Questions And Answers - Thursday, 28 June 2007

Questions to Ministers

Bail—Electronic Monitoring

1. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by a Ministry of Justice document from October 2005, which states that targeting electronic bail towards those defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody “conflicts with the fact that such defendants are more likely to have characteristics or criminal histories that would make them unsuitable for release on bail with electronic monitoring.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I stand by the advice that was tendered to Ministers in 2005: “Some defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody could be released on bail with electronic monitoring.”

Simon Power: Can he confirm that the same document states that electronic bail was established “with the primary aim of reducing inmate numbers”, and is saving 46 prison beds really worth the risk to the public when violent offenders make up the largest group of those on electronic bail, including those accused of aggravated robbery, grievous assault, rape; and that a staggering 87 percent on electronic bail have already been convicted for offending whilst previously on bail?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member knows, because I told him in writing in January, the document he is referring to was not one I was even aware of the existence of. It was not—

Simon Power: It’s your department.

Hon MARK BURTON: The paper was an internal document, never released to Ministers—

Hon Members: Aw!

Hon MARK BURTON: —under the Official Information Act. It is a draft document, internal to the ministry. What I am telling the member is that the advice the Ministers received when raising questions about this, is as per the answer I gave the member in the principal answer. I can say to the member that of the 274 who have applied, and the 126 the court has heard, only three have been charged with any new offences.

Simon Power: Why should the public have any confidence in the Minister’s policy of letting violent offenders out on electronic bail just to save a few prison beds, when police have opposed their bail in 85 percent of cases, including a member of the JDK gang, who had previously offended while on bail, is currently on the run, and is someone police have warned on national television is “extremely dangerous”?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member indicates in his question, he quite correctly understands that the operational responsibility for electronic bail resides with the police. But I can say to the member that in terms of the actual advice Ministers received from the ministry, the ministry also emphasised that the reasons to progress to electronic bail were that it had positive implications around improving rehabilitation options and enhancing public safety by enabling stricter supervision for offenders.

Simon Power: The primary reason was prison beds.

Hon MARK BURTON: The member is misleading people who are listening, because, of course, some of those who are getting electronic bail provision previously would have had non-electronic bail provision. In this case it enhances the security of those getting the sentence.

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree with the advice of an official who was asked to estimate the number of offenders remanded in custody who might be eligible for electronic bail, and replied by email: “Basically it seems very few remands are made without good reason. Sometimes police will apply for remand under one charge while they look for evidence under another charge, so the remand can also be something of a risk-mitigation tool with known serious reoffenders.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the nature of the member’s question indicates, there are a series of issues. The first is to provide a tool, the second is for the police to determine their recommendation, and, thirdly, of course—and most important—is for the court to decide what provision it makes use of on its judgment of all the facts at the time.

Ron Mark: What is the public to do when, first, it has a National Government that introduces home detention, which contains back-end home detention and sees violent offenders placed on home detention offending again, and, second, it sees a Labour-led Government giving to violent offenders who have previously offended whilst on electronic bail, from where they offend again, other than to vote for a sensibly led Government, that being a New Zealand First – led Government, which will not accept the sorts of airhead recommendations that both he and National give?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member is aware, the House is considering at this time a range of sentencing options to enhance the choices for judges to use. But I can say to the member that contrary to the implication of the latter part of his question, of those who have currently been involved in an electronic bail sentence only three have been charged and, in fact, only one convicted, of a new offence. The member’s question was legitimate in terms of whether we are evaluating the work that is being done. That is perhaps most important, and I can tell him that, yes, we are. There is an evaluation. An independent contractor has been evaluated by police to provide that data. There will be a report to Ministers in November, and we will have a substantive evaluation of what has actually happened, whether this is working, and whether it requires any change.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that when his predecessor the Hon Phil Goff was asked to come up with ways of reducing the prison population, he told Cabinet in March 2005: “I do not propose that electronic monitoring as a condition of bail be reconsidered at this time.”, yet that same month he was rolled by Cabinet into doing more work on it; and is that because the Government was more concerned about prison numbers than it was about the type of offender who is currently on electronically monitored bail?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that in December 2005, when I was the Minister, the advice provided to Cabinet was as per the answers to the questions I gave to the member earlier. I can say to the member that that advice was tendered as part of a suite of advice dealing with a range of options that gives the Government and, ultimately, the courts better sentencing options to achieve both community safety and the best results in terms of the criminal justice system. That is the point of the exercise.

Simon Power: Has he received any reports from the Minister of Police about whether the police actually support electronic bail, when they not only have to assess the eligibility of remandees for electronic bail but also have to monitor them while they are on electronic bail, despite the fact that they almost always oppose electronic bail in the first instance?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I have not received any reports from the Minister of Police stating that the police oppose their involvement in the electronic bail process. But as I indicated to the member, the police have conducted, and are conducting, an evaluation. They have independent research being done. That will provide a basis of reporting to joint Ministers later in the year.

Simon Power: Is this scheme about keeping prison numbers down or about protecting the public from people who have previously, or who have allegedly had, violent criminal charges laid against them?

Hon MARK BURTON: If the member means by “this scheme” electronic bail, then it is but one of a number of ingredients in a range of sentencing options provided to the courts through legislation that is going through this House in order to achieve the most effective use of the criminal justice system.

Ron Mark: Can he now then give this House an absolute assurance that his Government will be issuing instructions that no offender who has had a previous history of offending whilst on bail will now be eligible for electronic bail, end of story; can he give the House that assurance right now?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can give the member an assurance that the Government has made it very clear that the use of this sentence needs to be applied alongside a first principle of public and community safety. In the end, it is up to the judges, in possession of all the facts at the time, to make a choice as to the appropriate use of sentencing.

KiwiSaver—Business Support

2. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on business support for KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I have seen reports from companies as diverse as Air New Zealand, Gallagher Animal Management Systems, and the New Zealand Exchange saying that they will adopt KiwiSaver because they want to do the best for their staff and for New Zealand. Indeed, this morning I visited Pacific Steel, where the management facilitated a visit, and which is putting in 2 percent straight away from 1 July. I have also seen reports showing that record numbers of people are visiting the website and calling the 0800 KiwiSaver line. I am glad to see so much interest in the scheme.

Lynne Pillay: What reports has he seen on attempts to discourage businesses from supporting KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a taxpayer-funded letter to businesses that is clearly designed to discourage them from supporting KiwiSaver. But it seems that in addressing this letter of Mr Key to Child, Youth and Family, and Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, Mr Key cannot tell the difference between businesses and Government agencies. We know that the National Party favours privatisation, but this seems to be going a little bit too far.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Has the Minister seen the cumulative increase in the value of the Australian sharemarket, which corresponds with Australia’s stock of superannuation funds over the years; and can he confirm that one of the advantages of having a large pool of savings in New Zealand would be the availability of onshore capital to allow Kiwi businesses to invest with New Zealand money?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, indeed. That explains why I have had a lot of approaches from individual business people over the last few weeks who are very strongly supportive of the KiwiSaver scheme. The National Party, in failing to sign up to support for the enhanced KiwiSaver scheme, is simply out of step with where the major portion of New Zealand business is at the present time.

Lynne Pillay: Has he seen any other reports on support for KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. In Mr Key’s letter, supposedly to business, he claims that National supported KiwiSaver in its pre-Budget form. This is somewhat surprising, given that National is the only party in Parliament to vote against the third reading of the KiwiSaver Bill. I also note that the letter claims that after taking into account the benefits of the company tax rate, companies could be worse off in the first year of the scheme, and there is a 1 percent employer contribution, despite the $20 a week tax credit. That does not add up. The employer contribution is fully paid on the first $104,000 of employee income in the first year, which is 2⅓ times the full-time average wage.

State Houses—Subletting

3. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: On what date was the investigation into the October 2005 to March 2006 subletting of a Māngere State house completed, and on what date was the file of Case No.320060053, detailing this investigation, sent to the Crown solicitor for consideration?

Madam SPEAKER: I understand that the Minister’s answer will be a little longer than normal.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yesterday, when this issue was raised in the House, I had not been given full information by Housing New Zealand on the details of the case raised by the member. I now have made extensive inquiries into this case and I have uncovered additional information that the member and this House are not aware of. That information does raise serious questions about the speed with which Housing New Zealand is dealing with serious tenant breaches of honesty. The information is as follows. An allegation about the tenant was received by the corporation on 24 February 2006. Relevant material was assembled and the case was allocated to an investigator on 13 May 2006. When the investigation was completed on 31 August 2006 the results of the investigation were considered, as is usual, by the next scheduled meeting of the investigation committee in October 2006. Subsequent to that meeting, it has taken until earlier this month to establish the $32,650 debt now owed by the tenant. Late yesterday the file was sent to Housing New Zealand’s legal team to prepare for forwarding to the Crown solicitor. Yesterday in the House, going on the information I had available at that time, I advised that the case had been referred to the Crown solicitor. This was not accurate. The case was referred only this morning—far too late, and a lesson has been learnt. I accept that Housing New Zealand has taken far too long to investigate this case and a number of other cases sitting in its investigations unit. I am determined that the situation will be rectified. I do want to stress to this House that the vast bulk of Housing New Zealand tenants are decent people, and that the actions of a few dishonest tenants should not reflect on everyone.

Gerry Brownlee: That was an extremely long answer. Although you did indicate that the Minister had asked for your indulgence in that regard, it was much longer than many of the other long answers you have allowed previously. What is worse is that it was in the nature of a ministerial statement. I think the House should be very, very careful about Ministers getting themselves into trouble one day, by misleading the House, then commandeering question time the next day to try to get themselves out of it, without the sort of scrutiny that the House might reasonably apply in that circumstance. I accordingly seek leave for there to be a ministerial statement debate forthwith on this matter.

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

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you have a view on whether the Minister should have taken leave at the first opportunity to correct the mistake that he must have known late yesterday he had made in the House during question time?

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister did give a very full explanation. Certainly, the explanation, I think, did contain two issues. One was an explanation of what happened, and one certainly did refer to the fact that the information given yesterday was not correct, and the explanation for that was given. In future I—[Interruption] Would the member just wait, please? If members wait until the end, not only when the Speaker is on her feet but also when people are asking questions and giving answers, then that would be a courtesy and would also inform the House better. I think that in this instance those two mixed explanations were given, but I would say that in future Ministers in this position should, in fact, make a ministerial statement if they had given information to the House that was not correct. That would have been the correct way to do it. [Interruption] Oh, I am so pleased that the member agrees! So could we please not have comments on whether the Speaker gets it right or wrong; I rule.

Phil Heatley: Can the Minister please explain to the House how he can give such a detailed explanation of Housing New Zealand’s failings in giving him the correct information yesterday, when the only information I and the media had yesterday came from the response to an Official Information Act request given to me by him, with his cover letter and his signature—or did he not read the information that I read?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: First of all, the member alleges that I sent him a letter. Actually, I sent it to the National research unit, not to him. It was in the form of a large Official Information Act answer, which was put out some time ago. Ministers sign out information requests all of the time. I am glad that the member’s research unit got on to it. We made a mistake, we are on to it, and we are fixing it up.

Dave Hereora: What steps has the Minister taken to rectify this situation?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Today I have written to the chair of Housing New Zealand, requesting that the board review the corporation’s investigation process, with a due date for report back to me of 27 July. It is vital that New Zealanders can have confidence in Housing New Zealand, which performs a vital social service in housing 67,000 families. I am determined that all of our good work is not undermined by the sluggish investigations of a very, very few people who seek to deceive and defraud.

Phil Heatley: Now that the subletting rort investigation has been done, what investigations have been made into allegations by a neighbour, in March last year, that the tenant told her that he “knew someone in Housing”, and that was how he got the place, given that that constitutes a claim of corruption in Housing New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am as confident as I can be at this stage that Housing New Zealand did not know that the applicant was making a false declaration about his assets. As far as the matter is concerned of alleged insider-trading at Housing New Zealand, I can say that that matter has been looked into, and as yet no evidence has been found.

Phil Heatley: How can the Minister claim that that allegation regarding insider help from Housing New Zealand has been looked into, when that investigation has not been documented or even mentioned in the 8-page report that contains notes from all interviews?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I remind the House that the question I was asked yesterday concerned what confidence I had in Housing New Zealand. I had no evidence or information about this particular case. When I got back to my office, I ordered an immediate investigation. Included in the material that has come over to me today is information that is not in the Official Information Act request but which pertains to this case. That is the information I have given in my answer.

Phil Heatley: Will the Minister please supply the report on the allegations of corruption either to me, this House, or the media, since he is putting his hand on his heart and saying there were at least some interviews and some investigation into the allegations of corruption?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: When this case has been fully investigated—and I remind the House it has been referred on to the Crown prosecutor for prosecution—I will reveal that information. But while a case is ongoing, where prosecution is going to take place, I am not prepared to discuss details of the case in this House.

Phil Heatley: Does the Minister stand by his comments on Radio New Zealand this morning that “I am confident the allegations of corruption have been dealt with.”, that “We have a comment from a neighbour which has been checked out.”, and “We’re on to it.”, when there is no mention at all in the papers that I received under the Official Information Act request that an inquiry into corruption has occurred at all?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member was obviously not listening to my previous answer. When I got back from the House yesterday I asked for information on a case that I had no knowledge about before I came to this House at question time yesterday. I asked Housing New Zealand to give me a report on the case. Of course, included in that report is an extensive dossier about the investigations that have taken place. The question here is not has the corporation investigated it, but why it has taken so long to get to court. That is an issue—I concede it is an issue—we are on to it, and we are going to fix it up.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday in his answers to Mr Heatley’s questions the Minister stated that Mr Heatley had got it wrong. Do you think it would be appropriate in the circumstances for him to withdraw and apologise for that remark?

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think the time for that has probably passed, and the Minister has given a full explanation for that.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I am utterly prepared to say that I am glad the member has raised this case. I am glad his research unit plucked it out of the material, because it has given me an issue I have to deal with, which is the time it takes Housing New Zealand to deal with serious allegations and get them to court. So, yes, I thank the member for bringing it up in the House. It will hopefully have a good outcome.

Environment—Monitoring

4. GORDON COPELAND (Independent) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he satisfied with his ministry’s monitoring of Crown agencies and departments in relation to the protection of New Zealand’s clean, green environment?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: Yes. The Government is committed to enhancing, promoting, and protecting our clean, green image, and on behalf of the Minister I can express confidence in the Ministry for the Environment and its monitoring process.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that it is a legal requirement that signs must be erected at every point of entry where 1080 poison pellets are dropped, warning campers and hunters to take their own water into the forest with them as a precaution against drinking from streams contaminated by 1080 poison pellets, but that the Department of Conservation habitually drops 1080 poison from the air without erecting such signs, in breach of the law?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I recognise that that is a concern. However, that question is best asked of the Minister of Conservation.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has so far indicated that it does not intend to test watercress for 1080 poison residue, in spite of the fact that the documentary A Shadow of Doubt, which is to be screened on Māori Television on 14 July, suggests a possible link between those residues and negative health outcomes amongst Māori?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That matter is currently being considered by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. At the moment the process used to consider the reassessment of 1080 poison includes 150 written submissions, 200 oral submissions in seven places, and 10 days of public hearings. As that matter is currently being considered, I am unable to comment on the content of those considerations.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister intend to insist that in carrying out its reassessment of 1080 poison, the Environmental Risk Management Authority will ensure that full independent peer review studies are done to look into the effect of sub-lethal does of 1080 on all living creatures in the environment, as outlined in the New Zealand Herald article yesterday that stated: “most native species are completed unstudied. … considerable evidence shows there are chronic and sublethal effects to vertebrate endocrine and reproductive systems, possibly including those of humans.”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Although I continue to acknowledge the concerns raised with regard to 1080 poison, the process undertaken by the Environmental Risk Management Authority is an independent one, and once that report is presented to the Minister those matters will be considered.

Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table three documents. The first is the labelling on 1080 poison containers, which states: “Danger, deadly poison”.

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

Gordon Copeland: The second is a sign erected by the Greater Wellington Regional Council, advising trampers to take their own personal water into the bush and not to take water from bush streams for consumption.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that sign. Is there any objection? There is objection? There is no objection.

Hon George Hawkins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did say that I objected.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry; there is objection. Would members, for once, raise their voices if they do object.

Gordon Copeland: The third document is a copy of yesterday’s New Zealand Herald article entitled: “Poison facts belie the claims”.

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

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Participation

5. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that “86,000 children will definitely get 20 free hours under Labour”; if so, why?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes. I will announce the initial take-up of 20 hours’ free early childhood education for 3 to 4-year-olds on Monday, as has always been planned. I expect that over the next year the numbers benefiting will climb as more and more centres sign up because New Zealand families recognise that this policy as an excellent one, as does the member’s leader.

Katherine Rich: How far short of his 20 free hours target will he be on Monday, and can we assume that the numbers of 3 and 4-year-olds are nowhere near the 86,000 to 92,000 to whom his Government promised 20 free hours, because if the numbers were remotely near those targets, he is just the sort of Minister who would be trumpeting that success from the rooftops right now?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is worth drawing the member’s attention to the fact that she has asked these questions for a number of months and has been given the same answer for a number of months. That answer is that we are optimistic about the number of centres that will come in on 1 July, we are optimistic about the number of young people who will be in, and that from 1 July, which is the beginning of this policy, the numbers will climb steadily over the following year. That is what we have said, that is what we expect, that is what we have said for months, that is what we are still saying, and that is what will happen on Monday.

Moana Mackey: What is the benefit to early childhood education centres of the Labour-led Government’s policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In the past, centres have had to rely on parents for fees, donations, and fund-raising. This policy will give them security and certainty of funding. On Monday centres offering 20 hours free education will receive an advance payment covering the next 4 months, and the sum will be around $105,000 for an average centre. By contrast, National offers complete uncertainty. Paula Bennett told Radio New Zealand that National would not offer the policy. Katherine Rich is quoted in the Christchurch Press today as saying that National never said it would scrap it, and has not decided what to do. It looks to me like a case of aspirational John Key versus bean counter Bill English.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Would the Minister agree that if the objective of the free early childhood education policy is to increase early childhood education participation rates, the $109 million would have been better targeted to children 2 years old and under, rather than to 3 and 4-year-olds, whose participation rates are already much greater than 90 percent?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the member is indicating where policies like this might go over the years. We have to start somewhere; 3 to 4-year-olds, who are moving towards the age of starting school, seem the best place to start with this policy. But I think the member is raising the fact that probably, as time goes by, people will be looking for the expansion of the policy to different age groups.

Katherine Rich: When the first payment for 20 free hours is due to be direct-credited into accounts on Monday, why does he keep up the pretence that he has no idea how many centres have opted in, or how many kids are actually going to receive 20 free hours; does he seriously think this House believes that the Ministry of Education can undertake such a complicated financial transaction without having any idea of the numbers?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have never kept up such a pretence. The fact of life is that I have been saying to the member for some time that she should just relax. The ministry has done a great job of administering this policy. The sector has responded very well to it. We have always planned—for Mr Nick Smith, who will not stop yelling—that the announcement will be on Monday. That is what we have always planned, and that is what we will do, so I ask the member just to relax and to get the news when it is due.

Katherine Rich: Does he understand that when he said that 86,000 New Zealand kids would get 20 free hours come 1 July, most parents thought that their kids would actually receive it. And what is with this inane coo cooing that the Opposition should relax; who the hell does he think he is—Frankie Goes to Hollywood?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The stress is starting to show—that is all I can say. At no time have I said there would be 86,000 kids involved on 1 July. When that figure was put into the public arena, that was the number of 3 to 4-year-olds enrolled in early childhood centres. That is why that figure was used at that time. I say to the member that I have said a number of times over many months that when the policy rolls out we will give the updated figures, and I think that is a reasonable thing to do.

Katherine Rich: When will he just—

Hon Steve Maharey: I really like Frankie Goes to Hollywood.

Katherine Rich: He likes Frankie Goes to Hollywood? When will he just relax, focus on his own policy, and admit that come Monday nowhere near the 92,000 children whom he told New Zealand parents back in 2005 would get 20 hours’ free early childhood education will get it, and that his policy of 20 hours free is just a fraud?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not think I could be more relaxed if I tried. What I have always said on the way through this policy is that on 1 July it will start, and there will be a good muster of centres and of children. We are optimistic about that. Then the number will steadily climb. I would say that I think the number will be a little lower than it might have been, because the campaign to confuse people—

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My apologies to the Minister. It is simply that I am finding it extremely difficult to follow a word that the Minister is saying, because of the level of noise.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree with the member. I do not want to rule that we should have the answer in silence; that seems to be too much of a provocation. But would members please just keep the level down. Would the Minister please respond.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In summary, I have established who is relaxed and who is not, and I was moving on to say that we have always made it very clear that 1 July was a start date, that there would be a good, optimistic number of centres and children in the policy, and that it will climb steadily from there. I did note that I think the campaign against this policy has meant that on 1 July some parents who will not be getting their $60, $70, or $80 back from the policy, because of the campaign against it. No doubt, once they see it rolling out, they will roll into the policy, as well.

Paula Bennett: When he said yesterday that kindergartens have never been free, because they have always asked for donations and optional charges, was he finally acknowledging that his 20 hours free policy is not free, because centres can ask for donations and optional charges?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: For the member’s information, I was quoting the Waikato Kindergarten Association, which was pointing out that there always have been donations, there has always been a fee, and there always has been the fund-raising process that goes around it. The big benefit for kindergartens is that they now get a guaranteed sum of money; the average centre will get $105,000 on 1 July—advanced funding for 4 months. That is stability and that is certainty.

Paula Bennett: How can the Minister continue to argue that 20 hours will be free, when most people will end up paying for their free hours through optional charges, and when he himself said yesterday that kindergartens had never been free, because people paid donations and optional charges; and does he finally understand that when one is paying for something, it is not free?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can only repeat, because the member seems to have missed it, that the quote yesterday was from the Waikato Kindergarten Association, which was pointing out the history of kindergarten funding. I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to repeat that the 20 hours free policy applies to the regulated level of 20 hours’ early childhood education. This is a hugely popular policy, it is hugely popular around the country, and it is one that I know that the National Policy is looking forward to flip-flopping on and supporting as soon as it can.

Human Rights Commission—Definition of “Institutional Racism”

6. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Justice: Has he received a definition of “institutional racism” from the Human Rights Commission following the complaint from Ngāti Uenuke-kōpako regarding a decision of the Rotorua District Council; if so, what was that definition?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): No.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Would the Minister agree with the 1986 Labour Government policy document Pūao-te-ata-tū - Daybreak, which stated that the most insidious and destructive form of racism was institutional racism; if so, what evidence can he see of changes having been made to Government institutions to remove that blight from our society?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have not read the document recently, but, generally, yes, I agree that institutional racism is an insidious form of racism. Huge changes have been made in the intervening period since that document.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is the Minister aware—obviously not—that Pūao-te-ata-tū - Daybreak describes the differences between Māori and non-Māori across a range of indicators, such as life expectancy and prison admissions, as being a picture of “crisis proportions”, and what response does he have to the fact that 20 years on the picture remains either unchanged or more dire?

Hon MARK BURTON: There are many social indicators, and first among them, perhaps—and certainly the one that drove me to stand for election to this House—was the blight of unemployment on many families. I can say to the member that that negative statistic has been radically driven down. Is there room for even further improvement? Yes, and this Government is committed to that.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is the Minister aware that Ngāti Uenuke-kōpako is considering a request for a cultural audit of the Rotorua District Council in order to address institutional racism, and would he consider the Human Rights Commission to be an appropriate entity to undertake this audit?

Hon MARK BURTON: In answer to the first part of the question, I was not aware of that, and in answer to the second part, I say that it is entirely for the Human Rights Commission to consider any such approach made to it.

District Health Boards—Junior Doctor Vacancies

7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports about a data request being distributed to district health boards seeking confirmation of the number of junior doctor positions for a recruitment programme in the United Kingdom; if so, what was the estimated demand for junior doctor positions indicated by the 14 district health boards who responded?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have. The approximate vacancy rate for junior doctors in New Zealand is about 5 percent. Most of those vacancies are filled on a day-to-day basis by locums. Given that there are about 2,800 junior doctor positions in New Zealand, 5 percent represents about 150 positions.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister seen this second leaked document from District Health Boards New Zealand, which makes it clear that recruitment will be sought in Britain for over 250,000 vacancies; and if there is no staffing crisis amongst junior doctors, why are district health board representatives going urgently to London to recruit these additional staff?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I think even the member exceeded himself when he said that district health boards were going to the United Kingdom to try to find 250,000 doctors. He might have meant 250.

Simon Power: He said that.

Hon PETE HODGSON: OK. Well, if he meant 250, what he has done is add in the registrars as well, and the vacancy rate for registrars is less than 5 percent. Mr Ryall can try to beat up a storm as hard as he can, but he should get his figures right.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a quote from the leaked document today: “In brief, there is an estimated demand to fill a total of 238 junior doctor positions.”

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

Lesley Soper: Does New Zealand have a 5 percent vacancy rate in junior doctor positions because there is a reduction in junior doctors available to work, or because the health system is growing and creating new junior doctor positions?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is a pretty good question, and the answer is the latter. It is because our health system is growing. We have employed 1,400 more doctors since the change of Government and we want to employ about 140 more residential doctors—about 140 more. In the short term, those vacancies of 140 will be filled by new graduates when they come out in November or December, and there are about 285 of those each year; by junior doctors recruited from Britain, and the district health board representatives are leaving for Britain on Monday; or by junior doctors who are working in New Zealand at the moment but are currently choosing to work as locums because they get better pay.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is the Government so willing to throw money at recruiting temporary staff from overseas, while at the same time it is refusing to take any initiative to retain our own people in permanent district health board employment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I think it is probably worthwhile pointing out that today—the day when the member decides to try to beat up a crisis—is the day that the junior medical industrial relations talks begin. Let us make sure that industrial relations discussions are not a very common feature of this Parliament.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister believe that the quality of health care in public hospitals has improved during his reign; if so, does he also believe that patients are better off when they are treated by half a dozen different doctors during a 3-day stay in hospital, which is the reality for many of our sick, elderly patients; and is he so spaced out and out of touch that he does not understand that registrars are actually junior doctors?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I understand what a junior doctor is, but I also understand we do not need 250,000 of them. As to the number of doctors that are seen by a patient, I think that the member is assuming that a locum is a short-term position only. He should take a look at the facts. Locums often operate in a hospital, on their shift work, for a long period of time. There is actually a market for locums, and the market for locums is a little expensive for district health boards, which is one of the reasons why they are going to Britain.

Heather Roy: Is the real problem that the Government has increased health spending by a whopping $4.5 billion a year, with the only tangible result being that there are now more health bureaucrats than there are hospital beds, and is the Minister not embarrassed that this proliferation of pen-pushers has been at the expense of junior doctors and others at the coalface actually treating patients?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have a trick question for the member. Does the member think that the number of managers in our health system is 8 percent, 6 percent, or 4 percent?

Madam SPEAKER: It is impossible to hear anything. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The question was about bureaucrats, and I am asking whether the number of managers is 8, 6 or 4 percent. The answer is 3 percent. Three percent of our district health board staff are managers; 97 percent of our district health board staff are not managers. The member trots out the fact that there are too many bureaucrats around—3 percent ain’t bad.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does he agree with me that it is not acceptable for spending on hospital locums to double in 6 years to over $100 million, and does not this reliance on temporary staff show that working in a district health board is not an attractive career option because for every new doctor employed, district health boards employ another bureaucrat to keep an eye on that doctor?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do think the number of medical locums in New Zealand is too high. I agree with the member, and I look forward to the situation arising where we have sufficient junior docs to be able to reduce, at least somewhat, the locum market. As to the allegation that for every doctor we employ we employ a bureaucrat, I am not sure what bureaucrat the member refers to. It might be the bureaucrat who answers the phone, it might be the bureaucrat who arranges for the pay, it might be the bureaucrat who decides how the out-patient clinics will be put together, or it might be the bureaucrat who keeps the medical records safe. Which of those bureaucrats would he not have?

Hon Tony Ryall: As the Minister has finally admitted that the number of locums working in our hospitals is a concern to the Government, does the Minister agree with me that the skills and expertise of some locums can be variable, the locums are not subject to ongoing performance review or training, and their working hours are not monitored; and surely this must have an impact on the quality and continuity of care that particularly our older patients are experiencing in New Zealand’s public hospitals?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Far from finally admitting that locum—[Interruption] The member may not know everything that I think or say. The member is not actually omnipresent. The member did not hear me talk at a workforce conference, just this morning.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member has invited, through his question, an answer from the Minister. Would he please allow the Minister to respond.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is nothing new for me in saying the locum market is growing too quickly. It has been growing for some years. It is an important part of the health system, because it allows for flexibility. But my view is that it is getting a little large. As to the quality of locums, I think the member needs to be quite careful. If the member is going to assert that locum doctors are of poorer quality or subjected to less auditing, he needs to come up with the evidence, because the Medical Council would be unlikely to agree with him, and the doctors with whom they work would be unlikely to agree with him.

Fingerprinting—Mobile Scanners

8. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Police: Does she endorse the police proposal to use mobile fingerprint scanners on New Zealanders who have not been arrested or charged with any offence; if so, what steps will she be taking to introduce it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I can advise that the possibility that police might use mobile technology to verify identity arises from the discussion document Policing Directions in New Zealand for the 21st Century, which is the next step as part of a full review of the Police Act 1958. This discussion document is currently being consulted on with all political parties, and the public throughout New Zealand. The discussion document is not Government policy.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question as to whether the Government actually endorses it.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister did address that question through that answer.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister not accept that it is quite different and much more Orwellian to use these scanners on thousands of innocent New Zealanders who are not charged with any crime or have not been arrested, and how can the Minister sidestep the issue in that way, by saying that it is essentially up to the police to determine what happens?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not think I said anything that the member has just raised. I pointed out that there is a review going on, a discussion document called Policing Directions in New Zealand for the 21st Century. There are a range of ideas in there, and none of them constitutes Government policy at this stage. Because we are going through a process of discussion, does not mean that the police are now going to go off and do anything that is in the document. This is a discussion that the member will be involved in and the whole House can be involved in, because political parties have been sent the document. It is a well-overdue discussion about the Police Act, which was passed in 1958. I would basically refute all the points made there. The document is there and I invite the member to get stuck into it.

Judy Turner: What work has been done regarding an ethical framework for Government confiscation of biometrical information; and if no advice has been sought and quantified, will the Government continue to progress the means of taking biometric information from New Zealanders without ethical guidelines?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My understanding is that this discussion document will provide a very good opportunity for having a look at those kinds of frameworks going forward. One of the points I want to make here on behalf of this document is that there will be a large number of changes over the next little while in technologies and in challenging issues like the ethical framework for taking samples from people. This is the chance to discuss that. This the chance to see whether we can put in place a framework that will deal with those complex issues.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister not think it is going just too far, even to be considering having the police being able to fingerprint members of the public at will, and having commuting members of the public stripped naked by airport scanners, especially when this Parliament does not want MPs sitting here in a suit having their picture taken?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I imagine there are a lot of MPs in this Chamber who would fear the technology the member has just outlined being used at airports, but I do want to put on record that there is no such plan to make use of technologies like that as people go through airports. I also say that there are, as I mentioned before, opportunities for a large number of new technologies to be used in a variety of ways in years ahead, and this is a chance to discuss them. No one is saying anything will be used. Nothing is set in stone. The police are not doing anything. They are simply offering an opportunity to talk about these kinds of issues and revue an Act that was put in place in 1958, long before, for example, things like mobile phones were even thought of.

Keith Locke: How can the Minister say that the police are just offering an opportunity for debate or discussion, when it is clear that they are going all out to introduce these mobile scanners, which will violate the rights of thousands of innocent New Zealanders—surely it is our right in a democratic society not to have our bodily integrity violated without due cause; and why should the Government just stand aside while the police fast track us to a surveillance State?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can simply say that I understand the issue the member is raising. Of course we want to be cautious about these kinds of new technologies. But this is a discussion document that offers an opportunity to talk about a wide range of issues that may or may not be part of the scene in the future. This is an opportunity to discuss it. The police are not fast tracking anything, to my understanding.

Keith Locke: How can the Government stand aside from such a critical debate, where its police force is arguing strongly for a course of bringing in these Orwellian devices for fingerprinting, and also talking about bringing in iris scanners, when we see that these have been brought in in overseas jurisdictions that the Government has been following—in fact, just this week the United States is bringing in 10 fingerprinting devices for New Zealanders passing through American airports?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can only reiterate that there is nothing here other than a discussion, at the present time. But I stress that this is the 21st century. This Act was passed in the middle of the last century. It is time to have a discussion about things like new technologies. In some cases getting identities worked out may mean a person does not get arrested and does not have to go to the police station, because his or her identity has been established. This is a chance to have a discussion. This is an opportunity for the member to do so.

Foreign Nationals—False Documentation

9. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: How many foreign nationals have entered New Zealand with falsified or fraudulent travel documents since 1 July 2003?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): As I said yesterday, many fewer than under the previous National administration, which took 7 years to appoint just one fraud investigation officer, or to make any substantive amount of money available for border-related inquiries.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How effective are the systems that, he told Parliament yesterday, his Government has established since 2003, if he cannot even tell this House how many identity fraud cases have been detected entering New Zealand since 2003; how effective are the systems?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I told the House yesterday, this Government has created a fraud detection unit in the Department of Labour, which now has 18 staff. We have essentially established the central verification unit and the immigration profiling group. We have substantially increased border funding by $136 million since 2001. We set up the Advance Passenger Processing system in 2003. We set up the CRisM risk management and identity system last year, and the regional movement alert system in 2006, and we have a substantial Immigration Change Programme under way. Compare that with the previous Government’s effort!

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How effective are any of those measures, which he claims his Government has done, if he cannot tell this Parliament how many of the 596 immigration identity fraud cases identified by the Auditor-General involved people who are currently in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There are several reasons why I decline to give a number to the member. They are as follows. Firstly, identity fraud includes a complex set of subcategories, and it would be a mistake to compare apples and oranges. Secondly, of those cases of alleged identity fraud, a number, no doubt, in fact have not committed fraud. Thirdly, I am not prepared to disclose information that might affect ongoing investigations or apprehensions.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that New Zealand’s international reputation depends on the Immigration Service having robust systems for the detection of immigration identity fraud, and that serious lapses by his department, as highlighted in the report, have put our reputation at serious risk; does he accept that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I fully accept and support the proposition that of course our immigration system is important to both our border security and our international reputation. As I have said from the moment the report was launched, I support the report. It contains many valuable suggestions about ways in which we can further improve our system. We are implementing all of them and we will make that progress public. The contrast here is with the previous National Government, which did essentially nothing.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Precisely when was the Minister first advised that the Immigration Service was falling behind in its investigations of suspected immigration identity fraud cases?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That would depend on what one meant by “falling behind”.

Peter Brown: Noting those answers, will the Minister assure the House that processes will be put in place to ensure that those who should have been deported, and are currently sitting in our prisons because they will not sign the appropriate forms, will in fact be deported in relatively short order; can he give the House that assurance?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I gave the House an assurance yesterday that I have instructed the chief executive of the department to implement all 15 of the recommendations of that report. I have noted that three of them, to my estimation, include Budget commitments, which will be matters for consideration by Cabinet in due course. The cases that the member specifically raises, which are of people detained in prison for refusing to sign travel documents, are, I would estimate, unlikely to be related to cases of identity fraud, and more likely to be failed refugee claimants.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Was the Auditor-General correct that almost 6 years after 9/11 the Immigration Service has no specific plan in place to detect identity fraud, little or no specific staff training in the area, no evaluations of effectiveness in preventing identity fraud, substandard tracking systems, and a large backlog of cases that the Auditor-General calls a “significant risk”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Right at the start of the Auditor-General’s report, he makes two important points. Firstly, the department does have a set of processes and systems in place, for which he suggests some improvements. Secondly, right at the start, he indicates an awareness of the Immigration Change Programme, which already is, and has been for some time, working to address exactly those issues.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does he stand by his statement made to the House yesterday: “in the last year the department has conducted 55 prosecutions.”; if so, how does he reconcile his statement with figures supplied by his own department that show that just 47 identity fraud - related cases were prosecuted over not just the last year but the last 4 years combined?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The member should be careful not to confuse apples with another fruit that is the colour of his tie. The number I gave yesterday of 55 cases was for the period from July 2005 to June 2006, and related to all types of immigration fraud prosecutions. The number given by Mary Anne Thompson to the Christchurch Press of 47 cases since 1 July 2003 related to only immigration identity fraud cases, which is a subset of the former.

Renewable Energy—Developments and Deployment

10. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What reports, if any, has he received on developments in the deployment of renewable energy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Lines company Vector has commenced trialling a new wind turbine suitable for home and small-business use. Micro wind generation does have the potential to both improve our energy security and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and it also helps interested consumers to reduce their power bills through the use of a free energy source—wind—in a similar way to which reductions are achieved through solar hot water systems. I congratulate Vector on taking this initiative to test the viability of small-scale wind power, with a view to bringing it into mainstream use.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Can the Minister tell the House of other recent examples of significant renewable energy development?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Scion and AgResearch have recently announced a joint venture with a US-based firm to develop transport fuels, based on the conversion of cellulose to ethanol, from forestry and agricultural products. The second similar venture in the biofuels area is LanzaTech, where a leading US investor, Vinod Khosla, is investing $3.5 million in LanzaTech to establish a pilot plant to produce ethanol from carbon monoxide gas. To paraphrase the self-appointed spokesperson for Labour’s biofuels policy, Nicky Wagner, this is another significant step towards carbon neutrality.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why should anybody believe this Government’s commitment to renewable energy, when the proportion of renewable power has dropped in every year Labour has been in Government, to the lowest level ever in New Zealand history; when his Government has built a huge new oil and gas-fired power station; and when the proportion of electricity produced from coal has trebled in just 7 years?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Should we not have built E3P when we did, the country about now would be facing the risk of blackouts. That seems a pretty good reason to have built it, to me. In respect of greenhouse gas emissions from thermal generation this year compared with last year, assuming that lake levels, or inflows into hydro lakes, stay as they are at the moment, it is likely that thermal electricity emissions will be lower this year than they were last year.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen the Marlborough District Council’s decision to grant consent to the Wairoa River hydro scheme, provided that natural river flows are maintained and there is minimal effect on river ecology and the survival of key endangered birds; and will he undertake that the Crown will not oppose stringent environmental conditions on that project, even if it means that there may be some lowering of the electricity output of the power station?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have seen brief reports of the decision. I have not read the decision as yet. If the member’s point is that we need to take care to have appropriate environmental constraints around renewable developments, as with other developments, then I agree. I, for one, support the principles of the Resource Management Act, and do not call for it to be “gutted”, to quote one National Party member. I think that the help that councils and the Environment Court receive with getting the balance right between development and environmental protection has worked in New Zealand in the last decade, as evidenced by the fact that new versions of, for example, Project Aqua and the previous Dobson dam are coming forward that would be viable but with a lower environmental impact.

Child, Youth and Family—Caregivers

11. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she stand by her statement in the House on 8 May 2007 that “I have confidence in Child, Youth and Family’s approval process and selection procedure for the caregivers of young people who are in the youth justice system,”; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes. I also have confidence in the procedure for caregivers and other support workers for young people who are not in the youth justice system. That includes the young man incorrectly described by both the Dominion Post and Anne Tolley as being under 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week supervision ordered by the court. Those allegations, which are liable to cause distress in the community, are untrue.

Anne Tolley: How is it possible that yet another teenage sexual predator on 24-hour-a-day supervision from Child, Youth and Family is escaping from his minders and playing with neighbourhood children, and the authorities say they are powerless to control him?

Hon RUTH DYSON: For the record and for that member’s benefit, although the information may have been more useful to her prior to her putting out her incorrect press statement, I say he is not in the youth justice system, he is not in the adult justice system, he is not in the custody of Child, Youth and Family, he has no court-imposed supervision order or any other supervision order, he is not required to be under supervision by anyone, and there are no conditions imposed by anyone, a court or otherwise, on any of his movements. Therefore, by definition, he cannot escape or get out. He is not required to be under supervision. He is not required to live anywhere. He is a free person.

Anne Tolley: Can the Minister confirm the reports received by my office and communicated to Child, Youth and Family and to the Minister that a Child, Youth and Family worker introduced this teenage sex offender to other local children in the department’s care?

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is not the allegation that the member made to me. I just repeat that this man is not under any supervision. He is completely free, as every member in this House is, and he is entitled to meet anyone he likes. There is no supervision requirement at all on this man—not a single requirement.

Anne Tolley: How can the Minister stand in this House day after day, wringing her hands and saying that this sort of thing is unacceptable; and how many failures of the Child, Youth and Family system and cases of young offenders being out on the loose will it take before the Minister will admit there is a systemic failure in youth justice at Child, Youth and Family?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I would like to make two points in response to the member’s question. The first is that people in the youth justice system are generally not those who have recently graduated as dux from their local secondary school. They are not generally young people who come from a strong, supportive, functional family. They are, more often than not, young people who have lived in violent, abusive, dysfunctional families for their entire lives, which contributes to the likelihood of their being in the youth justice system, and they are, frankly, not easy to contain. In my view, on the occasions that they are at large, we should look at two things. First of all, was the supervision correct? If it was not, then I say to this House that that is unacceptable. Second, where it was correct, then I think that the caregivers should be supported. The member mentioned I had said that things were unacceptable. What I find unacceptable and morally reprehensible is that member misleading the public by saying incorrect things that are likely to cause distress to, and a vigilante response from, people in the Porirua community. That is unacceptable.

Anne Tolley: When will the Minister publicly release the Child, Youth and Family report into the Wairaka Kokiri Trust, which lost one of its young offenders and did not report him missing for 3 months, in 2005, as she said she would in this House on Tuesday?

Hon RUTH DYSON: When I get it.

Oral Health—Children and Adolescents

12. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports of recent developments in child and adolescent oral health services?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I have received many, many reports. Child and adolescent oral health services are gearing up. They have already been reconfigured and upgraded in Southland, and district health boards in other areas have finalised, or are finalising, their business cases, with some district health boards—for example, Canterbury District Health Board—making their business cases public. Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has done the same, only on Monday this week. Various central investment decisions are likely to be made for new facilities, including mobile services, soon. There is more action in child and adolescent oral health now than there has been in this country in many decades.

Dianne Yates: Why is all this activity and investment needed; and does it mean that we are responding to a known need?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is needed, because the National Government shut down dental therapy training in New Zealand in the 1990s, and it has taken until now to produce enough graduates to staff these new facilities that we are now building. And, yes, there is a known need amongst our children. The National Government’s neglect can be measured by our children’s oral health, which is declining. This is a serious situation, and an absolutely avoidable one; we must respond.

Barbara Stewart: What funds, if any, have so far actually been distributed from the $40 million set aside in last year’s Budget for children’s oral health services, given that it is now more than a year since the Budget announcement?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am afraid I do not have the precise figure at my fingertips, but it would be quite a small amount. A number of investment decisions will, however, quite possibly be taken tomorrow.

ENDS

© Scoop Media