in place by my predecessor Mr Pete Hodgson, including $19 million
in last year’s Budget. Spending on health research has almost doubled over the last 6 years, rising from $27 million to
$53 million, and that is without counting the new money to strengthen the research workforce. The new money this year is
also the single biggest increase in health research since the Health Research Council was established in 1990. It may
well be the biggest since the Medical Research Council was put in place. Health researchers have also benefited from the
establishment in 2000 of the New Economy Research Fund, which now funds about $10 million of health research a year,
increases in the Marsden Fund, and two health-related centres of research excellence.
Hon Peter Dunne: Does this increase bring New Zealand’s expenditure on health research up to the OECD average, or has
the Government heeded Treasury’s advice that we should not aim to reach the OECD average; if it is the latter, why?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is the aim of the Government to bring ourselves into line with that particular average, and these
increases do a great deal to bring us there.
New Zealand Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship
5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Did he make the following statement about
New Zealand Scholarship in April 2003: “There will be no fixed numbers or proportions of students receiving the
qualification. It depends on how many students meet the standard set in each subject.”; if so, why did the lack of
cross-subject comparability in Scholarship allegedly come as a surprise to him?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I did expect that there would be intersubject variation, because the
decision that Scholarship would be standards-based and that there would be no intersubject scaling was made by that
member and his colleagues in 1998. However, like many others, I did not expect the extremes of variability that
occurred.
Hon Bill English: Why did the Minister ignore all the following warnings about problems with Scholarship: correspondence
from the Education Scholarship Trust, individual letters from a number of school principals, questions in the House last
year, a select committee report tabled in this House that highlighted, in 2003, exactly the problems that his recent
review has picked up, and also Professor Warwick Elley’s analysis of variability in the National Certificate of
Educational Achievement (NCEA) 2004 results; and why does he not just own up to the fact that he was arrogant and
complacent about this exam and that that is what cheated our students?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I would not regard students as being cheated when a significant number who did not pass according to
the criteria have, as a result of the very generous approach of my colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope, been given a
significant amount of money, anyway.
Hon Brian Donnelly: When the Associate Minister claimed: “More work will be done to minimise the level of variance
between subjects for those sitting scholarship exams in 2005.”, exactly what sort of work was he referring to, and how
will it reduce variability of results?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is my understanding that work is going on to put the results within bands, rather than having the
extremes of variability that have occurred.
Deborah Coddington: What more evidence or advice does the Minister need, given that he now has the report showing the
NCEA Scholarship to be a shambles, to get him to honour his commitment to students, which he made in this House on 10
February, to scrap the $30 reassessment fee for each subject; will he now confirm to parents and students that that fee
will be scrapped and that parents who have already paid will be reimbursed?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think that anyone who has read the report will see that that is not the issue—and no.
Hon Bill English: Does the Minister recall issuing a public statement saying that he first knew about problems with
scholarship results on 13 January 2005; and how does he reconcile that with the record of meetings in the report of the
New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s internal review, which makes it absolutely clear that on 15 December 2004 he had
a meeting with the authority in which they discussed low achievement in a scholarship subject?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have always made it clear that PE was an exception.
Hon Bill English: Is the Minister now saying that all the statements he made—both inside the House and outside—about not
knowing about scholarship variability until 13 January were wrong, and that, in fact, he was discussing this issue on 15
December 2004; and why do he and his fellow Minister insist on tawdry cover-ups and half-truths all the time, instead of
just owning up?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The discussions on the 13th were around overall pass rates, not about variability.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: What’s the difference?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member asked what the difference is—that just shows how thick he is.
Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you going to allow the comment made by the Minister of
Education at the conclusion of his answer? Because if you are, we have a new standard in this House, and that particular
standard will be applied to questions asked as well as questions answered.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, as good was given in that interchange. Comments were made on both sides that I could have ruled as
being unacceptable, but I could see that we were getting to the substance of it. But I will pull everyone up, both
questioner and answerer, in future if that is what members wish.
Elderly and Disabled—Support Services Report
6. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Why, nearly six years after the Government took office, has
the report of the Working Party on Support Services for Older People and People with Disabilities found these services
to be chronically under-funded and suffering huge workforce turnover, with many providing inadequate care?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health): The working party report itself answers the member’s question. Page 6
lists the factors as including increased demand, higher expectation, inflation, and more employment opportunities for
those working in the sector.
Sue Bradford: What advice can he offer a Waikato residential care facility that has had five of 14 registered nurses
resign in the past month, and has been able to replace only one of them; and how does he expect facilities like that to
retain staff when wage rates offered by aged-care facilities are up to 20 percent lower than those paid by district
health boards?
Hon PETE HODGSON: My advice would be to remind those people, or, indeed, the member, that the Government has put into
that broader sector around $50 million, outside the Budget cycle this year, and that next year’s Budget is next week.
Sue Bradford: Why does the Government not simply set minimum standards for workers’ wages and conditions, and any other
appropriate matters, then allow providers and district health boards to enter genuine negotiations with each other, in
accordance with local circumstances?
Hon PETE HODGSON: We do, it is called the minimum wage, and it has been raised annually ever since this Government came
to office.
Marc Alexander: Will the Minister take seriously the report of the Working Party on Support Services for Older People
and People with Disabilities by raising funding to a sustainable level for the aged-care and disability services sector,
or is that just another report designed to fool people into thinking this Government is doing something simply by having
a report, which will collect dust and translate into nothing of substance?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I regret to advise the member that he should have read the accompanying Cabinet paper that came out at
the same time, which would have told the member over what period of time the issue of sustainable funding would be
determined so that funding at a sustainable level could occur.
Sue Kedgley: Can he assure the House that any upcoming funding will provide pay parity between carers in the aged-care
sector, who currently receive $10.80 an hour, and health-care assistants based in public hospitals, who receive $16.50
an hour; if not, how does he expect to put a stop to the mass exodus of experienced staff?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not believe that there is a mass exodus, although I do acknowledge that there is a very high
turnover rate. I hope that Budget announcements to be made next week will begin to address that.
Sue Bradford: Will funding increases for the 45,000 residential and home-based caregivers be ring-fenced to ensure pay
parity between all district health board - funded caregivers; if not, what compliance measures will the Government put
into place to ensure that increased funding leads to increased wages for the workers—minimum wage controls being
manifestly inadequate in that situation?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The member may be aware that district health boards that provide for the health of older people
already have—at least, some of them have—a number of conditions in their contracts that ensure that wages flow through
to workers.
Tertiary Education—Savings Provision
7. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to encourage greater
saving towards the cost of tertiary education?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): The Government is seeking expressions of interest in providing a tertiary
education savings scheme with individual accounts specifically for meeting the costs of tertiary education. This would
enable families to plan ahead, and it would also complement the existing forms of student support. Tertiary education is
a significant investment for many individuals and their families, and the Government is committed to keeping the costs
as affordable as possible, ensuring that low-income groups are not shut out, and giving grandparents an opportunity to
put something towards their grandkids.
H V Ross Robertson: What would be the major elements of a tertiary savings scheme?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If the Government decides to proceed with the scheme, it is likely that it would be voluntary.
Contributions could stop and start, depending on a family’s circumstances. The Government may make a contribution to
encourage participation in the scheme. That could include an upfront payment targeted to encourage early enrolment in
the scheme. Funds could be used only for tertiary education costs, and individuals would not be able to access a student
loan until they had drawn down funds from their savings account. An individual’s account balance would not, however,
affect his or her eligibility for a student allowance.
Bernie Ogilvy: Will the Government consider what will happen to those savings of individuals in this commendable and
forward-thinking scheme who choose not to undertake tertiary education; and should the scheme not also allow young
adults to use their savings for other useful purposes, such as starting a business or buying a home?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I thank the member and his party for their support of this scheme, and for the advice the member has
given me over a period of time on the design of it. But I would like to make it clear that if an individual got to a
certain age without using the savings, an appropriate approach would probably be for that person to transfer the savings
to a superannuation scheme. I do not think it would be a good thing to have the Government contributions available for
the general use of individuals, and I do not think we would want to be arbiters of what is good use and what is not.
Police—Former Commissioner
8. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Did she receive a phone call from the editor of the
Sunday Star-Times, subsequent to the publication of its 16 January 2000 story regarding Mr Doone and following a
statement from Mr Doone describing the article as defamatory, seeking an assurance as to the accuracy of information
contained in the story; if so, what assurance did she give the editor?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I have some recollection of a call at some point, but after 5 years and 4 months I
cannot be certain of the content. One assumes it would have been similar to my conversation with Mr Alley, in which I
drew his attention to the fact that what had been said was contested.
Dr Don Brash: Is she aware of the report in the Christchurch Press today that tapes of this conversation report the
editor as saying: “This is going to cost us a lot of money if we’re wrong.”, to which the Prime Minister replied that
the story was correct, and said: “I’d hang tough on this one if I were you.”; and will she confirm that statement to the
House today?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: To the best of my knowledge that statement is a cut and paste, and the first statement that Dr Brash
quoted was not from the editor.
Dr Don Brash: Was the editor lying in her brief of evidence when she said: “Ms Clark was very clear during this
conversation that the newspaper had not reported any incorrect information. Indeed, she encouraged the newspaper to
continue its investigation as the matter was reaching its critical stage.”; or does she now accept that that was an
accurate account of events?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not believe I encouraged the paper. It needed no encouragement. It had been running the story
for 6 weeks by the time these first conversations took place.
Dr Don Brash: Was the editor lying when she said: “The Prime Minister’s statements were central to our reporting of the
Peter Doone story. In particular, without her corroboration the Sunday Star-Times would not have stated that Peter Doone
had said ‘that won’t be necessary’.”, or does the Prime Minister now accept that this was an accurate account of events?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As the lawyer for Fairfax has made clear, the Sunday Star-Times had a number of sources, and the
Prime Minister was by no means an original source. I have consistently drawn attention to the fact that I drew the
newspaper’s attention to the fact that what was said was disputed.
Rodney Hide: Why does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for her to leak secret Cabinet documents, and the
contents of a Police Complaints Authority report that was still privileged, when she states in her brief of evidence: “I
recall that I went through some aspects of the information contained in the Police Complaints Authority report again.”;
and is it acceptable for Ministers in Cabinet to leak the contents of documents before they have been considered by
Cabinet?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is a matter of judgment for the Prime Minister how I use information from official reports. By
definition, I cannot leak.
Madam SPEAKER: If members wish to hear the question and the answer, I ask them to be quiet.
Dr Don Brash: Was the editor lying when she said in her signed statement: “In the circumstances it is difficult to
imagine a better-placed source. The Prime Minister was dealing daily with the issue, and we assumed that at the time she
had access to more information and was better informed regarding the incident than almost anyone else.”; if not, why
not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is why more weight should have been given to what the newspaper was told, which was that what
was said was contested.
Dr Don Brash: Will the Prime Minister give her consent to the release of the tapes and transcripts of her conversations
with the Sunday Star-Times, or, at least, the release of the journalist’s notes, which she has just admitted exist, so
that New Zealanders can judge for themselves whether the story that she told Parliament last week, or the story she told
the court last month, is correct?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have said before, there is no evidence that there are tapes. There are journalist’s notes
provided under privilege. I invite Dr Brash to tell us whether Mr Doone’s lawyers are drafting his questions.
Truancy—Reduction
9. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Associate Minister of Education: What steps has the Government taken to reduce
student absenteeism in New Zealand schools?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education): I can advise the House that the Government has introduced a
number of successful initiatives to reduce truancy, suspensions, stand-downs, and early exemptions in schools. On Friday
I was given a presentation at Tauranga Boys College about its very successful suspension reduction initiative programme,
which has resulted in a significant reduction in suspensions. Yesterday I visited Porirua College. Its suspension
reduction initiative has reduced suspensions and stand-downs to zero.
Lynne Pillay: What other reports has the Minister seen on absenteeism?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I saw a report on Saturday in the Southland Times about a youth forum organised at Southland
Girls High School, where 400 students were expected. Sadly, only four students turned up. In the words of the Southland
Times, “National Party leader Don Brash will be hoping for a better voter turnout ...”.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Why is the Associate Minister threatening to prosecute parents who are sending their children to
Orauta School, where the children are receiving a schooling, whilst at the same time he says that nothing can be done
about the three families at Môkau, whose children are receiving no schooling at all?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Such situations as the two mentioned are clearly not in the best interests of the students
concerned. The reason there are prosecutions proceeding at Orauta is that the statutory checks and controls on that
situation cannot be exercised. However, that situation is much less serious than the Leader of the Opposition visiting
such places and endorsing such breaches.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister confirm, from his investigations of the reasons for absenteeism, whether the reason
that the 396 students were missing was that the forum was organised by Bill English?
Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure what responsibility the Minister has for that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are talking about students who were missing from a
school forum. There were 400 due. Four turned up, 396 were missing, and the forum was for Don Brash.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not know where the ministerial responsibility is for that.
Bernie Ogilvy: When does the Minister expect a national student database to be fully operational, in light of the fact
that the Minister of Education has promised that for the past three elections—in 1996, 1999, and 2002?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I anticipate that the electronic student tracking system, which will be of immense value to
schools—particularly in enrolment and transfer situations—will be available from the beginning of the next school year.
I seek leave to table an article from page A2 of the Southland Times of last Saturday, titled “Forum attracts four”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard several interruptions from Mr Brownlee and
others during my seeking of leave.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the member did. I could not identify who interrupted. The rules have to be applied across the board
fairly. Who interrupted that seeking of leave?
Hon Damien O'Connor: I confess I may have made some sound.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, the member will leave the Chamber.
Hon Damien O'Connor withdrew from the Chamber.
Gerry Brownlee: I was speaking to a colleague behind me, but if that interrupted Mr Benson-Pope, I am happy to leave.
Madam SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber too, please.
Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Members will settle, please.
Education—Rural Areas
10. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he believe that isolated rural children are just
as entitled to a quality public education as any other New Zealand child; if so, why?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education): Yes. The Government wants all students to achieve in schooling,
and a number of measures are in place to support isolated rural schools. These include the Staffing Incentive Allowance
and the Isolation Allowance, which are aimed at helping rural schools to recruit staff. Annual funding for 560 isolated
rural schools increased by 12.5 percent to nearly $8 million a year through Targeted Funding for Isolation, which is a
component of the operations grant. New funding of $19.7 million over 4 years has been allocated to give area schools
more teachers, extra salary units to help recruit and retain staff, and increased operational funding from 2005.
Metiria Turei: Does the Minister support the decision by the ministerially appointed board of the Correspondence School
to sack 35 of its staff, including 24 regional representatives; and does he agree with the Rural Women New Zealand
spokesperson that: “‘In the past regional representatives have ensured the Correspondence School did a very good job in
providing personalised teaching, targeting the unique situation of a child. Without home visits this will be more
difficult.’”; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am advised that recent decisions made by the Correspondence School board have been made in
response to the changing demographic of its students. Under the new management arrangement, a new, dedicated 15-person
national student liaison team will work in four regions: northern North Island, central North Island, lower North
Island, and South Island. Their specific tasks will be to provide pastoral support and guidance to students, and to
establish relationships with whânau and hapû. There are currently over 4,500 Mâori students on the school’s roll. I also
comment further that I have seen a report from the West Coast’s Greymouth Evening Star that quotes a local principal who
talked about support mechanisms for Correspondence School students. He said that the school had already trialled
protocols that had its staff—the local face-to-face school staff—acting as mentors to its students studying by
correspondence. So he did not anticipate any great changes.
Jill Pettis: How many children attend the Correspondence School because of geographical isolation?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Of the roll of around 18,000, only 1,200 students can be accurately described as geographically
isolated students. Of those, around 700 are early childhood enrolments. There is clearly a need to ensure that the
geographic distribution of Correspondence School resources matches that of the school’s changing roll.
Metiria Turei: What is the Minister doing to address the real problems in the Correspondence School, which were
identified by parents as: “You can’t send kids who fail at school home to sit at a kitchen table with a booklet and
expect them to catch up on their remedial reading by themselves. It’s not OK for the Minister to neglect the needs of
our farm and rural kids in order to slap a band-aid on the supporting sore of urban school failure.”; and why is the
Minister doing nothing to make the board address these issues?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The Government is doing a great deal to support students who have special needs, and that is why,
since 2001, there has been a 34 percent increase, I am advised, in the funding of the Correspondence School alone—from
$32 and one-third million to some $43.5 currently.
Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that the loss of 35 pastoral care positions will mean that by the time of the next
Education Review Office review the school is unlikely to be compliant with the National Education Guidelines, and will
therefore once again be in danger of being closed down; and is that the real intent of the Government here—to force the
Correspondence School to close?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No, and I am rather surprised that the member thinks she can anticipate the result of a review
yet to take place.
Metiria Turei: Why did the Government bail out the Modern Age English language school, the Taranaki Polytechnic, with
$7.5 million, and Te Wânanga o Aotearoa with $20 million, according to yesterday’s announcement, yet refuse the $5.5
million to help the Correspondence School—a school that the Government has used as a dumping ground for 5,000 at-risk
students, who are often not suited to this form of distance learning?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not sure what figures the member is using but I tell her that, in addition to base-line
funding, $6.592 million of viability-funding support was made available to the Correspondence School in the 2004
calendar year. The Correspondence School drew $5.635 million against this funding to meet its 2004 deficit.
Te Wânanga o Aotearoa—Enrolments
11. Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does he concede that the fall in enrolments at Te Wânanga o
Aotearoa from 34,000 equivalent full-time students in 2003, to 22,000 equivalent full-time students this year, is in
part a result of the elimination of alleged fraudulent enrolments following closer public scrutiny, and what reports, if
any, has he received of questionable enrolment practices?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): The fall in enrolments is a reflection of a number of factors. It
illustrates that the rapid growth at the wânanga over the past few years was unsustainable, and that the marked changes
in unemployment rates, especially for Mâori, have led to a decline in numbers, as well. I have asked the Tertiary
Education Commission to investigate a number of allegations, but as yet I have not received evidence of any large-scale
enrolment fraud. The Tertiary Education Commission is continuing to investigate any cases reported.
Hon Ken Shirley: If the Minister is not prepared to rule out that fraudulent enrolments account for stolen millions of
taxpayers’ money, will the Minister refer this matter to the Serious Fraud Office, particularly as the issues of both
enrolment and course quality were specifically excluded from the Auditor-General’s terms of reference?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: At any such time as I get the evidence, of course I will.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that over the past 2 years he has paid over $100,000 to a consultant, Mr
Graham McNally, to be a watchdog in the wânanga, that Labour candidate Shane Jones was on the audit and risk-management
committee at the wânanga, and that the Minister was briefed—sometimes weekly—over 2 years on the 25 audits and
investigations of the wânanga; and is it not true that in spite of all that advice the taxpayer has now had to front up
with $20 million because the Minister was too lazy and scared to do anything about it?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, yes, no, and no.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Because of the noise, I do not think that anyone heard the
Minister’s answer. I would like to hear him repeat it.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: This is an interesting example of what one might call perverse incentives; the noise is because
his own colleagues are barracking, and that is why he could not hear the answer.
Madam SPEAKER: In the interests of moving forward, would the Minister please repeat his answer.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: As far as I can now recall—yes, yes, no, and no.
Tariana Turia: Is it not true that the enrolments at Te Wânanga o Aotearoa are actually superior to the average for
other tertiary institution organisations across the country; and can the Minister confirm that despite the adverse media
publicity and the Minister’s comments, the wânanga’s enrolment and equivalent full-time student figures closely match
those of 2004, and are on target to meet budget forecasts for 2005?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am not sure what a “superior” enrolment is; and to the last part of the question: that is not my
understanding.
Hon Ken Shirley: In view of the financial strife confronting Te Wânanga o Aotearoa resulting from reduced enrolments,
will the Government now be funding the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education, known as the “WIPCE”, which is
programmed for December, to be hosted by Te Wânanga o Aotearoa and being billed by the chairman as an extraordinary
extravaganza; if so, how much funding is the Government providing for that extravaganza?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have no intention of funding the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education.
Music—Government Support
12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What is the Government doing to
support New Zealand music?
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): In 2000 we established the New Zealand Music
Industry Commission and further funded New Zealand On Air to facilitate the growth of the New Zealand music industry. In
2004 we passed the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act. The Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme also
supports key New Zealand musicians, such as a number of the members of the band Goldenhorse. This month is New Zealand
Music Month—the fifth celebration of New Zealand music and musicians, which goes on for a whole month. As a result of
the Government’s support, New Zealanders are now hearing and buying more New Zealand music than ever before. More New
Zealand musicians are making sustainable careers and contributing to economic and regional growth through record sales
and royalties here and overseas, as well as developing our New Zealand culture.
Moana Mackey: What is the Government doing to promote the export of New Zealand music?
Hon JUDITH TIZARD: In April this year, as a result of the New Zealand Music Industry Export Development Group’s report
Creating Heat, the Government announced additional funding of $5.4 million to support the export growth of the New
Zealand music industry. That includes $2 million to the New Zealand Music Industry Commission over 3 years and $3.4
million to New Zealand On Air. This comprehensive package of support aims to build a strong, sustainable music industry
with good access to export markets, representing significant Government support and the building of conditions for
growth in the sector.
( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. For corrected transcripts, please visit: http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/hansard )