( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. )

Tuesday, 24 July 2007

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill—Suspension of Legislation
Environment, Minister—Confidence
Auckland International Airport Ltd—Sale Options Actions
Finance, Minister—Confidence
Māori Language—Usage and Standing
Environment, Ministry—Communications Manager Appointment
Electoral System—Reform
Electoral Finance Bill—Consultation with Political Parties
Building—Consent Process
Corrections, Department—Confidence
Respite Care—Regional Services
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflict of Interest

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill—Suspension of Legislation

1. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of State Services: What reports has she received following the announcement of suspension of work on the trans-Tasman joint therapeutics agency legislation?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): I have seen the report of the Advertising Standards Authority released late last week that upheld complaints about the supplement published in the New Zealand Herald and the radio advertisements played on Newstalk ZB, both of which were sponsored by the New Zealand Health Trust. The authority found that these advertisements were misleading, non-factual, and designed to instil fear. In fact, the complaints were upheld in all regards. Examples of the lies told are: “60% of New Zealand made supplements and vitamins would be forced from the shelves”, “prices will increase between 20% and 100% under a joint Tasman regulator”, “494 pages of ‘safety’ legislation yet no one has ever died from supplements.” “Clearly this information was false and made with no evidence to support the misleading claims …”. This decision epitomises the misinformation and lies that a minority of opponents used to pervert the democratic process. Further, I think it is a sad commentary that John Key and the National Party were so pathetic that they were taken in by these lies and this misinformation.

Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any further reports regarding this issue?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have seen the report in the Weekend Herald written by Catherine Masters, in which Dr Graham Sharpe, the President of the New Zealand Society of Anaesthetists, stated that a small but loud sector hijacked the bill by “telling lies”, and by Opposition politicians who gave in to political point-scoring. I also read the comments of Michelle Beckett, who speaks for around 80 percent of the complementary medicines sector. She said: “One of the big pieces of misinformation out there was that hundreds if not thousands of products were going to disappear from the shelves.” This is the same piece of information that was still being pedalled in this Parliament last week.

Gordon Copeland: Why did the Minister, before suspending work on the trans-Tasman agency, not take her modified proposals out by way of a roadshow to the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who strongly opposed the original legislation, and instead rely on attempts to stitch a “we know best” deal together here in Parliament, or does she continue to believe that the opinion of the people should be ignored in these matters?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, because I had the word of that member that he intended to vote for a two-tier system. But after he went to the National Party, he informed me himself that the National Party said he could not vote for it.

Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any commentaries on the Government’s decision to suspend work on the trans-Tasman joint therapeutics regulator?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I have seen the comments of leading political commentator Colin James under the heading “Key ditches the Aussies for easy, populist politics”, published in the New Zealand Herald today. He notes: “John Key’s first act in foreign affairs has been to give Australia the fingers.” He also alludes to the complete failure of leadership on this issue, and went on to state: “He might have emulated his search for consensus on the smacking bill—or at least mandated one of his dissenting MPs to make up the majority. But unity is his prime preoccupation. And populist politics is easier politics.” John Key would not even let poor old hapless Gordon Copeland vote for the bill, of which he proposed a two-tier system. I seek leave to table the Advertising Standards Authority’s decision of their meeting of 10 July 2007.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week the Minister, Annette King, announced after the shelving of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill that she no longer had responsibility for this issue and it was being passed to Pete Hodgson. I wonder how it is that the Government, only a week later, can direct questions to the Minister on the diatribe we have just heard?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I say that I retain this responsibility until the Prime Minister says I do not. At this stage I have the responsibility, and it is right that I answer the question. In fact, I dispute the comments that member, Dr Smith, made about a diatribe; it happened to be the truth.

Madam SPEAKER: If members refer to the Order Paper they will see that the bill is still in her name.

Environment, Minister—Confidence

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

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

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that last Wednesday, when David Benson-Pope was asked about the sacking of Madeleine Setchell, he replied: “No, I don’t know anything about the detail of that issue,”; if so, how does she reconcile that answer with the fact that the State Services Commission report clearly shows that he was informed by the Ministry for the Environment of the issue prior to getting asked the question by a journalist last Wednesday?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I am aware of that statement. I am also aware of the fact that the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment told Mr Benson-Pope that he was consulting with the State Services Commission on the issue. He did not give the Minister any detail.

John Key: Who is correct—the State Services Commission, which states: “the Ministry informed the Minister’s office about the exact nature of the relationship and noted that the Chief Executive was managing the situation.”; or David Benson-Pope, who claimed he did not know anything about the details of the issue?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My understanding is that the Minister was referring to knowledge of detail of any way in which the matter might be handled, and any settlement that might be entered into.

John Key: Why would the Prime Minister accept the word of David Benson-Pope, when he is a Minister with a track record of telling anything other than the exact facts when he gets asked a question?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is a longstanding convention of this House to accept an honourable member’s word.

John Key: What lengths has the Prime Minister or her office gone to, to corroborate the story that David Benson-Pope has given her? Has she contacted Hugh Logan, and what answers did he give her?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I most certainly am not making any such contact. I have looked the Minster in the eye, I have had responses, and it is a convention in this House to accept an honourable member’s word.

John Key: Did the Prime Minister look David Benson-Pope in the eye when she asked him questions about relevant other issues on which he has been seen to be misleading the public, and was he twitching when he answered that time, as well?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course, but not as much as that tragic member just twitched when he asked the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as we do not want to support some incestuous cesspit building in this country’s bureaucracy, if Minister Benson-Pope did not know, why is it that he was not entitled to know; or should he not have known, given the proximity of this person to his operation, and would that not be normal in any sound office—in defence of Mr Benson-Pope?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Minister made a fair point, and a document has recently been issued by the State Services Commission on the issue of political neutrality. It states that the Minister is entitled to expect to be informed in advance of any issues or difficulties relating to the agency, and it refers to a no-surprises principle. The problem in this case—and in my view it was not a problem attributable in any way to Miss Setchell—was that knowledge of this did not make its way to the chief executive.

Madam SPEAKER: Would everyone please be seated. It is impossible for me to be able to hear. If members do not keep their comments down, then we will be having this question time in silence.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister telling not only the House but the Public Service that she does not think it was appropriate that Madeleine Setchell would have been hired, because of her partner’s relationship with the National Party; and if that is the conclusion the public sector has to draw from the Prime Minister’s answer, will the Prime Minister also tell the Public Service that she now intends to root out others who work currently in their jobs, whose partners or siblings have a relationship with the National Party; and if that is the case, whatever happened to political neutrality?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do not intend to threaten the State Services Commission—that is what he did with his comments yesterday. That is how much he cares about their political neutrality.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Notwithstanding the desire of the State Services Commission—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where’s the question word?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if you sit there a while, Nick, young boy, you will find out. All you have to do is keep quiet.

Madam SPEAKER: No—please be seated. Everyone knows that the Standing Orders say that questions should start with a question. If that was rigidly enforced, of course, I would be stopping every second person who asked a question. So I remind members again of the Standing Orders—you begin a question with a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, it is long established, in centuries of English, old and new, that one can frequently ask a question where the question word is the last word in a sentence. Where did this rule creep in whereby one has start with “what”, “where”, “how”, “why”, or “when”? That is not what this Parliament should be descending to.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I am following the Standing Orders, and whether they follow Old English I do not know. But the Standing Orders do require questions to start with a question word. So would the member please ask his question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did the Prime Minister first learn about the objectives of the State Services Commission and its rules in respect of employing people as public servants; and, second, why does she think that that objective nevertheless overrules the need for a Minister to have confidence that he is not being required to work with the enemy?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I learnt about the independence of the State Services Commission in respect of employment matters a very long time ago. That is why I was rather interested to have drawn to my attention today a report from 1996 that stated that the new conservation Minister at that time, Mr Nick Smith, had asked his director-general to resign over the Cave Creek tragedy, and it was reported that the confrontation between the two men had raised a major problem for the State Services Commission, the only body that can sack a departmental head. Nick Smith tried to do it himself.

John Key: If David Benson-Pope had nothing to hide and was not concerned about his actions and the implications on the longstanding convention about neutrality of the Public Service, why did he not simply answer the question factually with the information he had; or has the Prime Minister—the same Prime Minister who has campaigned on accountability—now decided that that applies to everyone in her Government except David Benson-Pope?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There are obviously non sequiturs in that particular question. What I would say is that the matter could have been better handled in my absence last week. It is being handled now.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that in answering questions on the radio this morning in relation to this issue, David Benson-Pope said: “We’d been informed …”, in which case, why does she accept David Benson-Pope’s word when he said he was not informed?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am aware of the concept of the royal “we”. It should not have been used in that context.

John Key: Well—

Madam SPEAKER: Ask a question, please.

John Key: I have not started yet.

Madam SPEAKER: But the member said “Well”. I just ask the member to ask a question, please.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s looking sick.

Madam SPEAKER: Further comments like that will be considered disorderly, and members will leave the Chamber.

John Key: Is it the situation, then, that when David Benson-Pope uses the word “we”—plural; in other words, meaning himself and his political adviser, Steve Hurring, the royal “we”—it does not apply to, in his case, a “me”; and is it not just a clear example that David Benson-Pope knew all along what was going on: he issued the instructions; Steve Hurring was simply the person who went and carried out the Minister’s message, and the Prime Minister knows that that is exactly the case?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course I do not know any such thing; nor is that my understanding of the issue. I repeat again for the benefit of the relatively new member of Parliament who is the Leader of the Opposition, that it is the practice in this House to accept the word of an honourable member—even him.

Madam SPEAKER: No further supplementary questions? Then I call question No. 3.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you were saying those words, the Leader of the Opposition mouthed across the Chamber to me, at least three times, the word “liar”. I take exception to that. I take great care in this House to be an honest person in responding to questions, as I have today, and I would ask that that matter be dealt with.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please apologise and withdraw.

John Key: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the documents and reports at the time of Bill Mansfield’s departure, to make plain that at no time did I know, even today, the political affiliations of Mr Mansfield, and that I properly raised those issues—

Leave granted.

Auckland International Airport Ltd—Sale Options Actions

3. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: What are the costs and benefits to Auckland of the possible sale of Auckland International Airport, a key strategic asset and gateway to New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: Any decision on this matter will be made under the relevant test of the Overseas Investment Act. As sensitive land is involved, the two Ministers responsible for the decision will have to take into account the national benefit issues outlined in section 17 of the Act, which go well beyond the standard business test.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister agree with the comments of Manukau’s Mayor, Sir Barry Curtis, on Radio New Zealand National this morning that he is totally opposed to foreign control of a 51 percent stake in Auckland International Airport, and that control of one of New Zealand’s key strategic assets must be left in the hands of Aucklanders and New Zealanders?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The nature of the asset and the nature of the cost and benefit involved in any decision will be taken into account by the two Ministers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Government aware that the merger implementation agreement between Auckland International Airport and Dubai Aerospace Enterprise contains a clause that seeks to enhance the relationship between the airport and one named airline, which is not Air New Zealand; and on what basis could the Government consider a deal that allows a foreign takeover of arguably our most important strategic asset, and that explicitly seeks to favour one particular foreign-owned airline, to be a benefit to New Zealand taxpayers and the city of Auckland?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not aware of that clause. Obviously, that clause itself is a matter that will be taken into account by the two Ministers making a decision.

Keith Locke: Is the Minister concerned that because the Commerce Commission is not legally permitted to instruct airports over the level of their fees, the sale of Auckland International Airport to rapacious overseas owners could lead to crippling monopoly rents, and dramatically increase the cost of air travel for both New Zealanders and tourists?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is not the responsibility of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, but, in fact, the member is wrong—there is power under the Commerce Act to regulate prices at airports. To this point the decision has been taken not to do so, but the power is certainly there.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Prime Minister—sorry, the Minister of Finance—be in any way surprised to know that our old mates Russell McVeagh drew up this document; that it is all the same old faces in the same old places doing the same old thing to screw New Zealand; and that at 4.1(c) of clause 4, “Tourism growth”, these words are to be found: “enhance the relationship between the business and Emirates Airline with a view to increasing New Zealand tourism and creating new routes and services to Auckland”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In light of the previous round of questions, perhaps I should say that the Government’s impartiality extends even to the nature of law firms that may draw up contracts for people outside this Parliament.

Sue Bradford: Should the Government end up decisively doing nothing, is there any point at which the sale of assets such as Auckland International Airport undermines our current account deficit to such an extent that the Minister of Finance might decisively intervene and halt the loss of New Zealand assets to foreign owners?

Madam SPEAKER: I think I should note that the primary question was addressed to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, not to other Ministers, so the ministerial responsibility, in that sense, is more constrained. But I will ask the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to answer as he thinks fit.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues is not responsible for any decision in this matter. It is a decision to be taken by the Minister for Land Information and the Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard, to whom the Minister of Finance has delegated his responsibilities in that regard. Neither can “decisively do nothing”, because they will have to make a decision.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister of Finance aware of the US Senate recently blocking the sale of several US ports to Dubai-based consortia, citing—

Madam SPEAKER: The member can finish his question, but I would just note that, as I said before, the primary question was addressed to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. So if his question could address that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh yes, but we know who the Minister is! Is the Government aware of the US Senate recently blocking the sale of several US ports to Dubai-based consortia, citing national security issues, and, with 70 percent of international business coming to this country arriving through Auckland International Airport, will the Government consider matters of national security when the Overseas Investment Commission is asked to rule on the takeover?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I have said, the decision will be taken by the two Ministers. It will not be delegated to the Overseas Investment Commission, given the size and the importance of the decision to be made. The Ministers can take, under section 17, a range of factors into account, the last of which is any other factor set out in regulations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister consult her Cabinet colleagues in an endeavour to clear up the total misuse of the term “foreign investment” in this case, which is clearly a foreign takeover of an existing business that has been built to the size it is by New Zealanders, and there is no guarantee that, as a consequence of this takeover—just as with New Zealand Rail, which National sold—there will be any more new investment or one new job?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is worth noting that the Overseas Investment Act deals primarily with the takeover of existing New Zealand assets, rather than greenfields investment in previously non-existing assets.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Government guarantee the people of this country that its considerations will be somewhat more serious than those between 1990 and 1996, when not one application to the Overseas Investment Commission was turned down by either the commission or the National Party in Government?.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a need for a little bit of discipline at question time. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, who is actually a Minister in this Cabinet, is meant to be asking questions of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, but we have heard him call her the Prime Minister—he addressed a question to the Prime Minister—then call her the Minister of Finance, and now, in his latest question, decide to call her the Government. Well, I think we all admire the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues for her many achievements, but the Rt Hon Winston Peters should actually rein himself in a bit and understand that the primary question—and I know that it is hard for him to keep up—was addressed to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, and that is how the supplementary questions have to be framed.

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that points of order should be made succinctly. If every member in this House who mis-spoke was called up on it, we would probably not make much progress at any time. I thank the member for leaping to his feet so quickly. I was about to rise myself and say that there is no ministerial responsibility for that question. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Hon Maurice Williamson: How about the sale of Wellington airport?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, Wellington airport, of course, was sold to majority ownership by you, Maurice.

Madam SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary question or a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It was a supplementary question rudely interrupted by Mr Williamson from Pakuranga. He wanted to remind you, Madam Speaker, and the House that it was he who had betrayed the people of this country when National sold Wellington airport.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were very quick to give the Leader of the Opposition a bit of a flick for using one word well, when he was absolutely exasperated at the lack of content in the Prime Minister’s answers, but we have had this circus going on from Winston Peters for a number of minutes without much comment.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I agree, but I say to members that if they interject, the likelihood is that there will be a response, and that will lead to disorder. I want members to take that on board at this time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister any information in respect of someone trained by Fay Richwhite who is at the moment the chief lobbyist and negotiator operating on behalf of Dubai Aerospace Enterprise to effect the airport sale, who is also lobbying the National Party today, and whose name is Brett Shepherd?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Sadly, I have to admit that, no, I do not. However, I think it is fair to say that the two Ministers who will make the decision will probably not consider that to be a relevant consideration under the Overseas Investment Act!

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would request the Rt Hon Winston Peters to table the document he was quoting from during his questions.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. If the member wishes to table it at any time, I am sure he will. If he wants to table it, he should do it now.

Finance, Minister—Confidence

4. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she still have confidence in her Minister of Finance?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister worried that New Zealand has some of the highest interest rates in the Western World, that the exchange rate is now on a post-float high, and that the Minister of Finance has no answers for the mess he has got our country into?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Perhaps I could answer best by quoting from Westpac last week: “It is normal for countries that are doing well to experience higher exchange rates.”

Darren Hughes: Has she seen any reports on other proposals that might address the increase in the New Zealand dollar?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes. I did see a report that recommended having a currency union with Australia to try to halt the rise of the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar, which would, of course, mean giving up all of New Zealand’s sovereign control of its monetary policy. That report came from a former foreign exchange trader called John Key.

John Key: Has the Prime Minister seen reports from the Reserve Bank, the IMF, and the OECD that all point the finger at the big-spending policies of her Government, the impact they are putting on inflation, and the fact that New Zealand homeowners are now paying a lot more for their mortgages than they otherwise would be?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What I have seen is any number of reports out of market commentators that point out that we are undergoing probably the biggest commodity price boom since the Korean War wool boom, that the New Zealand economy has been growing for years, that unemployment is low, that Government finances are sound, and that in those circumstances it is not unusual when the US dollar is very low for New Zealand to have a high currency exchange rate. I would also point out, as the member should be well aware, that the Aussie dollar, the euro, and the pound sterling are also historically high because the US dollar is so low.

John Key: If the Prime Minister’s answer to the economic mess that her Government has got us into is the one she just gave, why does the Minister of Finance go around all the time coming up with bright ideas that she then overrules and that he will not implement anyway?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am well aware that the Minister of Finance did for a time engage with Mr Key on how to address imbalances in the economy and look for alternative tools that might reinforce monetary policy. Of course, Mr Key could not stand up to Mr English.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister concerned that despite months and months of speculation on different ideas from the Minister of Finance, he has no solutions to the soaring exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar and no solutions to the highest interest rates in the Western World, and that the only people who are paying for the mess Michael Cullen has created are the homeowners, the borrowers, and the exporters of New Zealand; and is it not about time that they deserved and had a new Government that could actually fix the problems?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would be interested to know what is messy about New Zealand having one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the Western World. I would be interested to know what is messy about having a growth rate that, over the last 7½ years, has exceeded the OECD averages. I would be interested to know what is messy about New Zealand dairy prices having doubled in the past year. The truth is that the US dollar is low and other currencies like ours are high. We do have some imbalances. Extra tools to support monetary policy would be helpful, and every single one of them is opposed by the National Party.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister support the actions of the Minister of Finance, firstly, to intervene in the exchange rate, I think, roughly about 4c ago; does she support the Minister of Finance’s view, expressed last week, that he may suspend the control of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank governor; and what does she think it does to the confidence of New Zealanders when they see a Minister of Finance who has only problems and, frankly, no solutions?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Minister of Finance did not intervene in the currency. The Minister of Finance did not say he was considering using section 12—

Hon Members: Yes, he did.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, he did not. All I can say is that the Leader of the Opposition’s 2 weeks in the sun in Hawaii over the adjournment got to his head.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister then support the intervention that the Reserve Bank undertook, on the back of the powers that the Minister of Finance gave the Reserve Bank some weeks ago; and is she aware that it is now sitting on a paper loss of somewhere around 100 million New Zealand dollars?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It has been my practice as Prime Minister not to comment on the operation of monetary policy, and I do not intend to.

Rodney Hide: Why does the Prime Minister not act to restore the Government’s credibility on monetary and fiscal policy by replacing Alan Bollard with Don Brash, who actually did the job, and Michael Cullen with Phil Goff, who has the ability to put the Government’s finances in order, rather than always blame hard-working New Zealanders for our economic woes, when those hard-working New Zealanders are working harder and harder, and are being taxed more and more, to prop up a bloated and an unproductive Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There seems to be a perception of reality, on the Opposition benches, that is not shared by most market commentators or, indeed, by offshore people. The general perception is that the New Zealand economy is doing rather well, is undergoing a phenomenal commodity price boom, has good growth rates, and has low unemployment numbers and sound Government finances, but that its currency, like that of other like-minded countries, is buffeted by the sharp fall in the US dollar.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave, in the interests of putting to rest that last bit of myth-making by Rodney Hide, to table the figures for the Reserve Bank governor’s performance for 1994, 1995, and 1996, when for 21 months he was outside the zero to 2 band—

Leave granted.

Māori Language—Usage and Standing

5. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: He aha ngā pūrongo mō te reo Māori kua tae atu inā tata nei?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I te pō kua hori nei, i whakaputa au i ngā hua o te Rangahau mō Te Reo Māori i te tau 2006 nā runga i ngā mahi a Te Puni Kōkiri. Kitea ana i tēnei rangahau, kua piki haere te tokomaha o ngā Māori e mōhio ana ki te kōrero me te whakarongo ki Te Reo, ā, kei te kaha ake te kōrero ki ngā tamariki.

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

[Last night I launched the results of the survey of the health of the Māori language in 2006, which was conducted by Te Puni Kōkiri. The survey showed a healthy increase in the number of Māori who can speak and understand te reo, and highlighted that more Māori are speaking te reo to their children. This is great news.]

Dave Hereora: He aha ngā mahi e puta ake ana i te rangahau nei?

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

[What are the outcomes from this survey?]

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Ka haere tonu ngā mahi hei wetewete i ēnei tatauranga hei kaupapa mō te Rautaki Reo Māori. Ka whakapūtahia hei tirohanga ā-rohe, hei kaupapa mō te mahi tihikete ki ngā iwi, arā, hei āwhina i a rātou ki te whakarite kaupapa mō rātou anō.

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

[We will continue to analyse the results as the basis for our ongoing investment in the Māori Language Strategy. We will develop regional profiles so that we can work with iwi to develop their own language programmes.]

Environment, Ministry—Communications Manager Appointment

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister for the Environment: When was he first informed Madeleine Setchell had been appointed communications manager at the Ministry for the Environment, and who informed him?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment): I am advised that on 28 May my adviser informed me that he had received confirmation of a rumour that a recent appointment to the role of communications manager in the Ministry for the Environment was the partner of the chief press secretary in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. The person was unknown personally either to myself or to my adviser, and it was not until sometime later that I became aware the person’s name was Madeleine Setchell.

Gerry Brownlee: Did the Minister have any discussions with his adviser Steve Hurring subsequent to the advice that he had received about Madeleine Setchell’s position at the Ministry for the Environment, and was that prior to Mr Hurring phoning the chief executive of the ministry to inform him of her personal relationship; if so what was the nature of that discussion?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No.

Gerry Brownlee: If we are to believe that the Minister did not know of the appointment or of any conflict of interest and did not express concerns to Mr Logan, why was it only after Mr Hurring’s phone call and the subsequent discussion between Mr Logan and the Minister that the State Services Commission became involved and Ms Setchell was moved on?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It is my understanding that the State Services Commission became involved on the request of Mr Logan when he went to Dr Prebble for advice.

Gerry Brownlee: Can he inform the House as to whether Mr Logan took the step of going to see Dr Prebble because he had had the message from the Minister’s office that he had to do something about the situation because the Minister found the appointment unacceptable?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I think the clearest answer to that question is in the words of Mr Rennie in the State Services Commissioner’s report that my colleague Mrs King tabled last Friday. I will read paragraph 3, and will ask for leave of the House to table the document at the end of this question: “The possibility of an issue was brought to the attention of the Chief Executive, Mr Hugh Logan, by way of a phone call from the office of the Minister for the Environment after Ms Setchell had started work at the Ministry. This phone call enquired as to whether Ms Setchell’s partner was a senior member of the Leader of the Opposition’s staff. The staff member from the Minister’s office indicated that it would be helpful to know whether this was true but also stressed that it was entirely the chief executive’s responsibility to make decisions on the employment of staff.”

Gerry Brownlee: Does he consider Mr Hurring’s phone call was acceptable; if not, what action does he intend to take regarding Mr Hurring, and if it will be nothing more than a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, does he believe that that will confirm for public servants that if they want to make progress under a Labour Government, they had best join the Labour Party?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It is not difficult to understand that the call could have been unwise because there was a danger that it might have been misinterpreted—as has certainly been the case with a number of the media reports of this matter.

Gerry Brownlee: Is it not true that if the Minister had not kicked up a fuss, Ms Setchell could be in that position today, carrying out her duties with all the integrity expected of a public servant, and proving that these things are possible, if it were not for the Minister’s own petulant display in this regard?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It is not accurate to suggest that I kicked up a fuss, and I will refer the member again to the absolutely clear description of events that was released by Mr Rennie last week.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a copy of the film Primary Colors, which will give us all a chance to see the kind of fictional setting that Gerry Brownlee believes in.

Leave granted.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I seek leave of the House to table the briefing from the State Services Commissioner that I referred to earlier.

Leave granted.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table the film Wag the Dog, which is a perfect replication of what happens in the Labour Government.

Leave granted.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a serious point of order. There is an old English saying, that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it, and that example given by Gerry Brownlee he knows could be imaged as being true but in fact is not.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a valid point of order.

Electoral System—Reform

7. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Justice: What is the Government doing to reform New Zealand’s electoral system to protect it from abuse?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yesterday I introduced a Government bill that aims to make our electoral system fairer and more transparent, and to safeguard it from abuse. The flagrant abuse of our electoral system that saw the undue influence of big money from secretive groups in the 2005 campaign must be stemmed. That is something New Zealanders have known since 1895, when the first limits on election spending were introduced. This bill reforms the system to make sure that a level playing field is in place for 2008, and that we continue to have an electoral system that New Zealanders can have confidence in.

Lynne Pillay: What does the bill do to ensure that the voices of New Zealanders who want to get involved in elections are not overwhelmed by those who can spend the most?

Hon MARK BURTON: This bill puts fair and reasonable limits on the amounts that third parties can spend.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s a rort.

Hon MARK BURTON: I say to Mr Smith that it gives the referees, such as the Chief Electoral Officer, more tools and tougher penalties for those who would choose to break the rules. The bill will effectively extend what is known as the regulated period for campaign spending, thus restricting to a fair and reasonable level the influence of the already capped campaign spending during an election year. This Government, and some other parties in Parliament, want to restore and maintain trust in our electoral system and to deliver a level playing field for all.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If this bill is passed as it stands, will individuals and corporations still be able to make unlimited anonymous donations to political parties—yes or no?

Hon MARK BURTON: Although the matter relating to donations has been referred to the independent review, which I also announced yesterday, it is certainly the case that the spending limits will be extended to 1 January in an election year, thereby ensuring that although donations will indeed be able to be made, the ability of any party to be grossly overfunded to the point that it overwhelms proper debate will be curtailed. In the end, in New Zealand we want our elections to be a contest of ideas, not a contest of bank accounts.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is to be done about those parties that have sought to use mates’ rates in campaigns to disguise the true, real and actual cost of expenditure, so that one-tenth of the cost can be entered into an electoral return and claimed to be within the law; what does the bill propose to do about that—

Hon Maurice Williamson: They have to have proper and reasonable costs. He’s got it wrong.

Madam SPEAKER: Has the member finished his question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am trying to finish the question but Maurice, who knows everything about everything, is finishing it for me. What will happen to so-called business rates under the new law, as proposed; will they be fair and actual, or any old rate depending on who one’s mates are?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is fair to say that the member who asked the question has unique experience of the unfairness that has been permitted under the current system. Under this bill, fair rates will be required—the apportionment of fair cost in value to donated goods and services—to ensure that, again, those with large bank accounts will not simply be able to overwhelm the voice of others and try to buy an election.

Electoral Finance Bill—Consultation with Political Parties

8. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Which parties did he consult with before introducing the Electoral Finance Bill?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): The Government consulted members of the Justice and Electoral Committee at the early stages of the forming of this bill. Represented on that committee were Labour, National, the Greens, the Māori Party, and ACT. Since then, consultations and briefings have been held with New Zealand First, the Greens, United Future, and the Māori Party. The bill is now, of course, available to all parties to consider, and for referral to the select committee in order to enable full public debate of the bill. I invite members opposite to facilitate that.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the bill was written by Labour for Labour, and that it hands a huge advantage to Labour in 2008 by restricting any advertising by Opposition parties or by interest groups and third parties throughout the entire year, which is a set of rules that is unprecedented in New Zealand?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is—

Hon Members: Read the bill!

Hon MARK BURTON:—I can assure members that I am very familiar with the bill—that the bill extends precisely the same requirements and restrictions to the Labour Party as it does to every other party. It brings us more into line with best practice established in similar jurisdictions to ours, such as the United Kingdom, where a 12-month cap period applies.

Charles Chauvel: What specific new measures does the bill contain to address the type of undermining of the electoral process by secretive, wealthy interest groups that was evident in the 2005 election?

Hon MARK BURTON: Madam Speaker—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. When questions are asked, all members in the House are entitled to hear the answer.

Hon MARK BURTON: One of the new measures is that third parties will have to notify the Chief Electoral Officer of their involvement in election activities if they intend to spend over $5,000 nationally or $500 in a constituency. There will be a $60,000 limit nationally and a $2,000 limit in any one constituency for third parties.

Gerry Brownlee: Unless you’re a union.

Hon MARK BURTON: No, including the unions. Clearly defined rules on third-party election activities will mean that third parties can continue to have their say on issues of concern, but at a reasonable level. In 2005, New Zealanders—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the interests of fairness, I think I should point out to you that there is a person asleep in the press gallery. You know what a sin that is for the rest of us here.

Madam SPEAKER: The member has been here long enough to know that that was not an appropriate intervention. We do not refer to members in the gallery.

Hon MARK BURTON: That would, after all, be an unfair thing to do! I can say that in 2005 New Zealanders were shown that our electoral system was not as safe from abuse as most had believed it was. The public will be able to see who is behind third-party political campaigns, because this bill establishes fair and transparent rules around campaigns from third-party friends of the National Party.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the limit of $60,000 that he is applying to all interest groups for the whole of an election year is not much more than the cost of a full-page ad in a handful of our newspapers, and can he confirm that the only possible reason for that in 2008 is to suppress criticism of the incumbent Government?

Hon MARK BURTON: I most certainly cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that the limit is to ensure that the sorts of groups that sought to rort the last election and buy a result will not be allowed to get away with that in future. Ordinary New Zealanders deserve a contest of ideas, not a contest of rich people’s bank accounts.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tatou katoa e huihui mai nei i te Whare i te rā nei. Kei te mārama te Minita i hui māua ko tā mātou Kaiārahi Tari me te Kaiārahi Tari o Te Rōpū Reipa i te hāpāhi o te 9 o te ata i te 5 o Paenga-whāwhā 2007 ki te kōrero i Te Pire Pūtea Pōti engari, kua pānui kē ki te niupepa Dominion Post i taua ata o te 5 o Paenga-whāwhā 2007, ā, ka taea e ia te kī i muri mai i ērā momo whāki kōrero, koi rā te āhua o te whakawhiti whakaaro?

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

[Is the Minister aware that a meeting was held at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 5 April 2007 between the chief of staff of the Labour Party, myself, and the Māori Party chief of staff, to discuss the Electoral Finance Bill, which had already been leaked to the press that morning in a Dominion Post article; and would he say that informing after that leak was consultation?]

Hon MARK BURTON: I am not sure what ministerial responsibility I have for that particular meeting, but, yes, I am aware of it. Certainly, I would regard that as an engagement with the Māori Party of a type referred to in one of my answers.

Darren Hughes: Can the Minister tell the House which political parties in Parliament have asked him for a briefing on the Electoral Finance Bill?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think a number of parties—I referred to them in the principal answer—have already received a briefing, either because they have asked for it or because they have been offered it. To the best of my knowledge, neither the National Party nor the ACT party has asked for a briefing, at all.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the effect of his legislation is that in an election year, from 1 January for up to 11 months of that year, anyone who wants to publish anything that is critical of the Government will be subject to tight rules and tight spending caps the likes of which we have never seen before, but that the Government will be free to run multimillion-dollar, large-scale, taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns on any or all of its policy, and that that is the intention of the legislation?

Hon MARK BURTON: Where do I begin? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: If members ask a question, they presumably wish to hear the answer.

Hon MARK BURTON: No; again, the member is clearly wrong. What I can confirm is that any third party that wishes to engage in the election campaign process will be constrained by spending limits. Given the spending rorts that we all saw in 2005 by those who sought to get around the law as it stood, that is desirable in order to ensure that the right of New Zealanders to have an open and a fair democratic process is preserved.

Dr Pita Sharples: Mai i te 5 o ngā rā o Paenga-whāwhā 2007, he aha ake ngā hui kua whakatūngia i waenganui i te Minita me ngā rōpū MMP hei wānanga i Te Pire Pūtea Pōti, ā, he aha ai i makere mai te Pāti Māori i te rārangi tono?

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

[What other meetings has the Minister had with MMP parties since 5 April 2007 to discuss the Electoral Finance Bill, and for what reason was the Māori Party dropped off the invitation list?]

Hon MARK BURTON: I cannot give the member the dates of the meetings I have had, or that my officials have had, off the cuff. I can say to the member that it was not a matter of dropping anyone off or in; it was about putting together a bill for this House to consider. The question is whether members of the House will support the bill in order to give New Zealanders the opportunity to consider it, submit on it, and even—possibly—improve it.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ko te mate kē kaore au i tino rongo i te whakautu o te Minita, e taea ana e koe te pātai ki a ia kia kōrero anō i tana whakautu?

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

[I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The problem is that I did not hear the Minister’s response. With respect, would it be in order for you to ask him to repeat his answer?]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please repeat his answer.

Hon MARK BURTON: I think, in essence, I cannot give the member, off the cuff, the dates of the meetings I have had or others have had on my behalf. But I can say to the member that it was not about dropping people in or out of consultation. It was about bringing together a bill that would enjoy the support of sufficient numbers of members of the House to be referred to a select committee, where it can then have the full consideration of members of Parliament and the wider community. I invite members to give that opportunity to New Zealanders and to support its referral to a select committee, where I am sure the bill will be further improved.

Hon Bill English: Given that the Minister said I was wrong in my description of the effect of the bill, can he tell me which bit is wrong: that every interest group in New Zealand will be subject to a spending limit of $60,000, the cost of a full-page ad in a handful of our provincial newspapers; that that $60,000 limit will apply from 1 January in an election year until the election is held; and that the bill has no restrictions on the amount of money that the Government is able to spend on multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns on any or all of its policies; and, finally, was I wrong when I said that that is the intent of the bill—to allow Labour to spend taxpayers’ money as much as it likes and stop everyone else criticising it?

Hon MARK BURTON: In reverse order, my answers are: firstly, no, the member is wrong, as I said he was. That is not the intent of the bill. Secondly, this bill does not deal with parliamentary expenditure either on the part of the Government or of individual members of Parliament. That matter is certainly being dealt with elsewhere. I would say to the member that members of Parliament must be able to continue to go about their legitimate business. Thirdly, the spending cap limit of course applies to groups and individuals who seek to be third parties in the election campaign process—to no one else.

Hon Bill English: Now that Labour is having trouble raising money and will be more than ever dependent on taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns in election year, is it the case that the reason why Madeleine Setchell was sacked was that she could be too professional and competent to go along with Labour’s plan to use the bureaucracy to advertise its election campaign promises?

Hon MARK BURTON: That question barely warrants a reply, but, no, I cannot confirm that.

Building—Consent Process

9. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports, if any, has he received on improvements to the building consent process? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Members who intervene again will leave the Chamber.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): I have received reports noting that building consent authorities are being audited and accredited to ensure they lift their game and deliver better services to people needing building consents. Yesterday I presented the Palmerston North City Council with its accreditation certificate. It is the first council to pass accreditation. The council has boosted its building control staff numbers from 12 to 20, put these staff through rigorous training programmes, and has invested in new information technology so that they are equipped to meet the new high-quality inspection and processing standards the Government is putting in place.

Moana Mackey: Has he received any reports on alternative changes to the building consent process?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes. I have seen a report from one Pat Seymour, who describes the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill as “a daft piece of potential legislation” that will mean “the only one that will end up paying every time is the general ratepayer”. Pat Seymour is the chair of the East Coast branch of the National Party, and was writing in the National Party’s East Coast Informer newsletter. The bill she criticises is in the name of one Dr Nick Smith and is supported by the National caucus, including Anne Tolley. I seek leave to table the East Coast Informer, a National Party newsletter, of January 2007.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the report by the Registered Master Builders Federation stating that it now takes longer to get a consent to build a house in New Zealand that it takes to build it.

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

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I seek to table the select committee report on the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill, in which the select committee notes that 20 percent of consents are processed outside the 20 working day period.

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

Corrections, Department—Confidence

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

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes; but the chief executive understands that he is responsible for continuing to make improvements, with clear lines of accountability across the whole department.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that section 107 of the Corrections Act enables prison staff to open an inmate’s incoming and outgoing mail where they suspect that letters may be used to threaten or endanger the recipient of that mail; if so, why was a serial stalker allegedly allowed to receive graphic photos of the death scene of a man who committed suicide, and why was he then allegedly allowed to forward them on to the dead man’s partner?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of the claims the member has made there. Currently an investigation is under way. The current situation is that corrections staff are limited in their ability to block mail. I consider the situation untenable. I have sought and obtained Cabinet approval to introduce a bill next month that will allow corrections staff to screen all mail, and block any intimidating, threatening, or inappropriate correspondence.

Hon Phil Goff: Was the decision to send to the inmate the material relating to the inquest made by his department or by the coroner’s office; and were graphic photos part of the package sent to the inmate, as alleged by Simon Power,?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Approval to release the information was made by the coroner’s department; and I am informed that no such graphic pictures were part of any information forwarded by the Ministry of Justice or by the coroner’s department.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the woman who allegedly received these photographs had also allegedly received over 200 letters from an inmate since he was jailed in 2004, yet according to the police: “This is despite the complainant requesting various prisons where the defendant had been incarcerated to put a stop on his mail to her.”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Those matters are currently under investigation. As I have said, I consider that the limited ability of corrections staff to intervene in mail is untenable. That is why I have moved to make the changes.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the inmate concerned been charged in court with criminal harassment for his actions; secondly, is the Minister aware of any other cases of inmates wrongly harassing people from their prison cells through correspondence?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes, that inmate has been charged; and I am aware of a number of incidents. There are two in particular, one of an inmate Samuel Wyatt in 1999, and another of a Glen Holden in 1988. Both of those prisoners harassed individuals from inside a prison. The Minister at the time was Nick Smith, and he did nothing.

Simon Power: Why did Public Prisons Service Northern Regional Manager, Warren Cummins, state: “There was nothing in the prisoner’s list of convictions that would have provided us with reasonable grounds to monitor his correspondence as a matter of course.”, when that inmate has 191 convictions, including criminal harassment, making false oaths, misuse of a telephone, forgery, impersonating police, speaking threateningly, threatening intimidation, and sending a letter threatening to kill?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I would consider that that would give an indication of the need to monitor. However, as I have said, there is a limited legal ability to intervene. That is why we will change the law. That inmate is being charged for all of those inappropriate allegations and threats made from within the prison.

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree with the view of his department that it is reluctant to find fault with its mail-screening process and had acted “within our legal ability”; and is that why his department has no plans to apologise to the woman who allegedly received this correspondence?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I consider that the mail-screening process could be improved, and I consider that the law needs to be changed to make sure that those improvements are carried out thoroughly and consistently.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was not going to raise a point of order, because this happens so often with the Labour Party. But I noticed Phil Goff’s intervention. I wish the House to note—and I would be happy to table my ministerial warrant—that I was the Minister neither in 1988 nor in 1999, as the Minister of Corrections claimed.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table three documents. One relates to Glen Holden, dated 21 October 1998. The second is Samuel Wyatt—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: 1998? He said 1988.

Hon Phil Goff: No, 1998. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a new point of order. I understand that when a member is on his feet addressing a point of order, other people are not to interject, and Nick Smith has just done so continuously.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. That is correct. In the answer to the original question, the date 1988 was used. If people wish to file documents—

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated, if he wishes to remain in this House. As I recall, the year stated was 1988. Although the member rose to correct that, as he well knows that is not a point of order. We then had another point of order wanting to table documents. That is where we are at, at this stage.

Hon Phil Goff: The first is dated 21 October 1998. The second is dated 22 January 1999.

Leave granted.

Hon Phil Goff: The third document is just to indicate that the member’s warrant actually ran from 8 December 1997 to 31 January 1999.

Leave granted.

Madam SPEAKER: I must say that when people are making points of order they are to be heard in silence.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I mistakenly said 1988, I correct my answer to say 1998, which was when that member, Nick Smith, was the Minister.

Respite Care—Regional Services

11. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Health: Which regions in New Zealand currently lack sufficient respite beds for disabled teenagers and adults who qualify, and what work, if any, is the Minister doing to address the issue?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Quite a lot of work is going on. The member raises an important issue. The priority areas for increased respite care in this year, 2007-08, are Hawke’s Bay, the Bay of Plenty, the Waikato, and some areas of the South Island—the details are not yet worked out, but it will certainly include Southland. That is where this year’s $4 million additional budget will be targeted. In the year just concluded, an additional $2 million was targeted at Auckland and Christchurch. In the 2008-09 year there will be further targeting, probably at Wellington and Northland.

Judy Turner: What explanation can the Minister give to members of the west Auckland family who, on top of looking after a young baby, have just learnt that their severely disabled 13-year-old can no longer attend respite care as there is no appropriate facility in west Auckland that takes clients that are 12 years old or over; and how does the Minister propose that this family survives?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That sort of case not only leads the member to ask her question but leads the ministry and myself to increase the availability of respite care, starting in the areas of greatest need. We do seek continued improvement, and the reason that we know where to go first is that the ministry has been holding consumer fora and actually asking the people who are affected. So we have a fairly informed response.

Maryan Street: What other improvements in disability services are under way or planned?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There are, of course, an awful lot, so why do I not just give the House a few examples in order to give members a feel for the various ways that the Government supports those with disabilities and their families? First of all, the level of payment for daily expenses for caregivers is being increased. Secondly, there is an increase in the investment for beds, which was part of my primary answer to the member’s question. Thirdly, there has been a very substantial investment in home-based support services: about a 40 percent increase since March 2005. Last but not least, my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson yesterday launched New Zealand’s first-ever draft caregiver strategy, which is now available for consultation and to be commented on by all who are interested in it.

Judy Turner: How many days of respite care are being allocated but not utilised due to a lack of appropriate services, and surely those figures alone should have been sending an alarm to the Ministry of Health regarding the crisis that faces families who are caring for family members with high and complex needs?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member is right. Respite care can be a bit tough in various parts of the country—and somewhat seasonal, if I might say that. What happens is that people are allocated respite care on the basis of need, and the areas where need is not able to be met are precisely where the extra investment is going, region by region.

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflict of Interest

12. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement regarding the conflict of interest allegations at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board: “the district health board has looked at it and found no material advantage”?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I do. The contract at the centre of the review has been examined already by the audit committee of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Its legal advice is that Mr Hausmann’s company did not receive any particular advantage. However, rumours continue, and at the request of Mr Hausmann himself I have decided we should have a fresh look.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why did the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board cancel the tender process for the community services contract?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It was well before a tender process, I can assure the member. I think it was a request for proposal process; it was very early on in the process. There was no tender. There was no contract. There was a request for proposal process, which legal advice said should start again in case it was unsafe.

Hon Tony Ryall: What were those matters that would have made it unsafe to continue with the process?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The matters that have been the subject of continual conjecture by the member and by other folk for the past 2 weeks, even though the review to take a look at these issues got under way before the National Party had ever heard about it.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the process was cancelled because of matters that are being raised in the House, and if the matters being raised in the House are those that the whistleblower revealed, how can there be no connection between those claims and the cancelling of the request for proposal process?

Hon PETE HODGSON: There is a very convoluted question sitting in there somewhere. Let me tell members what the answer is. In January 2006, now 18 months ago, the chair of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board rang me and said he had concerns because he had—[Interruption] He rang me—he did. He rang me and said he had concerns about a request for proposal process, and that one of the staff members of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board had raised those concerns with him. I discussed this matter with him for some time. He went on to take advice from lawyers, the Ministry of Health, and others, and, as a result, the audit committee said that the request for proposal process should cease in case it lead to an unsafe outcome. That was 18 months ago. Rumours persist, and because the person against whom they persist, Mr Hausmann, has written to me asking that the issue be looked at afresh, I have decided to look at it afresh.

( Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing. )

ENDS

© Scoop Media