Questions And Answers - Tuesday, 3 April 2007

Questions to Ministers

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: Does she believe that the Minister of Health exercised the appropriate level of oversight when the Auckland district health boards negotiated the contract for pathology services with Labtests Auckland; if so, does she therefore think that sole responsibility for any alleged wrongdoing could rest only with those who, in fact, signed the contract, in particular Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes and yes.

John Key: Does she agreed with the Minister of Health that the appropriate time for the Government to determine accountability of this mess was after the interim contract was signed with Diagnostic Medlab last week, in which case will she today express confidence or otherwise in Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, because “after” has a while to run.

John Key: Why does she still have confidence in a Minister of Health who did not act against Government-appointed officials who signed a contract with someone who was—to use her words—“duplicitous” and had “a blatant conflict of interest”, but now wants to act against the same officials or the same individuals before the Crown can even determine whether an appeal will be lodged?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because the extent of that Tory friend’s duplicity has only become visible with the court judgment.

John Key: Has it not dawned on the Prime Minister that by delaying any statement of confidence in the Auckland district health boards until after the appeal process has played out, she is practically inviting those directors to lodge an appeal in order to save their jobs for at least a year, if not more?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, nor do I intend to cut across appeal rights.

John Key: Has she, as Prime Minister, or has her Minister of Health, sought or received legal advice on sacking the directors of the Auckland district health boards?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is premature. Obviously, the Government proceeds carefully. There is an appeal period yet to expire. What is being explored is the full range of options; and the full range, of course, goes from expressing confidence, to people going.

John Key: If the conflict of interest that Dr Bierre had was “blatantly obvious”, as she said last week, why does she need to wait any longer before she expresses confidence or otherwise in those who signed the flawed contract with Dr Bierre?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would have thought it was blatantly obvious, which is why I am rather well disposed towards the court judgment, but I am aware there is an appeal period yet to expire.

Minimum Wage—Recent Changes

2. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Labour: What changes were made to the minimum wage last Sunday?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): I am very pleased that last Sunday the adult minimum wage had its biggest increase since 1999, from $10.25 to $11.25 an hour. The youth rate increased from $8.20 to $9 an hour. This change effectively gives 109,100 workers a pay rise.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has she seen any reports on changes to the minimum wage?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. I have seen a report that notes that the Labour-led Government has raised the minimum wage each and every year it has been in office, from $7 an hour in 1999 to $11.25 this year—a total rise of $4.25 an hour, or 61 percent. This result stands in stark contrast to the last National Government, which over 9 years raised the minimum wage by less than $1 an hour, or 14 percent.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister able to assure the House that by this time next year the minimum wage will have increased a further 35c, which is a mere 3.1 percent, to make $12 per hour as stipulated in the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First; if not, will she tell the House how the minimum wage will reach $12 per hour before the end of 2008?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If the minimum wage was to rise by only 35c an hour, that would be in breach of the accord we have with both New Zealand First and the Green Party. We are aiming to increase the adult minimum wage by 75c an hour next year, which will take it to $12 an hour.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has she seen any other reports on other changes to the minimum wage?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. I am pleased to say that I have seen supportive statements from different sectors, including health care providers, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, New Zealand First, the Greens, and the Progressive party. However, I seem to be missing one—from a so-called supporter of raising the minimum wage, who again confirms the surveyed opinion of a growing number of New Zealanders that he is simply more style than substance. That person is John Key.

Schools—Standards and Achievement

3. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “In the school sector, our main focus will continue to be on standards and achievement, especially in literacy and numeracy.”; if so, what are those standards?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes; and the standards reached in our schools are very high, with the achievement level of New Zealand students overall ranked sixth in the OECD, and the top 40 percent said to rate as the best in the OECD.

John Key: How many New Zealand children left primary school last year without reaching the standard expected of them in reading, writing, and maths?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Unlike the member, the Government does not support age-related national standards, testing, and league tables. We do not impose centrally minimum standards. We know that the National Party thinks National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) sometimes runs the risk of ticking the box; now it wants to do this for 6-year-olds.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of how the New Zealand education system compares with systems with national standards?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have indeed seen a report from the New Zealand Principals Federation, which states that our education system is the envy of countries that have standardised testing. I would further say that in the very week when 1,400 principals have come from around the world because they admire our education system, the Leader of the Opposition has bagged it.

Hon Brian Donnelly: What proportion of primary schools does the Prime Minister believe send out reports that read like real estate ads, and does she believe that anyone who suggests that that is the practice of most schools is blatantly insulting the professionalism of our primary education service?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Such a person not only would be insulting the professionalism of our teachers, which I have great respect for, but also would be totally out of touch with what happens in our State schools.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree that a policy to test kids more but then failed to provide any additional funding for support staff or more programmes would serve only to stigmatise young students, without offering them any support they may need to do better?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Absolutely, and such a policy would be a very empty policy. I would add to “empty” the description “confusing”, after what the Leader of the Opposition offered yesterday.

Judy Turner: Does the Prime Minister agree that testing primary-aged children against standards should, and does, take place regularly, but that its primary purpose is as a diagnostic tool for teachers and parents, and that, as such, this information must be readily available for parents at all times?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I absolutely agree with the assertion in the member’s question, and say that information is available to our parents—as it should be.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Is the Prime Minister aware of the Ministry of Education report, Achievement at Maori Immersion and Bilingual Schools, which shows that year 11 candidates at bilingual schools did very well in meeting the literacy and numeracy requirements of NCEA level 1, and were more likely to meet these requirements than both Māori and non-Māori in English medium schools; and how will she use that information to support Māori immersion programmes?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am broadly aware of those results and of the fact that our bilingual schools are doing particularly well for our students, and I think that it does show what investment in te reo can do to help raise achievement overall.

John Key: Is the reason that the Prime Minister would not answer my earlier supplementary question—which asked how many children were leaving primary school without reaching the expected standard in literacy of reading, writing or maths—that the Government has not actually set a standard, and therefore the Government has absolutely no clue how many children fail to meet the standard?

Hon Trevor Mallard: That approach was abolished in the 1930s.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As my colleague, the previous Minister of Education, said, that approach was abolished in the 1930s. We do not have centrally imposed minimum standards that result in a “tick the box” approach to education.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the purpose of testing tools, such as asTTle and Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource, is diagnostic to enable teachers to recognise where remedial work is required, and the kind of national testing in standards advocated by the Leader of the Opposition stigmatises children early in their school career, leading to later failure rather than success?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I absolutely agree with that. The Leader of the Opposition’s approach reminds me very much of the failed Eleven plus approach that used to prevail in the United Kingdom and saw so many children condemned to failure from an early age.

John Key: Will the Prime Minister come with me to Glen Taylor School, a decile 1 school in Glen Innes, and observe the work of the principal, Lyn Avery, who has used exactly the formula I outlined yesterday—a school that has received outstanding Education Review Office reports since she took over but that, for the previous 12 years, received Education Review Office reports that were very poor indeed; and will she explain to Lyn Avery that what she is doing is wrong and she would rather they go back to the failed policies of the past?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That school is one of hundreds and hundreds of good State schools, about which the member knows little, that apply those assessment tools to develop children’s learning. The member really is very out of touch with what happens in our State schools.

Madam SPEAKER: I could not hear that answer, at all. The level of barracking is now rising again. I am sure members at the back of the Chamber could not hear the answer, either. I ask all members to keep the noise down or we will be having questions and answers in silence.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is the Prime Minister receiving reports suggesting why it is sensible to introduce standards-based assessment in primary school when people are in the early stages of education and reject it in their late stages of secondary school?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am indeed struck by the irony that the National Party preaches one thing for primary school students and another for secondary school students.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister explain to the country and to the parents of New Zealand what is wrong with determining a minimum standard about whether their child can read, write and do maths, what is wrong with using one of the well and truly approved tests such as asTTle, Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource, or progressive achievement test, what is wrong with using the diagnostic information that comes from those tests to improve teaching standards and to improve the outcome of those schools, and, finally, what is wrong with giving that information to parents in New Zealand about what their child is doing—because if the Prime Minister thinks that is wrong, then she is the one that is out of touch, not the National Party?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Obviously, some of my answers have really stung the member today because he is out of touch with what happens in our State schools. I am advised that our Education Review Office finds that something like 90 percent of our schools are good or very good at informing parents on how our children are doing, and we are working on the others.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Education Review Office stated last week that one in two schools are not effectively reporting to parents about their children’s education, and has it now dawned on the Prime Minister that the one of us who is out of touch is not me, but her?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course the member has just managed to utterly misrepresent what the Education Review Office report stated. What actually happened is that in the past assessment used to be put on the shelf and not looked at again; now it is supposed to be used to inform a teacher as he or she prepares the learning programme. About half our schools are making progress on that; the other half could do better—and we are working on it.

Hon Steve Maharey: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Education Review Office report shows that 90 percent of primary schools—the schools the Leader of the Opposition is attacking—are said to provide feedback that is very good, or good, to all parents, and that only 4 percent of primary schools were identified as not doing this; and would the Prime Minister say that this is an inopportune time for the Leader of the Opposition to attack these schools as 1,400 principals from around the world are gathered in Auckland because the system is so good and they have come to look at it, while he is bagging it?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Minister is exactly right. Firstly, 90 percent of our schools are said to be good or very good at informing parents about how their children are doing. Secondly, 1,400 principals have come from around the world because they admire the New Zealand school system. Thirdly, the member just does not get direct feedback from our State school system.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government’s own agency, the Education Review Office, says that one in five children are not succeeding at school and that schools are, in fact, doing a bad job of identifying those students who are struggling; and, if the Prime Minister cares about all of the children in New Zealand, she will focus not just on those who absolutely do achieve well at school but will take some time to work out why 150,000 children are now failing to reach even minimum standards in literacy and numeracy?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member should be well aware that across the population there is a range of levels of ability and that there are, conventionally, thought to be something like one in five children who may have difficulty even fitting into the discipline structure of a school, which makes it hard to learn. Our Government is absolutely committed to raising standards for those children.

Hon Steve Maharey: Can the Prime Minister confirm that at the international conference in Auckland, where 1,400 principals from around the world are joining principals in this country, the emeritus professor at Warwick University, Sir Ken Robinson, told the conference that in most education systems there is confusion between standardising education and raising education standards, and that he described standardising tests as the “enemy of achievement”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have indeed had that statement referred to me, and I believe it would be consistent with a wide body of professional opinion about testing. I am further aware that the chief executive of the exams watchdog in the United Kingdom, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, has come out and suggested that in that country the tests for 11-year-olds should be scrapped. At the very time these issues are being reconsidered in the United Kingdom, the National Party wants age-related national standards, testing, and league tables. Unless ACT has spoken up, I am not aware of any political party in this Parliament that would support it, because it is so old-fashioned and wrong.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You regularly appeal to the House to come to order to give questioners a fair go, and all the rest of it. Although none of that is, strictly speaking, written in the Standing Orders, there is a convention that the House would, obviously, follow that. Question time is for the Opposition to question the executive. I suggest to you that there is also a strong convention that the executive does not question itself during question time. Yet today we have had no less than four Ministers ask a total of six supplementary questions of the Prime Minister. We have even seen the absurdity of the Minister of Education asking the Prime Minister questions about his own portfolio. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Do members want to stay in the Chamber? Points of order are heard in silence.

Gerry Brownlee: Parliament is supposed to be a place where information is made available to people—at least, question time is—by virtue of Opposition questions. I know you will say that there is no strict restriction on members of the executive asking each other questions, or perhaps taking the opportunity of having the time to talk to one another, but I think it would be fair to say that that is not how question time runs. It may help with the general order of the House if members of the Labour Government recognised that and started having their conversations in the lobbies or in their own offices.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I notice that the member referred to “no less than four Ministers”. Of course, in the light of the previous range of questions, it should have been “no fewer than four Ministers”, so the member failed that standards-based achievement. But apart from that, there is no such convention in this House. Ministers have raised supplementary questions on many occasions over many, many years.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members. As the member who raised the original point of order noted, I have ruled on this before. There is nothing to prevent Ministers from asking supplementary questions. There is, however—and I think we are fast getting to it—not only a convention but also a Standing Order stating that members are entitled to be heard in the House. So if we have a continuation of what we have had so far, then we will be having question time in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was very clear from the beginning what the tenor and purpose of the last point of order was. In short, it had no merit, whatsoever. So, Madam Speaker, my inquiry is to ask why you heard the member out when the point of order was nonsense. I do not believe that you would have heard out another member from this end of the House, had he or she sought to raise such a spurious point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I do hear lots of spurious points of order. Perhaps at times I should cut them short, but I find it quicker sometimes to hear them than to not hear them. Could we please now proceed.

Real Estate Industry—Reform Proposals

4. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What response has he received to proposals to reform the real estate industry?

Madam SPEAKER: I understand that this is a slightly longer answer than normal, but not too long, I hope.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice): The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Deb Leask, whose agents attempted to lowball her property sale by around $120,000, states she is “absolutely very impressed” with the proposals, and that the “overhaul will ensure that consumers are protected from real estate agents who could take advantage of them”. John Ottaway, who, with his partner, Caitlin, was ripped off to the tune of $35,000, stated: “The overhaul was the best thing that could happen.”, and: “What’s taken place with us is rank. It stinks of the old boys’ network and them looking after their own.” John Haycock, who was ripped off to the tune of $20,000, stated: “I want to see a complete restructure. I think its essential that they have an independent body to handle complaints. Under the present system everything is slanted in the real estate agent’s favour.” Finally, Chris Taylor of the real estate agent company The Joneses commended the proposal, stating: “Tinkering with the current legislation, as the Real Estate Institute had suggested, was never going to solve the fundamental problems arising from real estate agents regulating themselves.”

Maryan Street: What measures are proposed to reform the real estate industry?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: There will be a complete overhaul of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 in order to deliver accountability—

Hon Members: When?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —hold on, I say to those members; help is on the way—transparency, and openness within the sector, and an independent and open complaints and disciplinary system. The freedom to self-regulate that is granted by current legislation is now perceived as industry protectionism rather than consumer protection. The overhaul will deal with licensing, training, complaints, discipline, and regulation of real estate activity, including whether compulsory membership of the real estate agents institute is appropriate, whether all facets of licensing should be independent of the industry, and whether the industry itself should fund the reforms, rather than the taxpayer. To answer the members’ question, a paper setting out the detailed proposal for reform will be released in May.

District Health Boards, Auckland, Chairs—Confidence

5. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the chairs of the Auckland district health boards, Wayne Brown, Pat Snedden, and Kay McKelvie; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): All chairs and board members retain their full roles and responsibilities right now. The bright line of confidence or no confidence is of limited value at present, for two reasons. One is that the judgment may be appealed; another is that there is legal debate as to whether the judgment is new law. That said, the judgment of serious procedural error has been made, and that is, therefore, the current position.

Hon Tony Ryall: What is the Minister’s position now on when he will deliver accountability in the Auckland lab testing fiasco: his original view, when he promised that it would happen once the interim contract was signed, the Prime Minister’s view that it would occur after the appeal period, or his view expressed this morning, when he said he may have announcements later this week?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will probably have announcements later today, actually. In respect of the interim contract, I simply said that my confidence hinged on the district health boards’ ability to get that done in a timely way—and they did so. I thank all of those who were involved in that negotiation. The interim agreement saves 10 million valuable health dollars over 18 months, without any reduction in quality or service. Those savings are sufficient to produce about 50 additional cataract operations for Aucklanders every week.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister realise that an appeal may take years to be heard, and why is he denying accountability by colluding with the Prime Minister to put political mateship before the public interest?

Hon PETE HODGSON: One presumes that the political mateship the member refers to is the political mateship that apparently exists between this Government and Wayne Brown or this Government and Ross Keenan. The first Government to appoint Wayne Brown or Ross Keenan to the health system was not this Government but the previous National Government.

Hon Tony Ryall: What correspondence did the Minister receive, in the months following the awarding of the Auckland laboratory contract, concerning Dr Bierre’s conflicts, and what action did he take in response to that correspondence?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I received, from memory, a question from Dr Paul Hutchison in July of 2006 that first raised the issue of a conflict of interest, and I went immediately to the Auckland District Health Board for its view of that. Its view was—and, until the court case judgment came out, it remained—that the conflict of interest had been properly dealt with. On top of that, of course, I received a large amount of correspondence.

Hon Tony Ryall: What inquiries did the Minister make as a result of receiving that large amount of correspondence?

Hon PETE HODGSON: All correspondence was responded to. The assurance that the Auckland district health boards gave me, through the Ministry of Health, regarding the conflict of interest was an assurance that stood right through the process—and, in fact, right through until the Tuesday before last.

Hon Tony Ryall: Was the only time that the Minister sought information on Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest when he was replying to a written question in July 2006; if not, on which other occasions did he seek assurances or ask questions about the allegations around Dr Bierre’s behaviour?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I maintained a close watch on that laboratory contract, as did a number of people, including the Health Committee, which had the Auckland district health boards in front of it. I do not recall any questions about a conflict of interest from the member of the select committee who is asking these questions. However—

Hon Tony Ryall: That’s because he was under sub judice. What an idiot!

Hon PETE HODGSON: I see. So somehow—

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is attempting to answer the question despite constant interruptions, and being called an idiot is likely to cause disorder. Would the Minister please continue.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member seems to specialise in politics—

Madam SPEAKER: Let us just get on with it, please.

Hon PETE HODGSON: —that are destructive and vindictive. I prefer a style that respects natural justice, that responds to facts as they continue to unfold, and that does not respond to the hysteria of others.

Hon Tony Ryall: So from the upshot of questions in the House today, is the Minister admitting that the only time he ever sought information, asked questions, or tried to satisfy himself around the number of allegations surrounding Dr Bierre’s behaviour, in terms of this contract, was when he referred a written question once to his ministry—and that he never again sought to ask further questions or satisfy himself in respect of those allegations; if that is the case, how does he deserve to have a ministerial warrant when he did not even seek basic information?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I sought advice around the issue of laboratory testing in Auckland for over a year on a consistent basis.

Hon Tony Ryall: Did you ask anyone about—

Hon PETE HODGSON:. I asked the Ministry of Health about various aspects of the tender. I asked the Auckland District Health Board, when I met its members the month before last, about various aspects of the tender—and on it went. There was a lot of information to be received, and there was a lot of concern, including concerns raised by the Health Committee, which that member was on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the light of Mr Ryall’s attack on Wayne Brown, I seek leave to table the list of appointments of Wayne Brown made by the previous National Government, of which Mr Ryall was a member.

Leave granted.

Pharmac—Herceptin, International Clinical Trial

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the Pharmac board signed off on the decision to commit $3.2 million to the international clinical trial that is planned on Herceptin on 31 January 2007; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I can say to the member that yes, I do, because it is true.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true, why then is Pharmac on record, on 7 March 2007, as saying that this money did not have Pharmac board approval; and why is Pharmac proposing to fund 9-week trials of Herceptin and Docetaxel, which is on the Pharmaceutical Schedule for New Zealand women with early-stage breast cancer, from June 2007, when the Ministry of Health’s Medsafe will approve such a treatment only if it is to be used for at least 12 months?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The answer to the first question is that the meeting of 7 March was between the Chief Executive of Pharmac and someone from the Breast Cancer Advocacy Coalition—I think that is its name—and the Chief Executive of Pharmac made a mistake. He then realised later that he had made a mistake, and on 19 March he phoned the spokesperson to correct the error. That is the case, and the phone message is documented.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was trying to clear up the first issue, but the real issue in that second question concerns why Pharmac is proposing to fund 9-week trials of Herceptin and Docetaxel, which is on the Pharmaceutical Schedule for New Zealand women with early-stage breast cancer, from June 2007, when the Ministry of Health’s Medsafe will approve such a treatment only if it is to be used for at least 12 months. I want an answer to that question.

Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order; it was in the form of a question. Is the member’s point of order that the Minister did not address the question? Well, it seemed to me that he did actually address that question, but the Minister may wish to address the supplementary question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The process is still continuing. The district health boards are in a consultation phase to see whether they will proceed with 9-week treatments from 1 July. If they do, that may be in the form of a trial, or it may not. If it is to be in the form of a trial, it will be compared, one assumes, against 12-month treatments. The reason for that trial, if it is to proceed, is simply that although the 9-week research is significant—that is to say, the non-return rate of breast cancer is statistically significant—the trial is somewhat underpowered because the numbers were low. It was considered legitimate and reasonable for taxpayers’ money to take part in a larger trial to ensure that 9-weeks’ treatment is as significant as early indications would suggest.

Dr Jackie Blue: How was it that the Chief Executive of Pharmac made such a serious error when he clearly stated, on 7 March to a breast cancer group, that it was a “management and not a board decision”—a decision, which can only be described as radical, by Pharmac to fund, with $3.2 million of taxpayers’ money, an offshore Finnish trial in which no New Zealand women may ever participate—and why is it that this research was not flagged in its statement of intent?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not know how many of these questions, Madam Speaker, you would like me to answer, but just going with the statement of intent, I say that it refers to Pharmac’s statute. The statute of Pharmac expressly allows for research. How is it that this gentleman made what is called a serious mistake? I am not sure, but a few days later he found it out and corrected it. Is the research radical? Well, no, not if it is allowed for in statute.

Dr Jackie Blue: Yes, it’s radical.

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I do not think it is radical.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did Pharmac conduct such a trial; and on what basis is Pharmac doing its pricing calculation, when in respect of Roche and Herceptin, and sanofi-aventis and Docetaxel, Pharmac has not even negotiated a price on these two drugs; in short, on what basis is he constructing his costings, and why is the New Zealand taxpayer funding an international multicentre trial?

Hon PETE HODGSON: We are participating, prospectively, in a trial; it is not yet clear to me whether it will go ahead. If it is to go ahead, it will have to be international to get the numbers. There are not enough people with that form of breast cancer in New Zealand for a trial to be carried out. As to the issue of costing, I say that it is fairly straightforward that if there is 9 weeks’ treatment versus 52, the cost will be about 20 percent of the original cost.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I want to table the list of 22 countries—First World countries—that have Herceptin available on the basis of 12 months’ treatment, not some mythical 9-week treatment dreamt up by Pharmac.

Leave granted.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Providers

7. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Is he concerned by the Early Childhood Council’s latest survey, which shows that only 23.9 percent of its centres will offer the policy of 20 free hours; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): This survey, which represents the views of 300 providers out of a potential 2,600, told us that 23.9 percent of centres have decided to come to the scheme, as we speak today; that 46 percent are making up their mind; and the others feel that they will not. I spoke at the early childhood conference this weekend and talked to a wide range of providers, all of whom are very enthusiastic about the policy. So I remain optimistic that on 1 July we will have a very good muster. Of course, I remind the member that centres cannot actually enrol for the programme until May.

Katherine Rich: How can the Minister deliver access for all 3 and 4-year-old children to his 20 free hours policy when only 12 percent of Auckland centres say they are going to opt in, and only 19 percent of Christchurch centres say they are going to opt in—just 3 months before the whole policy goes live?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I said, I remain optimistic. But I do think one of the problems we have is that, I understand, the National Party is going to meetings at the moment saying it will run its own monitoring of the scheme in the future, and if it decides that centres do not comply with the rules the way National interprets them, it will sue. That might actually scare a few people.

Katherine Rich: Does he regret his very first promise to New Zealand parents that 92,000 children will definitely get 20 hours free—when based on a minority of centres that say they are going to opt in, he has not got a hope in hell of delivering that level of access to those children?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is colourful language, but, as this member always misquotes everybody, I have to go back and say we have repeatedly said that up to 92,000 3 to 4-year-olds will be eligible for this policy. I have said to the member, I do not know how many times, it is a voluntary policy. People come into the policy if they want to, but up to 92,000 young people will be eligible.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister not admit that centres will continue to reject his 20 free hours policy unless he allows them to charge fees to cover the full cost of providing a basic but quality service of early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because that is wrong. Why does the member not admit that National would scrap the policy—and let National be honest with people when its members are travelling round the country?

Paula Bennett: If the funding for 20 free hours does not cover basic costs, how does the Minister suggest a centre make up the shortfall?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I will explain to the member for the 600th time that this cost was figured out by talking with centres right across the country. We have now got what we believe is the average cost of the regulated level of quality early childhood education. That is what we are paying for. If a centre decides that it wants to provide more than that, then it simply talks to the parents and says: “You may be pocketing $80 for the regulated level of early childhood education. We would like to provide you with more teachers. Would you like us to do that, and a charge can be established?”.

Paula Bennett: If by the very definition of average there is 50 percent under and 50 percent over, how can a centre pay the mortgage and teachers’ salaries on optional charges and donations that might not get paid, when the centres clearly need certainty of income?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As has been explained numerous times, many centres charge for more teachers, hot lunches, and travels around the community, which means they have set fees considerably higher than the average across the country or the regulated level of early childhood education. If they wish to continue that, then it is fine. What they will do is talk to the parents and establish an optional charge.

Methyl Bromide—Proximity to Schools

8. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many of the transitional facilities where methyl bromide fumigation took place last year are within 500 metres of schools?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity): The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry records the names and locations of transitional and port facilities where methyl bromide has been used in fumigation. In order to identify the proximity to schools of every one of the 6,119 transitional facilities where methyl bromide may have been required to be used in the last year, it would be necessary to physically map each transitional facility and then cross-reference its location to the nearest schools. It would take both considerable effort and cost to query 12 months’ data. I would not expect Biosecurity New Zealand to undertake such an exhaustive and arbitrary task, because the health and safety of fumigation operations are governed by extensive regulations issued by the Environmental Risk Management Authority and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Service, and as well come under the Resource Management Act consents process.

Sue Kedgley: Is the Minister saying that he has no idea how many methyl bromide fumigation facilities are near schools, and can he confirm that there are many methyl bromide fumigation facilities near schools such as Otahuhu School, Otahuhu College, King’s College in Auckland, Kelvin Christian School, and other examples that I will table; and does the Government have concerns that children in those schools may be exposed to harmful concentrations of this highly toxic, odourless gas, especially when, despite all the regulations he referred to, there is no monitoring of methyl bromide concentrations even in residential areas and near schools; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Decisions on permitted or non-permitted activities like methyl bromide use in urban and regional areas are made by the relevant local authority under the Resource Management Act. The Government is currently investigating different ways of monitoring gas discharge and exposure rates over time, and also the idea of using a recovery and destruction method for the gas. A person who intends to carry out fumigation with methyl bromide must notify every person who may be affected by the fumigation of the intention to carry out that fumigation. Those regulations are enforced by the Department of Labour.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister tell the House whether there are any negative side effects to our agricultural exports from not using methyl bromides; if so, what are they?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Our sawn timber exports to Australia, which are a significant element of our export wood industry, are required by the Australian authorities to be treated by methyl bromide. If we did not treat them with methyl bromide, we would not be able to export any timber at all. On the import side, of course, if we did not have treatment like methyl bromide for incursions in New Zealand, we would almost certainly have greater incursions of red fire ants, black widow spiders, and Asian tiger mosquitoes—which could be arranged, of course.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that methyl bromide is a highly toxic and odourless gas and that it should not be permitted to be used for fumigation near schools and in residential areas; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Clearly it is a toxic gas, both to animal habitats and, of course, to the ecosystem itself—we acknowledge that. But the member has to understand that under the Ozone Layer Protection Act, which controls imports of ozone-depleting substances including methyl bromide, and in line with our commitments under the Montreal Protocol, we can use methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment services. That is a permitted use of methyl bromide that can legitimately occur under that protocol.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have twice asked the Minister whether he believes that methyl bromide fumigation facilities should be permitted to be used near schools. I have asked that very simply. Could the Minister answer that question and not a number of other irrelevant issues?

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, Ministers are not required to answer yes or no or to give the answers expected by members. They must address the question, and I think that question has been addressed at length.

Sue Kedgley: Can I take it from the Minister’s answers that this Government is happy to turn a blind eye to the fact that methyl bromide fumigation is taking place near to schools, possibly endangering the health of pupils, and now that the technology to recapture methyl bromide has been proven to be practical and cost effective and is in use in Australia and other countries, why will this Government not require the recapturing of this highly toxic and ozone-depleting gas as a condition of its use?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a map showing the location of four fumigation sites in close proximity to schools.

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table some documents that show other Governments, such as those in Belgium and Australia, have passed regulations requiring the recapture of methyl bromide.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

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

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

Simon Power: How can he have confidence in his department when someone as senior as the Wellington regional prisons manager, Dave East, who only 2 weeks ago was fronting to the media regarding allegations that four guards had allowed a convicted rapist to have a conjugal visit, has himself now been suspended for allegedly stymying investigations, bullying staff, and giving preferential treatment to his wife and three children as employees of the department?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of a number of allegations that have been made. There is currently an investigation under way. That person is under investigation not for corruption but for other inappropriate issues and actions around the prison. I am not prepared to prejudge the outcome.

Ron Mark: Does it not, in fact, increase the public’s confidence in the Department of Corrections when in the short space of about 4 weeks, an anti-corruption team having been launched that was given the task of rooting out corruption and finding areas of incompetence, we have seen 11 officers suspended and we now see a manager—showing that no favour is being given to those of senior rank—also suspended and facing charges; does that not give some confidence that the investigations in hand are producing results?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It is about time the National Party acknowledged that we will investigate, identify, follow through on, and prosecute anyone who does not abide by the law or protocol within the Department of Corrections.

Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House that claims that corruption at Rimutaka Prison does not go on without the knowledge of management were “ridiculous”, when an ex-employee has described management’s attempts to stifle dissent as “mafia-like”, when one of those currently under scrutiny by the corruption investigation is a unit manager, and when a current guard says: “It hasn’t stopped because of this. It’s just gone underground. They haven’t got the really big fish.”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do not accept that for a moment, but Mr Patten is carrying out an independent investigation at Rimutaka Prison. He will identify any areas of inappropriate or illegal behaviour, and we will follow through and prosecute anyone, be they at senior management level or be they a prison officer.

Simon Power: How could a second prisoner, Arthur Taylor, allegedly father a child from inside without help from prison staff, when he was able to pass a container to his wife, or should we not be surprised, as Taylor himself said last year that when he first arrived at Rimutaka Prison he was approached by guards offering their services, saying: “Do you need anything, Arthur?”

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not about to give that member a lesson in biology. I would suggest that he take on board the fact that Arthur Taylor is a lying, scheming, violent, manipulative person who has been convicted of many, many crimes, and if that is where that member gets his advice from, I suggest he change his sources.

Simon Power: Is he at all concerned—

Hon Phil Goff: He’s certainly pretty enterprising.

Simon Power: Mr Goff might want to hear this. Is he at all concerned that it appears that a high proportion of key staff in the department are in relationships with other staff?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do not consider that the few staff in the department who have relationships with other staff is a high proportion. I am aware of the situation, and senior management have been informed. There is not a large number, and wherever it has occurred the issue has been made quite public.

Horowhenua District Council—Rubbish Transfer

10. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Local Government: Will he take any action to ensure consultation with Ngāti Pareraukawa and the Muaūpoko Tribal Authority regarding the decision of the Horowhenua District Council to allow the transfer of rubbish from the Kapiti district to the Hōkio Beach landfill, in light of the Crown’s responsibility to maintain and improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): Under the Local Government Act 2002, decisions relating to a council’s waste management plan are for a council to make within the requirements of that Act. Decisions relating to specific resource consents, such as those at the Hōkio Beach landfill, fall under the Resource Management Act 1991. Accordingly, any questions relating to the council’s decision-making process under that Act are the province of the Minister for the Environment.

Tariana Turia: What consultation has there been with the Muaūpoko Tribal Authority about the decision to open up the Hōkio Beach site as a repository for nationwide rubbish—a site that has sacred significance for the people in terms of its close proximity to traditional burial grounds?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I indicated in the opening answer, the decisions, and the executing of those decisions, under the Local Government Act are the province of the local council in question. I am advised that the long-term council community plan for that district provided for out-of-district waste to be dumped at the Hōkio Beach landfill. Of course, that plan was, as is required by law, a matter of consultation.

Tariana Turia: In light of section 4 of the Local Government Act 2002, which places a very clear requirement on local authorities to consult with mana whenua, what consultation has been undertaken with Ngāti Pareraukawa, given that the landfill is literally on the backyard of their tribal marae at Ngātokowaru?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I have answered twice already, this is a decision and responsibility, under the very Act that the member is referring to, of the appropriate territorial local authority. It is, of course, potentially judicially reviewable under that Act, should the conditions for such a review be met.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister agree that building a landfill on a highly porous base such as sand, then relying on a plastic liner to catch all of the leachate, on the assumption that it will never fail, which is what is happening at Hōkio, is a stupid and unnecessary risk that leaves the council exposed to future liability, and directly cuts across the ability of Ngāti Pareraukawa and the Muaūpoko Tribal Authority to exercise their kaitiakitanga, or, indeed, of the Pākehā community to care for their waterways?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I have tried to explain—three times now—this decision is properly made by the territorial local authority, which among its staffing expertise should have drainage and disposal engineering expertise. That is not expertise that I would ever claim to have.

Tariana Turia: Is the Minister aware that Ngāti Pareraukawa, as a party directly affected by this activity, have raised their concerns over subsequent decades about the longstanding pollution caused by the sewage discharge, which has compromised the health of their streams, affected their marine environment, and impacted adversely on the health of their tuna; and what initiatives will he take as a result of this, to ensure that waste disposal policies do not at the same time create environmental hazards?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I also indicated in the substantive answer, the aspect that the member now strays on to deals more with the resource consent, which is a matter for the Resource Management Act, which is the province of the Minister for the Environment.

Floods—Government Response, Northland

11. JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What response, if any, has the Government made to last week’s flood damage in Northland?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Civil Defence): Firstly, the three Northland councils did not declare a civil defence emergency, because they had good plans and excellent systems, and they were on top of their job. The local civil defence emergency management staff should feel well satisfied with the management of this event. In such cases it is the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management that undertakes a monitoring role, and, when asked, it will provide whatever support is necessary to respond. When my colleague Dover Samuels and I surveyed the damage in Northland on Saturday, we advised that the Government would pay in full any council costs associated with the housing and moving of people displaced by the flood. As well as this, the Ministry of Social Development offices were open on Saturday and Sunday, and an 0800 Government helpline number was activated. Further, the Government will assist substantially with any road repairs.

John Carter: Does the Minister stand by his promise on Radio New Zealand National yesterday that “Transit will pay the full cost of restoring each road in full—no question about that.”?

Hon RICK BARKER: I did not make such a blunt statement. What I did say was that the Government will fund substantially the costs associated with it. In the far north the Government is committed to paying 56 percent of the total cost, and 52 percent for Whangarei. That is over half of the costs. The mayors have already asked me whether we would contribute more than that, and I have said that once the exact costs are known, then they can put their requests to the Government and they will be considered.

H V Ross Robertson: What has the Minister done in his role as Minister of Civil Defence to ensure that people are better prepared to cope with civil defence emergencies?

Hon RICK BARKER: Last year I implemented two public education programmes—one in schools, called What’s the Plan Stan?, and the other was a broader public education programme called Get Ready Get Thru. Initial results show that three-quarters of New Zealanders have done something to better prepare for the event of a disaster. These initial results are heartening, but we have a long way to go. But people are better prepared, and better preparation leads to fewer losses. This directly contradicts Mr Carter’s comments in June last year, when he said that to spend money on a public education programme was “a farce and a disgrace”. I doubt that the people of Northland would agree with that statement.

Phil Heatley: Does the Minister stand by his second promise to the people of Northland on Radio New Zealand National yesterday, when he stated: “Anything to do with public safety we will pay for in full.”?

Hon RICK BARKER: I do stand by that promise. If any person was required to be evacuated by whatever means and accommodated, the Crown will reimburse in full the costs to that council.

John Carter: Has the Minister heard from Minister Jim Anderton since he told Mr Anderton over the weekend that his staff needed to look at the issue of suspensory loans in the Hikurangi area again; if so, what was the reply from Mr Anderton?

Hon RICK BARKER: The member again misquotes me. I never mentioned suspensory loans. What I did say was that I would take the matter up with the Minister. I have done so, and his staff are investigating the matter further.

Phil Heatley: Does he stand by his fourth and final promise on Radio New Zealand National yesterday that “The Government will make a substantial contribution to this flood without a question of a doubt.”, and does he absolutely guarantee a refund of “all that the council spent on housing and relocating people temporarily”, on “public safety”, and on repairing all roads, not just Transit roads, in Northland?

Hon RICK BARKER: I repeat my answer further. Where people were dislocated by the floods, and the council incurred costs, then we will pay the full cost of that. There is no question about that. In terms of repairing the roads, I have already said the Government is committed, and in the case of the far north will pay 56 percent of the cost, and in the case of Whangarei 52 percent of the cost. That is a substantial contribution. The councils have asked whether we would look at further increasing the taxpayer subsidy, and I have said we would.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the transcript of all the promises on Radio New Zealand National yesterday.

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

Schools—Assessment at Primary Level

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received regarding changes to assessment policies in primary schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Firstly, I have seen reports stating that 90 percent of primary schools are making effective use of assessment data in core areas such as English and maths to improve student achievement. Secondly, I have also seen reports stating that New Zealand ranks in the second group of nations in the world in core areas such as reading and maths. Thirdly, I have seen reports from the National Party, which wants to undermine that success by introducing age-related standardised tests for 5-year-olds and league tables. It is no wonder a typical response is that of Judy Hanna, president of the New Zealand Principals Federation, who said: “This is nothing more than a cynical attack on a world class education system.”

Moana Mackey: What is the Government’s policy on assessment in schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Labour-led Government is supporting the development of what is called assessment for learning in New Zealand schools. This is where teachers actively make use of assessment to find out what a student is doing, and then apply that knowledge to improve the student’s performance. We have supported that policy with very substantial investment in teacher professional development and in such world-class assessment tools as asTTle. The approach ensures that teachers, parents, and students understand where students went wrong and how to improve their performance. Our focus is on achieving the full potential of a student rather than on centrally imposed minimum standards.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Has the Minister been informed of the radio interview with a principal this morning where the interviewee claimed she had, 1 week ago, introduced John Key to the idea of benchmarking as used in her school, and what does he think of educational policy developed on the basis of the last school visited by a party’s leader?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I thought the interview revealed what we all know, which is that the only person who knows anything about education on the National side is Bill English, the co-leader. It tells us a great deal about why John Key has approached these issues from the point of view of such old ideas as those he has proposed. But I tell the member that if Mr Key goes to almost any of the schools in this country, I will be very proud of what they will tell him about how the education system works. Glen Taylor School is an excellent example of such a school.

Katherine Rich: When John Key has clearly said that National is not introducing standardised testing or league tables and wants a diagnostic assessment of learning in order to inform classroom teaching, does the Minister think that he should be the first one to have his reading ability assessed—because, frankly, he has not read the speech or understood it—and what is he going to do to stop one in five kids leaving school without being able to read and write?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I would just say this to the member. I was at a conference yesterday of 1,600 principals from around the world. Every single one of them thinks John Key wants national standardised testing. The National Party, I am afraid, has a lot of work to do.

ENDS

© Scoop Media