Questions and Answers - Tuesday, 7 August 2007

Questions to Ministers

State Services Commissioner—Prime Minister's Statement

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that State Services Commissioner Dr Mark Prebble and his deputy Iain Rennie “are absolutely fiercely independent people” who take “potential … conflict of interest very seriously”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Why did it take the Prime Minister’s own department, the Solicitor-General, and her Minister of State Services to convince Dr Prebble to allow Don Hunn to be involved in the investigation into the Public Service actions into the recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It was Thursday last week that the State Services Commissioner issued terms of reference. They were broad ones. He then took advice on who should assist with the inquiry.

Darren Hughes: Has the Prime Minister seen any other reports of different approaches that could be taken to this issue of determining judgment in the State Services Commissioner?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I have. I saw a statement made yesterday that said I should decide immediately whether I had confidence in Dr Prebble. I heard another statement made this morning that said I should await the outcome of the inquiry before stating an opinion. As usual, both statements came from the National Party.

John Key: Why is it acceptable for Dr Prebble to remain as the head of the investigation into actions in which he was involved?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The State Services Commissioner has a statutory responsibility for overseeing employment issues in the Public Service. However, the commissioner, given the breadth of the terms of reference, has asked Don Hunn to compile an independent report. Don Hunn will investigate the relevant facts of the Public Service’s recent handling of the recruitment and employment processes relating to Ms Setchell. His full report will be made public.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister unhappy with Mark Prebble in the same way that she expressed her unhappiness with Hugh Logan on the Agenda TV programme; if not, why is that, because they both seem to have committed the same offence?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is a mystery to me why Mr Logan did not repeat what he told Mr Prebble to Mr Rennie as the acting State Services Commissioner.

John Key: Why does the Prime Minister think the inquiry will effectively be in the hands of Don Hunn, when Dr Prebble’s letter appointing Mr Hunn makes it abundantly clear that Dr Prebble will be drawing the final conclusions in the report?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said earlier, Dr Prebble has the statutory responsibility as the State Services Commissioner for the employment of chief executives. But what he has made clear is that the full report of Don Hunn will be issued, and it will be clear on what factual basis Dr Prebble then makes decisions.

John Key: When did she or her staff first become aware that David Benson-Pope had told Hugh Logan that he would be unable to be free and frank if Madeleine Setchell attended meetings in his office, and who provided her or her staff with that information?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand that Mr Rennie was advised of those comments by Mr Logan on Wednesday of last week. Mr Rennie then considered that sufficiently serious to ring the office of the Minister of State Services to advise. He then agreed that it would be appropriate for him to advise my office. My office was told, and I was briefed on Wednesday night by Mr Rennie. Sorry folks, there is no mystery here.

John Key: Has the Prime Minister forgotten that she publicly declared that Mr Hurring had rung her office and told her of the information?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member’s question I thought related to the free and frank comment. That I was made aware of last Wednesday by Mr Rennie.

Iraq—Combat Forces

2. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: Has he received any reports on New Zealand committing troops to Iraq?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): Yes, in fact three. I saw a report on Television One on 29 July 2007 in which the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, said: “We’ve made it quite clear we won’t be going to Iraq. We wouldn’t have sent troops to Iraq.” But then there was the report on TV3 on 28 May 2007, where in answer to John Campbell’s question: “Would you send troops to Iraq?”, Mr Key answered: “Well, no, not now.” Finally, there were two reports in the Rodney Times in February and March 2003 in which the same Mr John Key, and Dr Smith, said that New Zealand would commit troops to the war. Either Mr Key has a defective memory, or simply he is not telling the truth, to disguise his poor judgment and yet another flip-flop.

Jill Pettis: Would the Minister advise of any further reports he has seen on this matter?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have seen a report in the Rodney Times from February 2003 that quotes Mr Key as saying that he would be prepared to commit any support requested by the United States for a war against Iraq, including SAS and combat troops. [Interruption] I tell Mr Key to take a point of order, and I will table the report, to show he has not been telling the truth. He is also quoted in March as saying: “I know it may not be a popular decision, but at the end of the day we have to look to the future and that isn’t with some Franco-German coalition.” In March 2003 the Rodney Times further reported that both Mr Key and Dr Smith believed: “New Zealand troops should be alongside their British and United States allies as they continue their invasion of Iraq.” Both claimed, according to the chief reporter, that New Zealand is shirking its responsibility to its traditional allies. That does not stack up with his subsequent claims that he would not have committed troops to Iraq, and he knows it.

Keith Locke: Could the Minister tell the House how New Zealand would now be placed if it had sent combat troops to Iraq back in 2003?

Hon PHIL GOFF: New Zealanders were not by a large majority in favour of participating in the coalition of the willing, and supported the Labour-led Government’s decision not to participate in that war. I think that about 90 percent of New Zealanders are very relieved that that decision was on the judgment of a Labour-led Government, and that National was not in power to exercise Mr Key’s very poor judgment.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from this morning’s Melbourne Age headed “Invasion will stand condemned” by Richard Woolcott.

Leave granted.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from the Middle East News of June headed “Iraqi refugee catastrophe”.

Leave granted.

Gerry Brownlee: Would the Minister be interested in knowing Mr Key’s position and that of the National Party on the Boer War, the Crimean War, the First World War, the Second World War, and perhaps Korea, Viet Nam, or any other conflict in the past, or—

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has no responsibility for what the Opposition Party says.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I seek leave of the House to table articles from the Rodney Times on 11 February, the Rodney Times on 25 March, and transcripts from both Television One and TV3, which point out the absolutely contradictory stances of John Key.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should make it clear that if Mr Brownlee seeks leave to ask the question he sought to ask before, the Government certainly would have no objection.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

State Services Commissioner—Confidence

3. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: Does she have confidence in the State Services Commissioner; if so, why?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): Yes; because he is an experienced and a conscientious public servant, who has worked for both a National and a Labour Government during his long-term career.

Gerry Brownlee: How many times, between 27 May 2007 and 4 August 2007, did the Minister receive briefings, advice, or other communications from the State Services Commissioner, any person acting on his behalf, or any person acting on behalf of his office?

Hon ANNETTE KING: My recollection is that there were two or three phone calls between Mr Prebble and myself during that period.

Gerry Brownlee: Was the issue of concern being raised by the Minister’s then Cabinet colleague David Benson-Pope, over the appointment of a communications manager at the Ministry for the Environment, ever raised with her in any of those meetings, communications, advices, or telephone discussions?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Do I take it that the member is speaking about the period from 27 July to 4 August?

Madam SPEAKER: Could the member clarify the period that the question relates to, please.

Gerry Brownlee: I am speaking about the period from 27 May till 4 August.

Hon ANNETTE KING: As I said in this House 2 weeks ago, the first time that I was advised of any matters relating to this matter was on Wednesday, 4 July, when I was advised by Iain Rennie that he had met the Leader of the Opposition’s chief of staff—sorry, that was Tuesday, 3 July. Mr Rennie advised me, in my regular meeting, that he had met with the chief of staff of the Leader of the Opposition, at that gentleman’s request. They had discussed a number of issues, including the employment issue at the Ministry for the Environment, advertisements, and other matters. The advice he was giving me was that he had met with the Leader of the Opposition. That was the first time it was ever raised with me, and that was all that was raised with me.

Gerry Brownlee: Was the Minister aware that Dr Prebble was intending to publish an article in the Dominion Post on 20 July that was designed to create space for David Benson-Pope to deny involvement in this case, and does it concern her that Dr Prebble chose to be complicit in giving the Minister so much wriggle room?

Hon ANNETTE KING: In relation to the last part of that question, I say that I do not believe that that is the case. In relation to the first part of the member’s question, I tell him that I was advised on the afternoon of Thursday, 19 July that Dr Prebble had an op-ed piece in the Dominion Post for the following day. It would already have been submitted at that stage.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister concerned that Dr Prebble has now committed the same offence as Mr Benson-Pope, in being either forgetful or economical with the truth, but that although Mr Benson-Pope has lost his job, Dr Prebble appears to be keeping his—or does she accept a lower standard from the nation’s top public servant, which allows her to excuse his evasive behaviour?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I do not believe that Dr Prebble set out to mislead anybody; I think he genuinely forgot. He left to take some overseas leave, and I believe that he genuinely forgot. As the Prime Minister said, it is not a hanging offence to make a mistake—and that member has made plenty of mistakes, although I do notice that he has been demoted, probably for them.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister telling the House today that she believes that Dr Prebble genuinely forgot the most salient fact in this whole case: that Dr Prebble forgot that the reason why this case was controversial was information that he had had at all times?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I believe that he genuinely forgot, because at that point it was not an issue, as far as Dr Prebble was concerned. At least he does know which job he has—at least he knows he is the State Services Commissioner—and does not claim to be the leader of the Labour Party.

Gerry Brownlee: Did the Minister note that in answer to questions today the Prime Minister has agreed that Mr Hunn will only be assisting Dr Prebble, who remains the key inquirer in this matter, thus making him the judge, the jury, the prosecution, the defence, and the key witness in this particular case; if so, how could she possibly expect the public to have confidence that Dr Prebble can ensure the political neutrality of the Public Service?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I do not think anyone here would doubt the integrity of Mr Don Hunn, who will be working alongside Dr Prebble in the inquiry. I would refer the member to Dr Prebble’s letter to Mr Hunn, which I am happy to table. It sets out very clearly exactly how he expects the inquiry to be undertaken. He has been very transparent in doing that, and I would say that the member has spent most of his time since he has been National’s spokesperson on the State services in bagging chief executives and demanding their resignations.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister offered to table some information. I think she should carry out that particular offer.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table the letter from Dr Prebble to Mr Hunn.

Leave granted.

Therapeutic Products Legislation—Progress

4. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of State Services: Has she received any further recent reports regarding progress on the joint therapeutic products legislation?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): Yes. Since last Wednesday I have seen a number of reports. Today I want to comment on four of them. These reports are from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Key, on being asked whether he would support a compromise two-tier system, said he would and he could. Then, later, he said he could not and would not. Later still, he said he could not because he would not. Finally, he said he did not because he had not. He reminded me of that character in the Dr Seuss story Green Eggs and Ham, who could have, would have, and should have. If members of this House are confused, I have to tell them that they are nowhere nearly as confused as the Leader of the Opposition is.

Steve Chadwick: What other reports has the Minister seen on a two-tier system for complementary medicines?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have read a number of comments, particularly from some very good journalists in New Zealand. For example, Audrey Young of the New Zealand Herald strongly asserts that the Leader of the Opposition clearly stated that if such a proposal were put in front of him, he would sign it. I have also read the comments of Colin James in today’s New Zealand Herald, who said Mr Key has “stayed on the low ground in points-scoring politics, got tongue-tied in word-fights with the Herald—and dragged the Australian High Commissioner into domestic politics, a seriously un-prime-ministerial act.” When Mr Key finally makes up his mind, I suggest he gives us a call.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a report from the esteemed journalist whom the Minister was quoting, which says that it now appears that Annette King’s two-tier scheme was not the same as Winston Peters’ two-tier scheme, and maybe she would like to tell us where the confusion comes from.

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

Electoral Finance Bill—Election Advertisement

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: What is the definition of an election advertisement under clause 5 of the Electoral Finance Bill?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): An election advertisement under clause 5 means “words or graphics, or both, that can reasonable be regarded as …(i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more … parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates: (ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that … [holds] views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued …” by a party or candidate, or “(iii) taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties or 1 or more candidates is associated;”. The definition covers candidate and party advertisement, and it includes exceptions. It is available to the member in the bill if he would prefer to read it.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that this definition means that almost anything that anyone says about any topic of public interest in an election year—almost anything that anyone could turn into words or graphics—will be an election advertisement, because, across the range of the political spectrum, parties hold positions on just about everything that can be publicly discussed?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I cannot confirm that, and I give the member one example—[Interruption] I tell Dr Nick Smith to listen, just for once. For instance, I could suggest to the member that a club, an organisation, or a church could produce for distribution widely among its members words and graphics that would not be caught at all by this provision; they would come within the many exceptions. Again, this information is available to the member if he reads the rest of this part of the bill. This provision is based on two similar international precedents: the definition of “electoral advertising” in the Canada Elections Act and the election material in the UK Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us whether the six key messages of the Littlies Lobby, including “children must come first”, “children must have the right start”, “children must be nurtured to thrive”, and three others, would count as election advertising if that document were published by anyone in an election year, because the security and welfare of children is an issue on which parties and candidates take positions, or, to use the term in the legislation, do not take positions?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member well knows, any specific document produced by any specific group would need to be submitted for appropriate consideration. It would be quite inappropriate for me—without even seeing the document, probably—to offer a view of that in the House.

Hon Bill English: Does that mean that the Minister, after 6 months of preparing this legislation, cannot tell the House whether a publication that includes the message: “children must have quality care”; and “children must be secure at home”, would qualify as an election advertisement; and does he not think that that matters, when so many groups around New Zealand will want to campaign, next year, on the care of children?

Hon MARK BURTON: As the member well understands, I think, the circulation of general information and views is not the same as overt campaigning. Of course, for the member to ask me to give him an opinion on a particular document that he waves about in the House, would be foolhardy in the extreme.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that section 5(1)(iii): “taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties or 1 or more candidates is associated;” counts as an election advertisement, meaning that anything said by any party or any candidate, becomes an election advertisement if anyone else says anything about it—and that will almost certainly include the welfare of children, because many candidates and many parties will be making statements about the welfare of children?

Hon MARK BURTON: No. The member is speaking nonsense.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister now advise the House in what respect the six key messages of the Littlies Lobby are not statements about something that a party or a candidate might have mentioned?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I have indicated to the member—and perhaps most important—I have not seen the document and, therefore, to offer an opinion on it would be foolhardy.

Hon Bill English: How can the House trust a Minister who, in response to my previous question, said I was talking nonsense and then, when I asked him for an explanation, said he could not offer an opinion; and does not that mean that he and the Labour Party are embarrassed about the breadth of the definition of what is covered as an election advertisement, because it covers anything anyone says about any public issue, and that this definition is designed to shut down the critics of, for instance, the Government’s failure to deal with child abuse?

Hon MARK BURTON: The answer to the first of those many, many questions is that the response I gave to the previous question related to the wild and woolly statement made by the member rather than to the particular document that my latter answer related to.

Hon Bill English: I seek leave to table the Littlies Lobby six key messages, so that the Minister—

Leave granted.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister believe that every New Zealander enjoys the right to freedom of speech; if so, how does he square that freedom with the Electoral Finance Bill; and, if he does not believe they enjoy that freedom, what are the principles that determine the limits that should be placed on New Zealand’s freedom of speech and freedom of political expression?

Hon MARK BURTON: In answer to the first question, yes I do; and I square it with the fact that the bill sets out, consistent with the provisions Parliament has upheld in legislative force since 1895, the notion that unlimited expenditure should not be allowed to overcome the voice of ordinary New Zealanders in determining the outcome of their political franchise.

Gangs—Consorting Laws

6. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: Is the Government still contemplating the amendment of consorting laws to limit the ability of criminals, particularly gangs, to meet and plan their crimes, and what progress can he report on his instruction to officials to review section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 in order to further improve its effectiveness?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes, we certainly are. As the member has previously told the House, the National - New Zealand First coalition Government changed the law around consorting in 1997. It had some difficulties. By introducing section 98A of the Crimes Act, this Government improved those provisions in 2002. More recently, we have progressed work to significantly strengthen and improve the sanctions under section 98A for those who participate in organised criminal activity. We will amend the Crimes Act to double the maximum sentence from 5 years to 10 years for the offence of participation in an organised crime group. Consequently, police powers will be expanded to allow interception devices to be used in investigations of offending suspected to be a result of organised activity, and to enable “participation” to be used as a stand-alone offence rather than an add-on to other charges. In addition, we will amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to provide that it is an aggravating factor when an offence is committed for the benefit of or under the direction of, or is associated with, an organised crime group.

Ron Mark: Has he or his officials investigated the laws of overseas jurisdictions such as Singapore, Canada, Hong Kong, and Los Angeles where being a member of a gang is illegal; if so, is this Labour-led Government prepared to introduce similar legislation, as advocated by New Zealand First?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I have indicated to the member, considerable work has already been done to arrive at the positions that Cabinet has considered and resolved on in recent months. Further work is being done, and although I do not have a specific response to the question the member asks, I can assure him that further provisions to toughen up this area of the law are under active consideration.

Ron Mark: Does the Government not see the sick irony of its position where on the one hand it publicly proclaims its determination to clamp down on gangs, whilst on the other hand it is sending messages that it tolerates and condones the existence of gangs by refusing to outlaw them in the same way it does terrorist organisations?

Hon MARK BURTON: That is not actually what I said. As I have indicated to the member, a decision has already been taken by Cabinet to make amendments to section 98A of the Act to effectively double, from 5 to 10 years, the sentence for the offence of participation in an organised crime group—

Simon Power: What an excellent idea.

Hon MARK BURTON: —I note that Mr Power has borrowed yet another policy of this Government—and a significant enhancement of police powers will be possible as a result of that change.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister accept that gangs, who are New Zealand’s home-grown domestic terrorists, pose a far greater and more immediate threat to the average New Zealander and his or her family than any of the international terror organisations his Government has listed and banned; if so, should New Zealanders conclude that the Government is more concerned about the security and well-being of citizens in other countries than it is about the safety and well-being of its own?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, people should not consider that that is the case. The Government of the day does not have the luxury of dealing with one or other of those matters. International terrorism is a real and present danger to the people of New Zealand, as is organised crime. This Government has taken effective measures on both.

Simon Power: Has the Minister seen a press release of 6 May, following the gang shooting of toddler Jhia Te Tua, in which Ron Mark called for immediate action and said he would be seeking an “urgent meeting with the police Minister to discuss ways of dealing with gangs”, and can the Minister confirm that the response of his colleague—that is, his colleague Annette King—to written questions from my colleague was that she had never met nor spoken with Mr Mark in the week following that statement?

Hon MARK BURTON: I cannot speak for my colleague’s diary, of course. He should put the question to the appropriate Minister.

Ron Mark: I wish to make a personal statement. I want to put it on the record that I, instead, had discussions with the Prime Minister on numerous occasions over that very matter. The member should ask the right questions at the right place.

Health Sector—Industrial Unrest

7. Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What action, if any, is he taking to address continuing industrial unrest across the health sector?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): District health boards, which are the employers, advise me that over recent months various settlements have been reached involving radiotherapists, laboratory workers, medical radiation technologists, and service and food workers. Senior doctors’ negotiations are both protracted and ongoing, nurses’ negotiations are proceeding well at this time, and a range of other negotiations—too long to list—have begun or are scheduled to begin.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is the Minister aware that because of industrial action, heart patients have been missing out on essential surgery and, as a result, suffering serious heart attacks, and is it not time he realised that there is a human cost to his mismanagement of the health system?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member may not be aware that there are life-preserving services in the New Zealand legislation—in our black-letter law. They are used whenever there is an industrial dispute, and I am not aware of anyone’s life being at risk as the result of an industrial dispute to date.

Barbara Stewart: Would he agree that the current failure of senior doctors’ pay talks does no credit to the district health boards, the doctors, and the Government in equal measure, and that the ultimate losers will be New Zealanders, who depend on the health system; if so, how long will the Government maintain its hands-off approach?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, it is true that the negotiations have been going on for longer than a year, but let us remember that the last time senior doctors were in negotiations they negotiated for longer than a year, too. Certainly, none of the stopwork meetings, which have been long signalled and well advertised, have themselves disrupted health care, to my knowledge. But, yes, it is time that these negotiations came to a conclusion, and I do hope to see progress.

Maryan Street: Could the Minister advise us about the life-preserving services legislation that is in existence currently, and could he particularly advise us on how that law came about and whether it was in existence 10 years ago?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes. There is good law, and quite what it states is for each of us to read. It is a part of New Zealand’s statutes. It came about because the district health boards and the Council of Trade Unions agreed on a code, which was then legislated for. To answer the member’s other question, no, it did not exist 10 years ago, because back then was the period of the Employment Contracts Act, which did not promote codes of that sort, and did not even recognise in law that unions existed. We have moved on from that, thank goodness.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is the Minister surprised to hear that a Glenfield heart patient, Mr Rick Donnelly, was told by doctors that he needed bypass surgery, yet Auckland District Health Board bureaucrats said they could not give him any certainty that he would ever get his operation, after which time he had a further heart attack; and does the Minister consider that that is an acceptable situation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not deal with individual cases. [Interruption] Oh, I see. Let me just say again—and I hope this time I get a chance to be heard—that I do not deal with individual cases without notice, but I am very happy to look at the case that the member raises, or any other case. If the member wants to shroud wave, he needs to be careful that he has all of the facts. The long and short of it is that the primary question was about industrial unrest, and I am not sure whether there has been any at North Shore Hospital in the last month.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister accept the explanation of the Auckland District Health Board that a key factor in the failure to deliver cardiac surgery for patients like Mr Donnelly has been the effect of strike action, and does he realise that his failure to resolve industrial unrest in our hospitals is adversely affecting the health of New Zealanders?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not able to comment on an individual case, as I explained in my answer to the last supplementary question, but I will say to the member something quite uncomplicated, and that is that there was more elective surgery in this country in the year finished 30 June than there has ever been in our history. Can we please give some credit to people who do that work, who get those patients seen, even though there might be industrial unrest. We have set a new record. Why are we not pleased about that, and why are we not thankful to health professionals who get it done?

Housing—Affordability

8. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received about support for affordable housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): I have seen reports of a speech given in Auckland over the weekend claiming to support the “home-ownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders”. Curiously, I have also seen a report from the same person that described Housing New Zealand Corporation’s Hobsonville development, where 15 percent of the 3,000 new homes being built will be reserved for first home owners, as “economic vandalism”. It seems that John Key supports affordable housing as long as it is not in his own electorate.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has he seen any other reports on ways to increase the supply of land for housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am advised that the construction of a very large mansion in St Stephens Avenue in Parnell, a home that a number of members opposite are very familiar with, required two sections to be merged so that the large house could be built, and that it required the shifting of a third house in order to make way for an all-weather tennis court. It is good for some people.

Phil Heatley: Why is it that today the average price for a bare section is $175,000, when that exact figure purchased a house plus a section when Labour first came to Government?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: As every person in this House will be aware, house prices do move up—particularly in good times. What I can report is that at the moment a considerable amount of empty land contained within the metropolitan urban limit is being sat on by property speculators.

Hon Mark Gosche: What further reports has the Minister seen about ways to encourage affordable housing?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have seen reports, grandly called “a concrete plan for making housing more affordable”, advocating the gutting of the Resource Management Act, the hocking-off of State houses, and the deregulation of the building industry. Many of those policies were inflicted on New Zealanders in the 1990s by a National Government, and they led to entrenched poverty, the rise of Third World diseases, the emergence of leaky homes, and far fewer Kiwis owning their own homes. It seems that National has learnt nothing from the past.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that if policies to address housing affordability concentrate on demand-side issues and fail to address immigration—a key driver of house prices—then housing will continue to become increasingly unaffordable for many New Zealanders; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: What I can record is that we are building record numbers of houses. But we are not building affordable houses, and the Government is moving rapidly to address that issue.

Tariana Turia: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. What action has been taken following the report Māori Housing Experiences: Emerging Trends and Issues by the Centre for Housing Research, Aotearoa New Zealand, which recommended that the Government should employ the multibillion-dollar asset base of Housing New Zealand to borrow responsibly on the money markets, for the purpose of developing affordable homes for low and middle income families?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Government is addressing the question of affordable homes in a variety of ways. One of those is providing rental accommodation through income-related rents for our tenants, one-third of whom are of Māori origin. In addition to that, we have a very active programme of repairing rural houses and providing initiatives, with third sector groups such as iwi groups, to create housing opportunities outside our urban centres.

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question related to affordable houses for individuals and families, not to rental accommodation.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister addressed it; it was not clear from the question what sort of housing it was about. I do not know whether the Minister wants to add anything.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I took it that affordable housing included rental accommodation, but for homeownership we have the Welcome Home Loan scheme, which almost 3,000 people have now accessed; we have signalled that we are piloting a shared equity scheme; and we have a major initiative in providing affordable housing that will be announced before Christmas.

Phil Heatley: Why does he ignore the housing supply in Auckland report that his own agency commissioned, which says the RMA process needs a revamp, and also says land availability is a constraining factor; why does he ignore those issues, and make out that Hobsonville and a cute little shared equity scheme for the lucky few will be of any use to the hundreds of thousands of families across New Zealand who cannot afford their first home?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am interested in any scheme that will deliver affordable housing for New Zealanders. I am not interested in clichés and failed policies. I would like to quote the Taranaki Daily News, which said last weekend “Mr Key offered platitudes and vagaries, political smoke and mirrors, and you can’t buy a house with that.”

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table today’s bare section prices, which are greater than house and section prices in 2006.

Leave granted.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Government’s Auckland housing report, criticising the Resource Management Act and recommending sensible land release.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table an editorial from the Taranaki Daily News that is headlined “Key plan built on a house of cards”.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table an article from the Waikato Times that says that the Opposition has sensationalised its criticisms and that it is mischievous and illogical.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Herald describing the redevelopment by the Housing New Zealand Corporation in the Glen Innes area, and saying “State houses become stately homes”.

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

Question No. 1 to Minister—Amended Answer

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I seek to correct an answer to an earlier question, under Standing Order 350. In answer to an earlier question I said I became aware of the “free and frank” comments of the former Minister for the Environment last Wednesday. It was, in fact, two Wednesdays ago, which only proves that time flies when one is having fun.

School-leavers—Qualifications

9. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: What proportion of students leaving school in 2006 left without a qualification?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: The number of students leaving school without completing National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 1 decreased from 28 percent in 2005 to 24 percent in 2006. Even more significantly, the number of students leaving school with little formal attainment or none at all halved between 1999 and 2006. There is still a lot of work to do, but we are making progress.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that last year over 14,000 students left school with no formal qualification—which means they did not get even NCEA level 1—and that in pockets of New Zealand the figures are worse, such as Kawerau and the Buller District, where one in two students left school without any qualification whatsoever?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As I have already said, there is a lot of work to do. This Government is committed to decreasing the number of students who leave school with no qualification. However, we should not just assume that a student who has left school has not gone to some other form of learning.

Dianne Yates: Has Māori student achievement improved since the introduction of the NCEA?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Māori students are showing significant improvements. The number of Māori students leaving school with little or no formal attainment is down from 40 percent in 1996, when National were in Government—and Tau Henare was there—to 25 percent in 2005. In 2006 more Māori school-leavers were qualified to enter university than ever before. There is still a lot of work to do, but we are making progress.

Katherine Rich: How can the Minister stand there and crow about small successes when it is still the case that over 46 percent of young Māori leave school with absolutely nothing?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is correct. In a strong economy, that happens to children of manual labourers. They grew up in the 1990s, when their families were totally benefit dependent; all they saw was their parents getting their income from benefits. What has happened in the strong economy is that those young people are running to get an income. We are trying to make sure that they get skilled and get qualifications as they go.

Katherine Rich: How can the Minister stand and defend his Government’s record in education, when one in three children leave primary school not able to add or subtract at the level expected of those of their chronological age, and when 25 percent of kids leave school with absolutely no qualification to their name, whatsoever?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Easily; the improvements have been quite dramatic. The percentage of year 11 students achieving the literacy requirement has risen from 70.6 percent in 2003 to 75.8 percent in 2006. It was a lot lower in the 1990s. The percentage of year 11 students achieving the numeracy requirement has risen from 74.5 percent in 2003 to 82.9 percent in 2006.

Katherine Rich: How can the Minister say that the success is dramatic, when one in three children leave our primary schools not able to add, subtract, multiply, or divide at anywhere near the level expected of those of their chronological age, and is not that what all parents in this country expect for their children after 6 years at primary school?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Quite easily, because the results speak for themselves. Children learn in different ways and in different times.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is it not a fact that when there is an average, there is a group below that average, and is it not a great thing—

Hon Bill English: You are it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: We have representatives of the below-average group sitting opposite. Is it not time that New Zealanders were proud that their children are in the top group of the OECD for reading, for maths, and for science, and would it not have been good if the National Government had put in the investment, so that the rest of our economy was that way, too?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is definitely correct. There are other percentages that mirror the great progress made by this Government. When the Labour-led Government came in—led by Helen Clark, not by John Key—the unemployment rate was 21.4 percent. It is now tracking down to 5 percent. Māori can go to work, earn an income, and get a better life.

Hon Tau Henare: I seek leave to table a document that shows that 46 percent of Māori boys leave with nothing, and 42 percent of Māori girls leave—

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

Question No. 10 to Minister

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was directed explicitly to the Prime Minister. I question why it has been transferred to the Minister of Finance, when he has publicly stated that he cannot comment on one of the most topical and controversial of our key strategic assets.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member is fully aware, having been in the House for some time now, it is for the Government to assign the questions.

Overseas Investment—Strategic Assets

10. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that there are important strategic assets that should be kept in New Zealand control; if so, how does he propose that this is achieved?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes; that is why Labour has retained, and will retain, ownership of major strategic assets, as well as buying back the rail network and majority ownership of Air New Zealand.

Sue Kedgley: Is he aware that many countries in the world have explicit legislative powers that enable them to retain key strategic assets in national ownership, and does he believe that it would be useful if the New Zealand Government had similarly explicit powers to enable it to decline the takeover of a key strategic asset if it were considered to be in the national interest; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Legislation around these matters varies considerably across developed democratic societies. In New Zealand these matters are governed by the Overseas Investment Act, and generally speaking an application for the purchase of a strategic asset would trigger a set of national interest tests under the Overseas Investment Act. The member is shaking her head. I am afraid that as long as sensitive land is concerned, then the test is in fact one that involves those national interest tests. It is highly likely that almost any strategic asset would involve some element of land that comes within the “sensitive land” definition, because it covers many, many different categories. If I can just correct the member on the matter she raised previously, I am perfectly free to comment on the matter in relation to Auckland airport. Because I am a shareholder in Air New Zealand I am not free to be the Minister making the decision under the Overseas Investment Act.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is the Minister aware of the potential influence on the Dubai deal that could arise from the shareholdings of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund that, when combined with the Auckland local authorities’ holdings, are large enough to reach the 25 percent threshold needed to prevent the deal, and does Labour’s favouring of both councils retaining their stakes extend to the holdings of ACC and superannuation funds; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If I deal just specifically with the Superannuation Fund: the legislation covering that fund would quite clearly prevent the Government giving an instruction to the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation about divestment of that particular asset. I am afraid this is a case where the general rule about political interference in the management of that fund is more important than the specific issue around a particular asset.

Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that the national interest clause relates to only the sale of sensitive land and that this is a technicality that may or may not permit the Government to decline the sale of a key strategic asset, and it would therefore be useful if we had explicit legislative powers that enabled the Government to turn down the sale of a key strategic asset if it were considered to be in the national interest?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is useful that the issue could be explored. In the case of Auckland International Airport it is absolutely clear that the “sensitive land” test is triggered for any number of different reasons, and it would meet that test on a number of different criteria. It clearly involves, for example, land bordering foreshore and seabed, it is over a certain size, and it is more than a certain value; there are many different ways in which the airport sale would come within the “sensitive land” test. As I said, I would expect that most matters that are strategic assets, because of the very broad nature of the “sensitive land” test would be likely to trigger it.

Sue Kedgley: Is he concerned that in the absence of clear legislative powers to restrict or decline the takeover of a key strategic asset, it could fall into the hands of foreign Governments, as would be the case, for example, with the Auckland International Airport, since, of course, Dubai Aerospace is owned by the Government of Dubai?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding is that the Government is one of the owners of Dubai Aerospace, not the only owner of Dubai Aerospace, and clearly there are issues surrounding that. It would be hard to say why that would be necessarily worse than falling into the hands of a multinational oil company; or, worse still, an overseas company that might be involved in genetic modification experimentation, which I feel would be even higher on the list of potential sins for owners of an airport.

Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that, contrary to what the member from New Zealand First said, the Green Party presented a 7,000-strong petition 2 years ago, calling for tighter restrictions on foreign investment when the Overseas Investment Act was being considered; and why was it that the Government and New Zealand First opposed a series of amendments by the late Rod Donald that sought to tighten restrictions in the Overseas Investment Act and to require the national interest to be considered before selling significant business assets?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is significant that in that question the term has moved from “strategic assets” to “significant business assets”. I think the problem in any issue of this sort is defining exactly what one means. One can quickly slide from Auckland International Airport, which clearly is a strategic asset, to one’s local organic potato patch, which might not be a strategic asset in an understanding of a broader definition.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the Overseas Investment Act, which says that one can buy sensitive land, provided—

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the petition by 7,000 New Zealanders calling for tougher rules on foreign investment.

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave of the House for the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership) Bill in my name to be introduced and put down for its first reading.

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

Corrections, Department—Confidence

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

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

Simon Power: Is it his Government’s policy to allow parole for a convicted rapist who has served only 2 years of a 7-year sentence and then to fail to tell the victim that the offender was being granted home detention?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that when the victim of Peter McNamara contacted his office on Thursday 2 August she was told that it was not the office’s responsibility and that it had not received a report on the case, yet the Parole Board told her that it had put in a report to his office the day before; if not, why else would the victim say: “Everyone else has put up their hand and apologised yet the Minister’s office says: ‘It’s got nothing to do with us.’ ”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Parole Board, or an employee of the Department of Corrections who works for the Parole Board, did ring my office and notify us of the issue. Once the Parole Board had identified that the victim had not been given the opportunity to appear at the parole hearing the panel was alerted of the serious oversight. The victim was contacted immediately by staff and an apology made. The panel subsequently revoked its decision on Friday, 3 August. Mr McNamara’s hearing will be reheard before a different panel, allowing time for the victim to prepare and present a submission to the board—and that is the way it should be.

Simon Power: Did his office tell the victim of Peter McNamara that it had not received a report on this case, or not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We had not received a report on this case. We had been notified of the issue by the Parole Board. It is not appropriate, at all, for me to have any input into the Parole Board’s operations.

Tariana Turia: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Why did the Government use $137 million to build a facility at Ngāwhā, despite being told not to by the Northland Regional Council, which refused to give resource consent for the construction of the prison, by Ngāpuhi, who told the Government that the site was geologically active and unsuitable for major construction, and by local residents, who warned that it would cost millions to maintain the facility at Ngāwhā because of slumping and corrosive gases from the geothermal field?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: A resource consent was eventually given for the Ngāwhā site. Approval to proceed on that site was signed off by the previous National Government, which was fully aware of all the geo-technical challenges of that site at that time.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm to the House now that Ngāwhā prison is actually sinking, despite—

Hon Rick Barker: Ha, ha!

Simon Power:—well, Rick Barker can laugh, but he should check his facts—his predecessor’s claims that “The site is not physically inappropriate.”, and “There are no expected future problems with site stability.”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Ngāwhā prison is a facility of 37 buildings extending over 190 hectares. One corner of one building has settled, and a crack of 10 millimetres has appeared. Not even the skinniest of prisoners could get out of that. This in no way threatens the integrity or the operation of Ngāwhā prison.

Simon Power: Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: No, there are no further supplementary questions.

Simon Power: I seek the leave of the House to ask the Minister a further supplementary question.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm the contents of a memo he received from his department that states that the Ngāwhā site “was known to have geo-technical difficulties”; and as the cost of building the prison has ballooned from $40 million to $ 133 million, how much more will it cost the taxpayer, in light of the fact that the liability period for defects, under the collaborative working arrangements system of contracting, lapsed in March 2006?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I can confirm that the situation is being monitored and there is one corner of one building where settling may continue. I say that, yes, we were very aware of the geo-technical problems with that site. So, too, was the previous National Minister, Mr Clem Simich, who signed the agreement to proceed with the prison, fully aware of all the geo-technical challenges of that site.

I seek to table the signed agreement of 8 November 1999, signed by Mr Clem Simich, to proceed with Ngāwhā prison—

Leave granted.

Simon Power: I seek leave of the House to table a memo, dated 8 November 2005, where the Ngāwhā site was described as having cracks identified—

Leave granted.

Health Services—Funding

12. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on the security of funding for health services in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have. I have seen two reports, and both are sobering. The first is from Tony Ryall, National’s health spokesperson, who, when asked to commit to this Labour-led Government’s level of investment in health, was unable to do so. That did not sound encouraging, but the second report is worse. It is from National’s leader, John Key, who said explicitly on Saturday that National’s expenditure on health would be at a lower rate than Labour’s. It looks as though National is back to its old tricks of promising the moon on a sixpence.

Sue Moroney: Can New Zealanders be confident that they will continue to access affordable and quality primary health care?

Hon PETE HODGSON: In the case of primary health care, my answer is no and yes. The National Party still needs to clarify its position on low doctors’ fees and low prescription charges. It is on record as both supporting them and opposing them. National has had nearly 8 years in Opposition but still has no health policy.

Question No. 10 to Minister

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier I sought leave to table a bill, and I believe that you thought I was seeking leave to table a document. I would now like to seek the leave of the House to table my Overseas Investment (Restrictions on Foreign Ownership) Bill, and to have it set down for first reading.

Madam SPEAKER: Is the leave to introduce or to table? Would the member please be clear.

SUE KEDGLEY: It is to introduce.

Madam SPEAKER: It is to introduce the bill, as opposed to just table it?

SUE KEDGLEY: That is right.

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media