Questions And Answers - Thursday 21 June 2007

Questions to Ministers

Taxation—Property Investment

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Is it Government policy to introduce the ring-fencing of losses on investment property?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No.

Hon Bill English: Why did he suggest ring-fencing losses on investment property when, on 25 July 2005, he told the Wellington Property Investors Association seminar that “our position on the taxation of property is that the status quo is quite adequate, … change does not promise significant overall benefits … In other words, any new form of property tax is off our agenda.”; or is that just the sort of thing he says before an election?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Since that time we have had 2 years of continuous increases in the heat in the property market, increasing interest rates, a high dollar, and, more important, the publication by the Reserve Bank and the Treasury of their suggestions around supplementary stabilisation instruments, including, of course, suggestions around changes of this sort. I am not afraid to discuss ideas when they enter the public arena.

Hon Mark Gosche: Why is the Government interested in options to take the heat out of the housing market?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government is concerned about the long-term impact of the high dollar on the productive sector of the economy. I agree with the Canterbury Manufacturers Association that we need to have a debate on these issues. That is why Treasury and the Reserve Bank produced their supplementary stabilisation instruments report, and why, I assume, there is a select committee inquiry. What I cannot accept is Mr English’s approach of turning a blind eye to the problems of exporters.

R Doug Woolerton: What was the effect of the tax changes surrounding investment properties made in 1991 by Ruth Richardson?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We moved from a position where net taxable income on rental property was about 80 percent of the gross income on rental property to one where over the last few years the net taxable income has averaged about 10 percent of the gross income on rental property. That suggests an interaction between the taxation regime and the ability to gear on property that is causing significant over-investment.

Hon Bill English: If ring-fencing tax losses and biasing the tax system against housing is not Government policy, does the Minister intend to advocate it until it is Government policy, or does he agree with the position of a spokesman from the Prime Minister’s office that that is a matter that will be dealt with by the Finance and Expenditure Committee inquiry, which increasingly seems to be where economic policy is meant to be made under Labour?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I get the impression—perhaps I am misled—that there is a discussion going on in a range of fora at the present time around these possibilities, but I am surprised to see an Opposition spokesperson suggesting that it is wrong that a select committee should be able to discuss what policy should be for either the short or the long term.

Hon Mark Gosche: Does the Minister see any of the proposals currently being discussed as a silver bullet?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. Unfortunately, there are no silver bullets in economic policy, but I am open to exploring options to address what is a serious issue facing this economy. All I have heard from Mr English is that he thinks interest rates should have been raised higher earlier and Government spending should be slashed. He is not prepared to engage in any intelligent discussion of other options, even those proposed by Treasury and the Reserve Bank.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister’s investigation of supplementary measures look at individual measures such as ring-fencing and isolation, or will he explore the effect of a holistic package that could combine ring-fencing with a capital gains tax on all investments except the family home, and more Government investment in low-cost rental housing?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is fair to say that, if one was looking at a capital gains tax, which I am certainly not, it would apply to all asset classes. I think the arguments in favour of such a tax, which probably 20 years ago were quite strong, become much, much less strong in the intervening period of time, for a whole host of reasons. So I think that that is actually not a very worthwhile avenue to explore, not least because it comes, in effect, at the end of a process, rather than trying to address the over-investment at the start of the process.

Hon Bill English: Now that the Minister sees his main political role to be criticising Opposition propositions to reduce taxes, will he also be criticising the statements made by the Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard, who announced in the Melbourne Age today that Labour will be cutting personal taxes in the next election, probably by increasing thresholds?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the second point, I have already announced that it is likely we will be making announcements—I did so before the Budget—around changes to personal tax rates. Mr Mallard expressed a preference for one option. There are many, many options around how one can address the issue of personal taxation. On the former matter, it is a rare event when the Opposition expresses a clear view on policy. It will have to get used to being kicked around that for the remainder of this term of Parliament, as it comes up with the remaining three ideas between now and the election.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has the Minister of Finance not considered four silver bullets over the last 20 years—or now, so belatedly—such as: a national savings strategy, a wise immigration policy, an export-sympathetic series of policies that have been adopted by other First World countries, and, last of all, a respectable investment regime safeguarding investors in this country, thereby removing our obsession with housing over these last 20 years?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly correct that in the last few weeks we have moved significantly on the savings regime, with bold moves that I think people are beginning to really understand how significant they are and how much they will benefit a very wide range of the public. We made announcements this week around the regulation of non-banking financial providers. We are looking at further ways to underpin exporting. I think what underlines a number of these moves is that there is no such thing as the Holy Grail of a perfectly level playing field. A perfectly level playing field in taxation often results in quite different outcomes in different parts of the economy.

Hon Bill English: Which Minister of Finance should we listen to: the actual Minister of Finance, who has now floated two disastrous proposals to try to cool down the housing market, being the interest rate levy and the ring-fencing of losses on investment, or the Associate Minister of Finance, who is announcing policy that the Labour caucus actually support and that everyone believes will happen in the next Budget?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I advise the member always to listen to the once and future Minister of Finance in that regard, and the member is talking to him at this precise moment.

Hon Bill English: Why is it that Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark would keep Dr Cullen in the Finance portfolio, when Trevor Mallard has now taken over next year’s Budget, Winston Peters is running the savings policy, a select committee of Parliament is running monetary policy, and, according to Morning Report this morning, Russel Norman is doing his media?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I would never be reduced to the last state of affairs; I am sure of that particular matter. I am actually running the process for next year’s Budget. What the member might care to explain on such a matter is why his leader went to Sydney and told the trans-Tasman Leadership Forum he was totally in favour of the Australian relationship and the single economic market, and Bill English told the mood of the boardroom in Auckland he did not care much about the Australian relationship and he disagrees with Mr Key on so many issues we are running out of paper to write them down on.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that in fact he has already moved into Opposition, because he spends most of his time as Minister for Finance criticising the policies of the Opposition at the same time as miscueing and failing to execute all his own proposals?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In an average 14-hour day I probably devote about 5 minutes to the Opposition. I find it difficult sometimes to stretch it out that far.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: With regard to stabilising an overheated market, who does he think he is accountable to as Minister of Finance: 200,000 property investors, or 3.9 million New Zealanders who need an affordable roof over their heads?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In the first instance, I am accountable to the Prime Minister. In the second instance, I am accountable to this House. In the third instance, I am accountable to New Zealand as a whole.

Paid Parental Leave—Eligibility

2. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Has she received any reports on changes to eligibility for paid parental leave?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): Yes, I have. Last year the Labour-led Government opened up eligibility to the paid parental leave scheme to the self-employed. A recent evaluation of the scheme showed that with this change, the scheme is now available to nearly 90 percent of all women in paid work. Paid parental leave is widely embraced by New Zealanders, despite being consistently opposed by the National Party.

Sue Moroney: Has she received any other proposals for changes to eligibility?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes. I have received a rather confused proposal that eligibility for paid parental leave should apply only to those who are out of the home. That proposal, to give paid parental leave to those who are out of the home, actually seems to contradict the whole philosophy of paid parental leave, but nevertheless it was made by Kate Wilkinson in the House on Tuesday. I look forward to that fantastic proposal being adopted as National policy!

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours in Kindergartens

3. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Is he expecting a rise in the number of kindergartens that shift from traditional 3 and 4-hour sessions to all-day licences as a result of “20 hours free”, and how will he monitor the provision of “20 hours free”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): A number of kindergartens have been moving from sessional to all-day licences, because they consider that this allows them to better respond to the needs of working parents. However, only a small number of kindergartens have indicated that they are changing their licences as a result of the 20 hours free policy. Indeed, most kindergartens are moving into providing the 20 free hours as sessional services. On the second question, the ministry will be actively monitoring the roll-out of free early childhood education and will investigate any complaints raised by parents, or the member. The Education Review Office will also undertake its usual 3-year cycle of reviews.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm reports from his own officials that the monitoring of the 20 hours free policy will be primarily through complaints received from parents, but that, even then, the Ministry of Education, and I quote, “does not necessarily have the ability to enforce funding rules in a way that helps achieve good outcomes for parents.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As usual, the member tries to cast things in a way that she would like them to be, rather than as they are. The Ministry of Education has made it clear that it will carry out the normal monitoring of these processes, and that the Education Review Office will do the usual 3-yearly cycle of reviews. That will include handling complaints from the member, or any other parent who may wish to raise complaints. Of course, the basis of all of this policy is to ensure that the spirit—or the practice, in fact—of the 20 hours free policy is carried out.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: How much difference will 20 free hours make to families in New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It will be a significant change. A family paying a typical fee of $4.50 an hour for 20 hours will save around $90 a week in fees. That is about $4,500 a year. Even if a family is already getting the standard childcare subsidy of $1.31, or volunteers to pay a $20 a week optional charge, it still will be more than $50 a week better off. So parents around this country are very much looking forward to the introduction of this policy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interests of public debate, can the Minister tell us what reports he has received in respect of other views on this policy, including those of political parties, and are there political parties who have no policy at all in respect of this issue?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have received a number of reports on that matter, and I thank the member for his party’s endorsement of the principle of 20 free hours. But one major party in Parliament does have a policy, and it is called scrapping the 20 hours free policy completely. So not one single parent would benefit from that policy.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm Ministry of Education reports that state that in the event of overcharging there are “limitations of the sanctions at their disposal”; that in many situations “the ministry would be unable to prove that a service had broken the rules about fee charging”; and that the risk is “the Ministry of Education may not be able to enforce the funding rule about fee charging.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The rules are clear: the 20 free hours must be delivered free of charge to parents, but optional charges can be established. The ministry has made it clear to the member, and to many other people around the country—and she smiles because she knows that it is true—that the ministry will carry out its normal monitoring, and the Education Review Office will follow up with the 3-yearly cycle of reviews.

Katherine Rich: Is the Minister saying that there are rules but they cannot be enforced, that the ministry is relying on parent complaints to be the primary method of monitoring this policy, and that his own officials admit that even in the event that they get complaints, they will not be able to prove them or do anything about them so that there are good outcomes for parents?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As usual, the member would love for that to be the policy, because then she could kick it to death as she is trying to do now. Unfortunately for her, the policy is not that. She is saying those things; no one else is.

Paula Bennett: Does the Minister agree that children form attachments with the staff and the other children in a centre, and that these stable relationships are critical to the well-being of a child; if so, how does this fit with centres turning away children who will not sign up for all-day sessions?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do agree that attachment theory is part of any stage I psychology class. I imagine that the member has taken that class, and that is why she knows about it. We look forward to young people being even more attached to their centres, because of the 20 free hours.

Paula Bennett: How does the Minister respond to the mother in Dannemore who was told that if she did not sign a form stating that her child would now be enrolled full-time, there would no longer be a part-time place for her child, as the 20 free hours policy had forced the centre to now offer only full days?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: First of all, I would feel sorry for the mother that her case was being advocated by Paula Bennett, and, secondly, I would say that if there is a case to answer, as we have already said, complaints can be directed to the Ministry of Education.

Schools—Local Schools Access

4. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by the statement made by the Minister of Education in June 2005 that “Under current legislation every child is entitled to attend his or her local school.”; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes, I do stand by my predecessor’s comment. The legislation is designed to ensure that all students can attend what is known as a “reasonably convenient school”.

Heather Roy: Why, then, is the Minister kicking out a quarter of the bay people from their local school, Island Bay School, and could he tell the House which suburb those living in Severn Street and Moselle Street actually live in if it is not Island Bay?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am advised by the ministry that the decisions on that have not yet been made. I am further advised that the ministry’s proposals enable the few addresses of such parents to be part of the enrolment zone as a transition until the younger siblings of current pupils have been through the school. When the legislation was debated in the House, the House decided that siblings of current pupils should not have preference over others, but this is a caring Government that does not like splitting up families, so we will work with local communities and schools to find solutions that ensure we are not splitting up siblings where that can be avoided.

Hon Marian Hobbs: When were the school zones reintroduced for New Zealand schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That sticks in my mind well. It was when National was in Government in late 1998, when schools were in danger of being overcrowded and there was space at other “reasonably convenient schools”, as the saying goes. The previous National Government realised that open slather in the provision of extra buildings to accommodate roll growth at some schools, while there was spare capacity at others, was an inefficient and a wasteful use of taxpayers’ money and it could not be afforded. Of course, both sides of the House have continued with that practice.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Will the Minister confirm that when geographical school zoning was reintroduced in November 1998 by the National Government of the time, with the support of ACT, that the only person who registered any concern with regard to that legislation at the time was Labour’s education spokesperson, Trevor Mallard?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can recall that it was National, supported by ACT, that introduced that legislation at that time. I do recall that in an appropriate way Mr Mallard did raise the usual debate about this kind of issue, to make sure it was aired as it should be.

Heather Roy: Does he not agree that the Minister of Education should be a paragon of clear English, so that “free” means “free”, and “local school” means “local school”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The term I used before is quite an important one and is, of course, set down in case law. The term “reasonably convenient” is one that ensures people can go to their local school. Those words were agreed to by Bill English during his time in this particular role. It is, I think, a very useful term, because it recognises that there is a network of schools, and that we should make use of those schools. In the case of Island Bay, it is worth knowing that this school has had two classrooms, and subsequently three classrooms, placed on its land to assist it. I think that the steps being taken now are to try to sensibly work out what to do, given that there are reasonably convenient schools nearby and they are all good schools.

Heather Roy: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister was being very misleading in that last answer. The primary question asked whether he stood by the statement made in 2005 about a local school. He has conveniently changed his wording now to say “reasonably convenient” school. Which one is it?

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order. The Minister did actually address that in his answer. But the Minister may speak to the point of order.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It sometimes helps if people listen. I will read out the answer again. It is: “Yes … The legislation is designed to ensure that all students can attend what is known as”—I repeat—“a ‘reasonably convenient school.’ ”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the 1998 legislation put up by Wyatt Creech and supported by the ACT party, which first used the term “reasonably convenient”; and is there a word for that that starts with “h”?

Madam SPEAKER: That last comment is inappropriate.

Leave granted.

Nursing—Public Service Code of Conduct

5. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What reports, if any, has he received on a speech given by chief nursing adviser Mark Jones in Nelson recently, and does he consider it to be consistent with the Public Service Code of Conduct?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Compliance with the Public Service Code of Conduct by individual public servants is, of course, an employment matter, and therefore the responsibility of the Director-General of Health as the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Health.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it consistent with the Public Service ethos that after a left-wing diatribe about the benefits of collectivism and the immorality of profit, the chief nursing adviser, Mark Jones, should tell a large group of nurses that they were “vote maximisers”, who should spend the next 6 to 8 weeks highlighting the benefits of the Government’s policies; and is it his attitude that the Ministry of Health and its officials are now an extension of the Labour Party’s propaganda arm?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised that the article is based on a reporter’s notes of a large group discussion. I am unable to comment on the reliability of any of the assertions made. I am advised, however, that Tony Ryall spoke at the same conference and said nothing of any substance.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Would the Minister agree with Mr Jones’ remarks in his speech that primary health organisations had been provided with a big chunk of public money, but some had an immoral ethic, and money flowed through to general practitioners’ back pockets; and is it part of the Government’s health strategy to pit nurses against doctors and use them as vote maximisers?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am aware that a recent Waikato business school survey has indicated that general practitioner incomes have risen—and I am not opposed to people’s incomes rising. I am also advised, however, that the Labour-Progressive Government has put a significant sum of money—in excess of $2 billion—into the primary health care system, and by 1 July this year will have cut in half the price of going to the doctor, for all New Zealanders. I think the House would like to know whether the National Party actually supports that achievement or opposes it.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is it surprising that we have a climate of continual industrial unrest in the health sector, when we have a senior public servant out there urging health workers to become politicised, and promoting the Government’s political strategy of using health care workers as “vote maximisers”?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I understand that under the Public Service Code of Conduct, public servants should fulfil their lawful obligations to the Government with professionalism and integrity. My understanding is that Mr Jones is a hard-working, well-regarded member of the health sector and a dedicated public servant.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does this Minister these days regard Minister Hodgson as a “vote maximiser” or a “vote minimiser”?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: If I had a choice between Mr Hodgson and the member asking the question in this House at this moment, then it would be a no-brainer as to who I would choose.

Hon Tony Ryall: How does the Minister think nurses feel when the Government and its apparatchiks view them as vote—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon Tony Ryall: They can laugh, but one of your highly paid public servants is doing your propaganda at nurses, at the taxpayers’ expense, and is telling nurses that the Government’s attitude is that nurses are “vote maximisers” who will spend the next 6 to 8 months doing the Government’s business; that should be stopped.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not totally au fait with your vote, but I do not think you have any highly paid officials called apparatchiks working for you. Therefore, that member should follow the Standing Orders.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree. The member has been in this House long enough to know not to pull the Speaker into the debate.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: In the matter of health, there are two “vote maximisers” for this Government. The first is its policies and the amount of funding it has put into the health system. The second is Mr Tony Ryall, who is the biggest “vote maximiser” for this Government that I could ever imagine.

Securities Commission—Insider Trading, Tranz Rail

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Commerce: Who were the “powerful interests” who attempted to stop the Securities Commission insider trading case involving David Richwhite and Sir Michael Fay, she reportedly referred to in her speech to the House on 19 June 2007?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General), on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: What the Minister actually said was: “There were interests out there who did not want the defendants pursued.” The Minister was referring to those who attacked the Securities Commission for taking and continuing to pursue the case.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware of people involved in this case threatening those on the Securities Commission and those assisting the Securities Commission, in respect of their future contracts and employment; if so, who would those parties be?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have information in relation to that in front of me. I think that would be a very serious matter indeed, which would be worthy of further investigation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister of Commerce, having seen that her officials in their first proper investigation of these two gentlemen achieved a strike rate of one out of one, had any reports prepared for the head of the Serious Fraud Office and the head of the Inland Revenue Department as to what their proper action should have been, which they did not take and therefore enable themselves to be accused of being grossly negligent of their duty?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I have no such information in front of me. I am not aware that any such reports were prepared. The Serious Fraud Office has close to a 90 percent success rate in its prosecutions.

Office of Treaty Settlements—Confidence

7. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he have confidence in the Office of Treaty Settlements; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes. In my experience, it has dedicated and diligent officials.

Christopher Finlayson: Can the Minister confirm that the Office of Treaty Settlements official responsible for determining there were no cross-claim issues in Tāmaki-makau-rau that the Crown needed to be cognisant of was a graduate who was less than 1 year out of university, with no training or experience in Māori land claims, and who did not consult any of the claimant groups in the area?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that the process of cross-claim consultation is still very much under way.

Christopher Finlayson: Why did the Office of Treaty Settlements tell the Waitangi Tribunal that Ngāti Whātua was the only Auckland iwi willing to enter into direct negotiations with the Crown, when the Office of Treaty Settlements itself had earlier refused to enter into negotiation with any of the six other claimant groups in Auckland?

Hon MARK BURTON: To the best of my knowledge, as at this date there are no other mandated groups ready to enter into negotiation in that area. The member is incorrect.

Maryan Street: What recent comment has the Minister heard on the Treaty settlement process?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have heard extensive comments. Yesterday in this House Mr Finlayson talked about what he claims was the record of the National Government on Treaty settlements. The facts are that of the 21 settlements negotiated to date, National can claim only three settlements of substantial size: on fisheries, on the Waikato raupatu, and with Ngāi Tahu. The rest are smaller—five with a value of less than $1 million—and most left substantial issues to be settled. He also ignores the settlements that National tried to rush through, and failed. The people of Whakatōhea rejected outright the deal that National tried to cook up, and agreements with Te Ātiawa and Rangitāne o Manawatū fell apart almost as soon as they were reached. This Government has negotiated two large settlements from start to finish. [Interruption] I say to Mr Henare that he should listen. It has done most of the substantive work on three more settlements. Some of those have been very complex. This Government has also brought a further five settlements to a successful conclusion, and has brought more groups than ever before into negotiations.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs, who said that the recent reports of the Waitangi Tribunal into the Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei and Te Arawa claims may or may not affect the timeliness of those and other claims being settled; and, noting that both those claimants entered into direct negotiation with the Crown, does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that direct negotiations should stop; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: There are several questions there. To take the first part of the question first, I think my colleague was noting that there were a number of recommendations that the Government should give careful consideration to, and it will. I have also made the same indication. I think the notion of bringing the settlement process to a halt raises other questions of good faith, not only with those claimants with whom good-faith negotiations have proceeded but also with many others around the country.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. How does the Minister respond to the tribunal’s findings that: “During the implementation of the Crown’s policies in Te Arawa, OTS failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiation process, OTS failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties to all Māori, and OTS did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: Firstly, the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements is not to be a broker; it is to act on behalf of the Crown as a negotiator. As I indicated, I think, in my answer to the substantive question, my experience of the officials of the Office of Treaty Settlements is that they are honourable people who act in good faith.

Nandor Tanczos: Is it the officials or Government policy that is to blame for the negligent manner in which the Office of Treaty Settlements treats claimants, as highlighted by the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei report and the Te Arawa report, and specifically, what will happen to officials responsible for the failure to interact with cross-claimants as promised, for the failure to provide accurate information about their status in negotiations, for the failure to involve cross-claimants in the deliberations of officials, for the failure to respond to claimants unless they had persistent lawyers, and finally, for the provision of misleading information to the Waitangi Tribunal, as highlighted by the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei hearings?

Madam SPEAKER: Before the Minister addresses the question, I remind members that normally a supplementary question is one question.

Hon MARK BURTON: Perhaps the most important question of the many the member asks is the first one. I do not accept the assertion on which that question is based.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that at the Standing Orders Committee we have been discussing the question of simultaneous translation, but I think that that answer needs translation into English. Is the Minister saying that absolutely nothing will happen to anyone?

Madam SPEAKER: No, the Minister addressed your question.

Christopher Finlayson: Does the Minister agree that there is a problem with the Crown’s approach in the Tāmaki-makau-rau negotiating process, when the Waitangi Tribunal has labelled the behaviour of the Office of Treaty Settlements as “cavalier, unfair, generally uncooperative, providing only partial answers to questions, and being less than open in its dealings with the tribunal”?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I have indicated on a number of occasions, I will look very carefully at the critique of the tribunal. However, I do not accept that the attitude or the conduct of the officials was cavalier.

Nandor Tanczos: Given the Minister’s answer to my previous question, is he saying that no action will be taken over officials misleading a judicial tribunal, as highlighted by Judge Wainwright in her report, and should we now refer to his office as the “Office of Perjury”?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think the judge has been moved to clarify her position since issuing that report, by saying that she was not implying that anyone acted intentionally to mislead. I think it is important that the member takes note of that fact. Secondly, if officials have made any good-faith mistake, that is one matter. I do not accept, and I see no evidence to suggest, that any official has intentionally misled any tribunal.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Is it not ironic that the tribunal reports that the Crown, through the actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements, has “crossed over and usurped the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū, thereby committing grave breaches of the Treaty”, and does that not provide a perfect reason to implement the tribunal’s recommendation that annual audits of the Office of Treaty Settlements be commissioned to ensure that its management and policy operations are aligned to the Crown’s Treaty obligations?

Hon MARK BURTON: I do not agree with the assertion in the first part of the question. As to the recommendation, as I said before, we will be looking carefully at a number of recommendations. I am not sure that having another agency try to do an annual audit of this agency would add value, but certainly the idea of looking to maximise the quality of work undertaken is something we are constantly seeking to realise.

Christopher Finlayson: Can the Minister confirm that after the tribunal criticised the Office of Treaty Settlement’s non-disclosure of relevant material, several staff from Crown Law had to visit the Office of Treaty Settlements to explain exactly what “relevant” meant and to go through all of that office’s Tāmaki-makau-rau files to find relevant material to supply to the tribunal, because Office of Treaty Settlements staff lacked the ability to determine what was or was not relevant?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I cannot confirm that because, as usual, the member is misrepresenting the facts. However, I can confirm to the member—

Hon Tau Henare: You are a lazy Minister; that’s why.

Hon MARK BURTON: If Mr Henare would like to stop yelling, I will answer the question. I can confirm that Crown Law officials were invited to go and assist the office and, in effect, to do an independent overview of those records. I can also confirm that the tribunal found that the additional documents provided added no new information to that available to it.

Christopher Finlayson: Can the Minister confirm that the flagship of the Government’s Treaty negotiations Budget last year—a fourth negotiating team—has not been created, that there are currently no plans to create a fourth negotiating team, and that this is just another broken promise, like “chewing gum tax cuts” and 20 free hours?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Government’s policy was to ensure the capacity of the Office of Treaty Settlements to engage with, pre-mandate, negotiate with, and provide legal advice to groups was increased. It has been.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you inform the House as to whether there has been a rearrangement of the seating order opposite. If there has not been, could you ask Mr Henare to abide by the normal convention of interjecting from his own place, instead of moving closer to the Minister who is answering the question in order to do so.

Madam SPEAKER: Members do from time to time shift their positions in the Chamber. It appears, by the chair he is sitting in, that Mr Henare is now an Opposition whip, so I presume that is—

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, that was funny. Hilarious!

Madam SPEAKER: Would you please leave the Chamber. You are sitting in a whip’s chair, so that is actually the assumption that is made. Those are the conventions.

Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

Christopher Finlayson: I seek leave to table a document showing the dates of the various stages of the settlement process, dated 21 June 2007.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Has the Minister received any feedback yet from Māori interests expressing concern at the notion that direct negotiations cannot occur until a full Waitangi Tribunal hearing has occurred, causing much greater delays and much greater expense to claimants; if so, what is the Government expected to do in relation to groups that are ready to negotiate, are mandated, and wish to proceed to direct negotiations?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm indeed that in the last 24 hours I have had a meeting with one group who have come specifically to express that concern. I have a meeting with another gentleman this afternoon: the senior kaumātua from another iwi, who, having entered into good-faith discussions with the Crown, now wonders whether that is being undermined. So yes, that has created considerable disquiet. I want to assure all those whom we have engaged with that we will continue to engage in good faith whilst considering carefully the recommendations of the tribunal.

Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is just a point of clarification. When the Attorney-General belatedly leapt to his feet, I could not hear whether my request to table a document had been rejected or accepted.

Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear any objection to it.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I will now.

Madam SPEAKER: Oh, you will. [Interruption] It is too late now.

After-school Care—Government Policy

8. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to invest further in the provision of out-of-school care?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Government in Budget 2007 has committed a further $17.4 million over the next 5 years to improve the quality, affordability, and availability of out-of-school services. There are currently 667 out-of-school care and recreation, or “OSCAR”, providers delivering 1,100 approved programmes for 5 to 14-year-olds. The average weekly out-of-school care subsidy payment for parents has more than doubled since 1999, increasing from $17 per week, per child, to just over $36 per week now. A strong out-of-school sector, of course, gives parents much more choice in terms of how they combine the responsibilities of work and parenting. It also provides opportunities for children and young people to spend their out-of-school time in more challenging activities, which can, of course, further improve their academic and physical well-being.

Lesley Soper: What will the extra funding do in terms of improving out-of-school services?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The extra funding will be used to increase the pool of funding available to providers to assist with the establishment and development of programmes, to raise the average grant to each provider for such purposes—currently $11,000 but increasing to 13,500—to strengthen the approval process for providers, to establish a quality review group to safeguard and improve the standards and the quality of care, and to establish 12 leading activity-based extended service programmes in low-decile schools. We are working closely with the sector over the implementation of these initiatives to assist them to continue to improve the quality, affordability, and availability of out-of-school services to New Zealand families.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interests of healthy comparison, I seek to table that provision of the 1998 Budget showing that New Zealand First gave $38 million to out-of-school care for the first year, which somewhat puts this figure of 4 years into—

Leave granted.

Police—Management

9. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Police: Is she satisfied with the performance of police management; if so, why?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Police: In general, yes, because, if I can borrow words from the member, they are, in the main, a bunch of “good roosters”.

Chester Borrows: Can she confirm that after an initial trial of stab-proof vests that lasted several months, there was an 18-month delay in their distribution because they were the wrong colour, the wrong fabric, the wrong design, and the wrong size; and why has it only now been discovered that the vests cannot be worn with existing uniform shirts, tunics, and duty jackets?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Police management acknowledged yesterday at the select committee hearing that there had been a number of problems with this project. It is now on track. The vests will be rolled out by the end of December 2007.

Gordon Copeland: Have the police management asked the Minister for additional resources in view of their extra workload, as from today, in policing the new criminalisation of a parent who smacks his or her child even for the purpose of loving correction; or does she expect the police to cope by diverting time and resources from their fight against real crime in New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, the police have not asked for extra resources to police the guidelines around the disciplining of children, because they will not need them.

Chester Borrows: Can the Minister confirm that the police have called for tenders for 35,000 breathable, moisture-wicking shirts, with their expected distribution in March 2008, although police management confirmed to the select committee yesterday that they have no idea how much these shirts will cost, what they will look like, or who will make them?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I said before, all of these issues were aired yesterday in the select committee. The police confirmed that there had been problems, they confirmed that everything is on track, and they confirmed that everything will be delivered by December this year.

Chester Borrows: Why has there been no report from the $10,111 concept investigation by Macpac into the design of a new duty jacket, 6 months after the investigation is over; when can we expect to see a report, and how many more millions of dollars will the new duty jackets cost, or does the Minister have no idea of that, either?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The question is, of course, one that is a little hypothetical because the police are still working their way through to final delivery of those vests in December this year. I urge the member to put down those precise questions about costs, and I am sure the Minister of Police will reply to them at the appropriate time.

Chester Borrows: Does the Minister agree that this is hardly a parallel roll-out of a new uniform that the police have been planning for some time, as the select committee was told yesterday; and when will we see a compatible uniform and stab-proof vest configuration fully implemented, or has the Minister no idea of that, either?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: At the risk of repeating myself, I would remind the member that I have now said three times that everything is on track for delivery in December 2007.

Peter Brown: On a more positive note, has the Minister had any reports on the performance of police management in respect of recruiting the extra 1,000 front-line police and 250 support staff agreed under the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I just happen to have that information. Yes, the New Zealand Police are 53 ahead of the target for the end of the first year of the recruitment of the additional 1,250 staff members. The current attrition rate for sworn members of 3.7 percent is the lowest in more than 10 years. That rate compares favourably with State sector turnover of 21.5 percent, and I think it reflects the very, very good partnership between New Zealand First and the Labour-led Government.

Chester Borrows: Can the Minister confirm, now that we are getting some idea of the scale and ongoing nature of the stab-proof vest debacle, that she has no idea of the final cost; and how can this mess happen, when the safety of police officers on the front line should be the primary concern of the police and the Government?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Let me take a stab at an answer and say that I think one has to go through the tender round before one knows all of those answers. As I said to the member, if he puts down his questions, I am sure that at the appropriate time the Minister of Police will reply.

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table a page from the police response to the Law and Order Committee estimates.

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

Respite Care—Funding and Services

10. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Is she confident that having funded 28 days’ respite care for clients with high and complex needs, there are adequate services available in every region and for every age group, and if she has identified gaps, what is she doing about them?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues): Funding for services for clients with high and complex needs is actually a matter for the Minister of Health. However, I am informed that there is no longer a 28-day maximum, and that respite care is allocated on the basis of assessed need. On average, clients receive around 31 days’ support. Last year our Government increased residential respite care funding by $2 million, and I understand that a further increase will occur this year. Even so, shortages of service providers do occur from time to time, and they are managed as they arise.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister aware that the current rate of $64 a night for respite care is about the same amount that used to be allocated for MPs’ daily meal allowance, and does she agree that such a comparison reflects very badly on the respite daily allowance, when caregivers are both feeding and managing clients with high and complex needs?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member is referring to the carer support payment, which is not actually a wage. But this fact, combined with the tight labour market, will certainly contribute to the difficulty in attracting people to this role. My understanding is that announcements on the level of the carer support payments will be made shortly.

Russell Fairbrother: What has been done recently to improve services to clients with high and complex needs?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I mentioned earlier, the increased funding for residential respite care will help to ensure that those families who are entitled to it will receive it. Our Government is also committed to developing and implementing a carer support strategy.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why have some parents of high and complex needs children found that the only option available for their children for respite care is totally unsuitable rest homes, as happened last Christmas, and can she assure the House that this will not happen next Christmas?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I mentioned in the answer to the primary question, shortages of service providers do occur from time to time; this is more likely to occur around peak times of need for families, such as Christmas, and they are managed in the best way possible at the time.

Treaty Settlements—Te Puni Kōkiri Advice

11. Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What advice, if any, has Te Puni Kōkiri provided to him on how Treaty settlements can help Maori realise their potential?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Te Puni Kōkiri recognises the importance of reaching durable Treaty settlements, which significantly contribute to returning economic and other resources for development and self-determination. This is the Māori potential approach for the betterment of iwi, hapū, and whānau.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: What advice did he give the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on whether the Crown should negotiate with just Ngāti Whātua and Tāmaki-makau-rau, to the exclusion of six other claimant groups?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I, along with my ministry, supported the mandating process, and it is interesting to know that Ngāti Whātua, as a whole, accepted that.

Dave Hereora: What is Te Puni Kōkiri’s role in the Treaty settlement process?

Simon Power: Did you see this one coming?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The sniggering continues. They are an uncultured lot over there.

Madam SPEAKER: That was unnecessary.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is the problem. They have got no culture. Te Puni Kōkiri advises on settlement policy, claimant representation and mandate ratification, and the protection mechanism. It also advises on, and in some cases leads, the negotiation of contemporary claims.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: What advice did he give the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on the validity of the Crown’s approach of only negotiating with about half of the Te Arawa confederation of tribes, when it was obvious—and should have been obvious to him, at least—that this would cause tension and conflict?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Twenty-four thousand Te Arawa people made a decision to proceed to settlement negotiations with the Government. There was advice and ongoing connectivity with my colleague. As a former member of the Waitangi Tribunal, Mrs te Heuheu should be well aware that unfortunately most settlements have, at some point, created raruraru—which, for those uncultured people, is differences—within iwi and hapū. It is something I do not think they want to admit happens in their culture: the issue of how to settle what is naturally a challenging process.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did ask the Minister what advice he gave the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He rambled on about what was happening in Te Arawa but he did not address that question: “What advice did he give?”.

Madam SPEAKER: I think he did. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to add anything, but I thought he had addressed the question—that which I could hear over the comments of other members in the House.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: If Treaty settlements can play such an important roll in helping Maori realised their potential, why has the Minister not once complied with his non-discretionary legal obligation under section 8I of the Treaty of Waitangi Act, to lay before the House an annual report on the progress being made in implementing recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The last report was tabled in 1995—in 1995! A further report for the period of 1996-97 was lodged in the Parliamentary Library, but was not tabled in the House. Next month, I expect to table an updated report that we have been working on for the last 6 months, for the period through to 2007.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister why he has not complied with his non-discretionary legal obligation to report. He has gone back to years when he was not even in Parliament, and commented on what happened then. He cannot have addressed the question.

Madam SPEAKER: No, he did address the question, I am sorry. He addressed it in terms of what now is happening.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Can the Minister confirm that Te Puni Kōkiri prepared a report for him on the Crown’s progress in implementing Waitangi Tribunal recommendations in the current financial year, but that he refused to accept the report from his own ministry, so that he would not have to inform the House and the people of New Zealand about the Government’s failure to implement those recommendations?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is totally incorrect. I have told that member that I am waiting for a review, and if she did not hear the response before, that is rubbish—utter rubbish.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Would the Minister not agree with the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding, that Te Arawa is now in a state of turmoil; hapū are in contest with other hapū, the preservation of tribal relations has been adversely affected, and they are left fearing for the customary future of Te Arawa waka as a result; it is a very serious state of affairs, and how will Te Puni Kōkiri help Te Arawa Māori realise their potential under such duress?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That member was there at the day of the signing with me, and there was tension, and he was part of that, and I respect him for that, as a Te Arawa person. But that is something for Te Arawa to sort out, not the Government.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Does the Minister concede that the reason he has not once complied with his compulsory statutory obligations and tabled a report is that there is no progress to report?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That member said yesterday that there were 19 settlements. There are 21—11 at the front end, and 10 at the other end. The talk that is coming out her mouth should be coming out of the other end. What a load of rubbish!

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave to table an extract from the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, provision 8I titled “Annual Report on Implementation of Recommendations”.

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

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave to table a report by the Parliamentary Library, showing that the Minister has never—never—tabled a report on—

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

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: I seek leave to table a Parliamentary Library extract that shows a list of dates that negotiations started and finished.

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

Medical Services—Rural Areas

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Rural Affairs: Has he received any reports on improving recruitment and retention of medical staff in rural areas?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs): Yes. The Government has announced that from next February the number of fully funded places for general practice training will rise from 69 a year to 104. Also, from February 2008 up to 20 fifth-year medical students from Auckland University will have the opportunity to spend a year working and studying at Whangarei Hospital and smaller hospitals in Northland. Thirdly, the University of Otago has been given $300,000 to develop a curriculum for a rural medical immersion programme at two rural district health boards.

Moana Mackey: What other reports has he received on initiatives for rural New Zealand?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Last week I saw a report that fully supports the initiatives this Government is implementing in the rural sector, including improvements to rural health. It includes recommendations to expand the number of medical student places, as well as increasing training in rural and provincial areas. I refer, of course, to National’s rural issues policy paper, which is nothing more than a cut and paste of current Labour policies. That paper does two things: firstly, it endorses current Government initiatives; and, secondly, it marks a return to the failed policies of the 1990s, including the desire to sell Landcorp, privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation, and undercut labour laws so that farm workers become seasonal workers.

Jo Goodhew: Does the Minister realise that the greatest threat to the rural workforce is the way this Government fails to understand them, value them, and respect them, as recorded in the IPAC 2006 General Practice Business Study, and then has senior public servants refer to nurses as “vote maximisers”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am very aware of the 2006 study by the Independent Practitioners Association Council. In fact, it was a study of 36 general practitioners out of a total of 1,100. I accept that some of those recommendations have some validity, but I do not accept that the study was a wide-ranging study of the rural health sector across the country.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I seek leave to table this code of conduct—the one for MPs.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the code of conduct. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

ENDS

© Scoop Media