Questions for oral answer
17 February 2009

1. Ministers—Confidence

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister agree with the New Zealand Herald and others that Gerry Brownlee’s procedural blunders in the House last Thursday were “a major embarrassment to the Government, which made it look like it didn’t know what it was doing”; and when is he going to take decisive action against the Ministers that he promised he would act against if they did not perform?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not agree with the New Zealand Herald, but I can confirm that by the end of this week, at the very latest, all stages of the Electoral Amendment Bill will have been passed. What I do find embarrassing is the way that the first action of the member, when he became the Leader of the Opposition, was to grovel to the New Zealand public to ask for forgiveness for the fact that the Labour Government had passed the Electoral Finance Act in the first place.

Hon Phil Goff: When will the Prime Minister apply the Government’s apparent commitment to “three strikes and you’re out” to Gerry Brownlee, who has now made significant blunders on three occasions in just three sitting weeks; or does he expect Labour to go on rescuing him from the consequences of his own incompetence?

Hon JOHN KEY: It is good to see that the Leader of the Opposition is so deeply focused on the Standing Orders that he does not seem to care about the economy.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A Minister, particularly the Prime Minister, is required to address a question, and I do not believe he did so—I think he deliberately avoided it.

Mr SPEAKER: I think experienced members know that if they ask political questions like that one, they are likely to get political answers.

Hon Phil Goff: How does the Prime Minister expect the country to have confidence in him, when he promised sincerely that the Government would lead by example on wage restraint, but as Minister responsible for Ministerial Services he has agreed to hefty pay rises for the Beehive political staff, with more than a trebling of the number earning more than $150,000 per year, a trebling of the number earning more than $120,000 per year, and an increase in the average salary by $13,000 a year, while at the same time the Prime Minister generously gave people on the minimum wage a net increase of $3.78 per week?

Hon JOHN KEY: It is true that we have paid higher salaries in Ministerial Services. It is also true that we have hired a lot fewer staff than Labour did. I might add that it is interesting to see how many extra communications staff members were added between April and October 2008 by the Labour Government—and I wonder why that was.

Hon Phil Goff: In respect of the Prime Minister’s answer, can he guarantee, in terms of the number of Beehive political staff, that the figures he quotes represent the total complement of political staff he intends to employ, and that the numbers include contracted staff and political staff who are privately paid for or paid by the Parliamentary Service?

Hon JOHN KEY: To the best of my knowledge the staff numbers that were released reflect the staff that the Government has. We have fewer staff in our communications department, because we are quite happy to operate with fewer people who are of a higher quality.

Hon Phil Goff: How can the Prime Minister justify keeping his promise that “We will be looking at wage moderation across the state sector at all angles.”, and that those in the Government sector should have job security and therefore “should take that on board”, when he triples the number of people in his own department—political hacks—being paid more than $150,000 a year?

Hon JOHN KEY: I assure the member that there will be wage restraint. I have made it quite clear that that vote will not be increasing, though staff are not expecting pay increases—

Hon Phil Goff: They just got them!

Hon JOHN KEY: Actually, they did not. We hired different staff.

2. Government Spending Commitments—Funding

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: Is he aware of any reports of Government spending commitments by the previous Government that have no funding set aside to pay for them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : There are quite a large number of such reports, and I will discuss just a few of them. The previous Government made multi-year commitments to a $1 billion home insulation programme, for which no funding was allocated, and it made a range of commitments exceeding a billion dollars of investment in the rail system, for which no funding was allocated. In addition, it neglected to commit to the $1 billion over 3 years needed to maintain the viability of the Accident Compensation Corporation non-earners fund.

Craig Foss: Has the Minister seen any further reports of Government spending commitments that have no funding set aside to pay for them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have. No funding was set aside for $300 million of economic transformation announced in the 2008 Budget, and there was only a fraction of the extra $600 million trumpeted for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the light of those very large commitments, the previous Government pretended that it would put together a Budget on just $1.75 billion for new spending for this year, when its average new spending on the 3 previous years was almost twice that figure.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister accept Treasury advice that it is proper practice for future, but as yet unfinalised, cost estimates to be specified as either specific or contingent fiscal risks; or is he assuring the House that his 2009 Budget will contain none of those?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury appears to have had a great deal of difficulty keeping up with the large number of unfunded promises made by the previous Government, such as the promise of the universal student allowance, which even Labour worked out during the election campaign was a vote-loser, not a vote-winner.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I see that you are already anticipating the nature of the point of order, that the response does not in any way address the question about the practice of unspecified fiscal risks.

Mr SPEAKER: The question, indeed, asked about the practice with respect to fiscal risks and the treatment in the Budget. I would ask the Minister to respond more directly to that part of the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I actually did not understand that question.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am willing to repeat the question or to provide a short tutorial—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Points of order do not have such comments attached to them at all. The honourable member should know that. I will invite him to repeat his question so that all members can ascertain the question and have it answered properly.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he accept Treasury advice that it is proper practice for future, but as yet unfinalised, cost estimates to be specified as either specific or contingent fiscal risks, or is he assuring the House that his 2009 Budget will contain none of these?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the member might like to answer the question as to why the specific and highly contingent fiscal risk of the non-earners account was left out of the pre-election update. Why did the Government try to hide that billion-dollar risk?

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you are well aware—and you have already ruled on it—my question was very specific. It was about the 2009 Budget. The member quoted a historical example, which does not counter the point that has been made. I look forward to the Minister addressing the question. Can we have another answer?

Mr SPEAKER: The question put to the Minister was pretty specific—it was about the treatment of fiscal risks. The Minister’s response was to ask why something was left out. I ask the Minister to indicate how fiscal risks will be treated in the future, which is what the questioner has asked. It seems to be a reasonable question. In the public interest the Minister does not have to answer, of course.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the member wanted the answer to that question he should have asked that question. You have put it much more clearly than the member did, and I invite him to ask a clear, straightforward question.

Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker, at your direction I have repeated the question twice. You obviously found it clear. I am happy to repeat it a third time if that would assist the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat the question. I expect, though, that if the question is as I heard it before, that technical question is to be answered.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister accept Treasury advice that it is proper practice for future but as yet unfinalised cost estimates to be specified as specific or contingent fiscal risks, or is he assuring the House that the 2009 Budget will contain none of those?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that you have three times directed the member to answer the question, particularly with reference to the forward-looking aspects of Budget 2009, can the Minister confirm that his answer—“Yes.”—was in relation to Budget 2009?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister does not need to enlarge on his answer. He chose to answer one part of the member’s supplementary question, I presume with respect to Treasury advice, and that is all, under the Standing Orders, that the Minister is required to do. If the member adds more than one part to a supplementary question, he cannot expect them all to be answered.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification from you. In the event that the 2009 Budget, for the first time since the Public Finance Act came into force, does not contain any specific fiscal risks, I take it the Minister will not be exposed to—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He well knows that that is not a point of order.

Craig Foss: What was the operating allowance for the 2009 Budget, as set out by the previous Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It seems from estimates from the commitments made by the previous Government that it made an allowance of $1.75 billion, but appeared to make commitments of more than $3 billion.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did his answer to my friend David Cunliffe’s last supplementary question apply to the first or the second leg of that supplementary question?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did not hear the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did not hear that question and I invite the Hon Trevor Mallard to repeat it. I ask members of the House please to keep the noise down so that Ministers can hear questions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can I ask the Minister whether his reply to David Cunliffe’s last question applied to the first or the second part of that question?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister seen reports that the Government’s so-called $9 billion economic stimulus package is in fact not new stimulus at all in that it is, rather, spending and tax cut decisions made very largely by the previous Government and before the latest data on the gravity of the international recession became available?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have seen those reports and I think most of them originated from me.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will there be unspecified or contingent fiscal risks outlined in the 2009 Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, it is a requirement of the Public Finance Act.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister admit that the billion-dollar Green Homes programme, which has already been legislated for in section 223 of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act, was to have been funded out of State-owned electricity companies’ dividends, under the emissions trading scheme, and that it is only the actions of his Government in creating uncertainty around the future operation of the emissions trading scheme in the electricity sector that have put its funding in doubt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know that that is the agreement the Greens had with the previous Labour Government, but they had also committed the same dividend stream to State-owned enterprises making renewable energy investments. I might also note that the billion-dollar package, which was announced as a billion dollars to make it look big, was apparently going to be spent over 15 years, so there is a good deal of confusion around how many times the State-owned enterprise dividends had been committed to being spent on a number of different things.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister aware of the vast literature showing that investment in energy efficiency reduces the need for investment in new power stations, and why is he just taking the word of the electricity companies about the need for their dividends, rather than investigating properly?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I am aware of the literature, as are my colleagues the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and they are putting themselves to the task of seeing whether the current Government can creatively take that opportunity.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister commit to funding the scheme out of his economic stimulus package if the Government moves to destroy the original source of funding under the emissions trading scheme—because this programme provides the best economic, social, and environmental return on any investment programme to secure jobs and the well-being of families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If such a scheme shows clear economic and productivity benefits, as well as the well-understood benefits particularly for the health of children, then the Government can put it alongside the many other schemes that people claim to me represent infrastructure that will increase the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the country.

3. Recession—Advice or Assistance for Affected Workers

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What advice or assistance, if any, is available to workers who have recently lost their jobs, had their hours reduced, or been sent on sabbaticals, as a result of the economic downturn?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Work and Income has a range of support and financial assistance that could help workers facing cut-backs and redundancies. I encourage any people finding themselves in this position to contact their local Work and Income office.

Hon Annette King: Is this part of the assistance her Government is providing to the unemployed: a letter sent out by her department advising a client to go to a loan shark, and to pawn the cellphone and the kids’ toys to increase the client’s income before getting assistance; if so, is this appropriate advice to give to unemployed New Zealanders?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have not seen that letter. I look forward to seeing it so that, if that is the sort of information that is going out, we can hold someone to account.

Hon Annette King: Is she aware that the chief executive of Budgeting and Family Support Services, Mangere said the letter sent out by her department was offensive to the client, and the whole point of providing support to vulnerable clients is so that they do not go out to borrow more money from loan sharks at exorbitant interest rates; and if she thinks it is appropriate for her ministry to be encouraging clients to be more indebted, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not think it is appropriate. I did not expect to stand up and agree with the member so early in my term as a Minister, but I do not think that is appropriate. I would love to see the letter. I hope she tables it at the end of this question and we can do something about it.

Hon Annette King: Will she give a guarantee that funding to budget advisory services will not be reduced, in light of the increased numbers of people who are now flowing through the doors of such agencies?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is looking at all areas of money and where it is being spent. We will continue to do that. I am looking at a line by line review and at value for money, and we will be supporting front-line services.

Jo Goodhew: What has the Government done as part of its focus on jobs and growth in the 3 months since the election?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Our focus has been on a jobs and growth plan. We have raised the minimum wage to $12.50 an hour, we have CPI-indexed the increases, we are looking at the 90-day trial period bill, which will make a huge difference for New Zealanders to get into employment, and we will be supporting front-line services that directly help New Zealanders in their jobs.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the letter from a case manager from Work and Income requiring a person to take out a loan, and to pawn the cellphone and the children’s PlayStation, etc.

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

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from Budgeting and Family Support Services, Mangere saying how offensive that letter is—that the department should be requiring people to take out loans—

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There is no objection.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

4. Fresh Start—Expected Outcomes

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

4. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What are the expected outcomes of the Fresh Start approach?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : We want to break cycles of youth offending.

Rahui Katene: What assurances can the Minister give that iwi Māori can be involved in managing programmes and services to address serious recidivist offending by children and young people?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The increased involvement of Māori providers is a priority. I have made a commitment to broaden the range of providers. This will be done by consulting with both the Māori Party and Māori in general.

Hon Annette King: Has the Minister seen reports, both internationally and in New Zealand, that show that the use of military-style corrective training has led to a 94.5 percent rate of reoffending, and that such programmes have been unsuccessful? Can she confirm that the Government’s programme for 40 youths is nothing more than window dressing?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I have not seen reports like that. I have seen reports that say that if we work with young people over a long period of time, and if that work includes mentoring programmes, parenting orders, getting into family and whānau, making the work eyeball to eyeball, and making it really mean something, we can turn these young people around.

Rahui Katene: How will the Government’s commitment to whānau ora be demonstrated in these youth justice reforms?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are committed to working long term. The work we have been doing is not working for those thousand worst young offenders; we have to do it differently. This will be done over a period of time, and it will be done in different ways for different individuals. We recognise that Māori have different needs, and we will be implementing programmes that will have a real effect.

5. Young Offenders—Government Actions

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

5. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What plans does the Government have to deal with the most serious and persistent young offenders?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : The new Fresh Start programme, announced yesterday, will give judges many of the tools they have been asking for to break cycles of reoffending.

Chester Borrows: What is the difference between the corrective training programmes of 20 years ago and the new military activity camps?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are several key differences. Fresh Start is not like corrective training; rather, it is a concentrated long-term strategy to address the behaviour of some of the most high-risk young offenders. Core components of the military-style camps—intensive mentoring, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and literary and numeracy programmes—are completely new and were never part of the old corrective training scheme.

Jacinda Ardern: How does the Minister plan to address the risk factors associated with youth offending—including poverty; dysfunctional, disadvantaged, and violent families; and alcohol and drug abuse—given her Government’s proposed cuts to Pathways to Partnership, which worked to address these very issues; or would her Government rather focus on offender programmes that just do not work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I thank the member for that scaremongering political speech to the non-governmental organisation sector! Fortunately, those organisations see more sense and know that we are working together on plans for these young offenders and on what really needs to be done. We take this programme seriously: we are committed to it, we will fund it accordingly, and we will make it work.

Chester Borrows: Has the Minister seen any media reports about the Government’s announcement?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. Last night I heard TV3 saying that the Prime Minister had delivered on another election promise with the announcement of the new Fresh Start programme, and commenting that Labour was on the wrong side of the issue. In addition, a poll out this morning showed that more than two-thirds of participants think that Fresh Start will help young offenders. Finally, the mother of murder victim Michael Choy was interviewed last night, and she welcomed the new approach to turning young offenders’ lives round.

6. Prime Minister—Ideas

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement about the Prime Minister that “Getting on those bloody planes he comes back with 10 different things. I just say we’ll look at that. The occasional one you just say that’s not going to work.”; if so, which of the Prime Minister’s ideas has he rejected?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The honourable Prime Minister welcomes free and creative discussions in his team, where innovative ideas can be freely debated. The Minister can understand if that was not the environment that that member was used to back when he was a Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Those members should let their colleague ask a question.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has he had any free and fruitful discussions with the Prime Minister about his off-the-cuff suggestion made at yesterday’s press conference that Fisher and Paykel Appliances may be in need of a bail-out, or does he believe that such speculation may risk further undermining of confidence in a publicly listed company?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As the Prime Minister has said previously, last month and also yesterday, we have said consistently that Government financial support could possibly be provided to corporates if required, but very much as a last resort.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon David Cunliffe.

Chris Tremain: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Chris Tremain.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member had not called, and I believe you had accepted my call.

Mr SPEAKER: Members are normally pretty generous on the way the House flows, and I was very grateful for the way the Hon Annette King let Jeanette Fitzsimons take the call when I made a mistake. I ask the member to be reasonable. If he insists, I do have to accept that. He made the first call, and if he insists, I will go to him.

Hon David Cunliffe: No objection.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Chris Tremain: What other ideas has the Minister seen for effectively managing our way through the current recession?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: None at all from the Opposition, but apparently its finance spokesperson is working on something and hopes to have it ready before the next election, or, perhaps, before the next global recession.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the consistency to which the Minister previously referred include his previous comments that “Imagine the billion dollars just spent on Air New Zealand and the `People’s Bank’ that could have been invested in fixing infrastructure. The Government is running loose with hard-earned taxes and debt. It should make you sweat.”; or is that one of the things one says in Opposition but not in Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In light of the current global financial recession, we have said consistently over the last month that we would consider Government financial support, but, again, very much as a last resort.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that, as referred to yesterday by the Prime Minister, the operations and mandate of the Overseas Investment Office are currently under review by a ministerial subcommittee that will be reporting to Cabinet by March 2008; and when will the Government make publicly available the objectives and terms of reference of that review, or is it the Government’s practice to conduct economically critical discussions in secret?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, it is not being asked to report back by March 2008.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Prime Minister given Fisher and Paykel Appliances undertaking that that company will not be allowed to collapse?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Our primary method of supporting the corporate sector is to ensure that the banking sector is sound. We have then said that any companies having difficulty would be asked to explore every commercial option before considering any approach to the Government, and that if any consideration of Government financial support were needed, it would be very much as a last resort.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While that was a very good general answer, the question was a very specific one: has the Prime Minister given an assurance to Fisher and Paykel Appliances?

Mr SPEAKER: There are a couple of problems with what the member is seeking me to assist him with. The first is that the Minister is not responsible for what the Prime Minister may or may not have said to Fisher and Paykel Appliances. Secondly, the question is getting very specific, when there was a very general primary question. I think that the matter has, therefore, been taken as far as it can be.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If I may speak on that point—and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your tolerance—when Prime Ministers make pronouncements in areas of responsibility of Ministers, then it is certainly within the Ministers’ responsibility to answer. I think if—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will take his seat. I have heard sufficient, and the Minister does not have responsibility for what the Prime Minister may or may not have said. That is the end [Interruption]. He is not answering as the Prime Minister.

7. Recession—Small-business Relief Package

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

7. Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What steps has he taken, and does he intend to take, to ensure the pressure of economic adjustment does not fall entirely on the productive sector, in particular small business?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government has taken a number of steps to assist small business. These include the small and medium enterprises package worth $480 million, which gives small businesses more time and money to get on with business while also providing a better environment for business; investment in infrastructure, which provides more certainty about jobs while bringing forward infrastructure work programmes across housing, education, and transport sectors and which is worth a further $483 million; and a strong focus on regulatory reform, with steps such as the review of the Resource Management Act, which is now well under way. The collective impact of these actions will greatly assist New Zealand businesses; further announcements will be coming shortly.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: How does the Minister reconcile the Prime Minister’s undertaking not to reduce public sector job numbers with the goal of not imposing all of the forthcoming economic adjustment costs on the private sector?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has made it clear that it is focusing its changes in the public sector on increasing productivity and on moving money and resources into front-line services.

Hon David Cunliffe: What might those changes be? What is the Government actually doing in addition to the policy commitments to support small business that were announced by Labour prior to the election and that are already in the process of being legislated for?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There have been a number of changes. Some of them are continuations of what the previous Government said it would do, yet did not do. I note that in August of last year the previous Minister of Health signalled to the Director-General of Health that further output gains in the Government sector should be driven by the reprioritising of resources through to the front line, rather than through significant fulltime-equivalent growth. The previous Government failed to deliver on that; this Government will deliver on it.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you, Mr Speaker, but my question was specifically about initiatives not proposed by the previous Government. In response to the question the Minister quoted an initiative that a Minister of the previous Government—namely this former Minister—took. He cannot—

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness, I think that the member should reflect back on his question. It was sufficiently vague that I thought the Minister answered it reasonably effectively.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister seen any reports that the period in New Zealand’s history when the productive sector of New Zealand faced its greatest pressure was the period when the member who asked the substantive question was the Minister of Finance; if so, can he rule out that member’s policy of historically high interest rates, the fastest rate of small-business failure in history, and the slowest period of New Zealand growth since the Great Depression?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A fair bit of that is ancient history, from where I am sitting. This Government will be resolutely focused on maintaining confidence, particularly in private sector, that it will deliver the economic growth that will ensure New Zealand grows quickly into the future.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What has been the response by small businesses to the steps taken by the Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The small-business relief package has been almost universally welcomed across the small-business sector. For example, John Cook, the managing director of Stainless Design, which employs 75 people in Hamilton, said he expected to see a flow-on in the wider community. He welcomed changes to provisional tax and he also added that the Government’s actions would allow small businesses to climb into the next tier.

8. Veterans—Entitlements

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

8. Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: Is she doing anything to increase awareness of veterans’ entitlements?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) : Yes. My department is well aware of my desire to ensure that veterans are aware of their entitlements, and I meet regularly with the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association and the Chief of Defence Force to ensure that the department is responding to the needs of veterans.

Hon Rick Barker: Does the Minister’s statement on veterans’ pensions that “If you don’t ask for it, you don’t get it.” signal a change in policy towards veterans’ pensions of being more bureaucratic, mean spirited, and uncooperative with veterans; and how does this square with the public sentiment that we should be generous to our veterans for their sacrifice and service to our country?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it does not, and that is because I did not make that statement. I am happy that the member has asked the question, which gives me the opportunity to correct the matter. I made a written statement to the reporter. That statement is in the document I am holding. I will seek leave at the end of this question to table it. It will show that the reporter has completely misquoted me. What I did say is this: “Veterans should get their full entitlements if they wish.” That was the statement; it was misquoted. I will seek leave to table a complaint to the editor of the Sunday Star-Times and a full transcript of the entire email correspondence, and I will be seeking an apology.

Hon Rick Barker: Is everybody else wrong except the Minister in her approach to these issues, or will she simply try to put her name on the achievements of the previous Government of an historic memorandum of understanding with Viet Nam veterans, moving to restructure the veterans’ organisation, and rewriting the War Pensions Act; and what will be her achievement for veterans?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Perhaps that member did not listen. I did not make that statement. The correct statement that I made was in writing. It is here. It will be tabled.

I seek leave to table the following: a letter from me to the editor of the Sunday Star-Times, complaining about misreporting; and correspondence in the form of emails, all of which state exactly what was said and how it was said.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that set of documents being tabled? There is no objection.

* Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

9. Corrections Department—Performance

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

9. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received on the performance of the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : I have received an alarming report from the Auditor-General on the department’s management of offenders on parole. Between 1 May 2007 and 4 May 2008 the Auditor-General examined the case files of 100 offenders, 52 of whom were high-risk and on the offender warning register. Unfortunately that examination identified serious failings in the management of parole.

Jonathan Young: What were the key findings of the report of the Auditor-General into the management of offenders on parole?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Auditor-General found that in most of the 100 case files, the department had not followed one or more of its own sentence management requirements. Those requirements are in place to keep the public safe, and the public has a right to expect them to be followed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, here’s the guilty man.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Too much coke, eh, Nick?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will ask his question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister guarantee that National will fund additional probation officers and prison staff to ensure that staffing keeps pace with workloads created by the increasing numbers being dealt with by the corrections department, as Labour did when it was in office and funded in last year’s Budget an extra 89 probation officers, as the Department of Corrections requested?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is interesting that that member should ask that question, because when he gets the chance to read the report he will see that his Government did not properly fund the probation staff in the service, as noted by the Auditor-General.

Jonathan Young: Did the Auditor-General make any recommendations regarding the management of offenders on parole?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Auditor-General made 20 recommendations, most of which urged the department to always follow its own procedures. Because of the potential risk to public safety, any non-compliance with requirements and procedures compromises the safety of the public. I support all the recommendations of the Auditor-General, and I am treating the findings of this report extremely seriously.

David Garrett: Does the Minister still have confidence in Mr Barry Matthews, given the series of disasters in his department during his watch, the latest of which we have just heard about, and another of which was the multimillion-dollar drug ring apparently run by cellphone from Auckland prison?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am confident that Mr Matthews is fully aware of how seriously I view this issue.

10. Public Sector Jobs—Cuts

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

10. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of State Services: Does he have a target for cuts in public sector jobs; if so, what is that target?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) : No.

Grant Robertson: Which of the following statements is correct: the Hon Heather Roy’s that there is to be a 10 percent cut in public services; Paula Bennett’s that there is to be at least a 5 percent cut; or his own statement made just now?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member misrepresents the views of the three members whom he has quoted.

Louise Upston: Is it the Government’s policy to cut the number of public servants?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government’s policy is to cap the size of the core bureaucracy in our first term of Government. Our priority is to grow front-line services that directly benefit New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that up to 30 jobs will be cut at the National Library, and that hundreds of people are set to lose their jobs at the Ministry of Social Development and the Tertiary Education Commission; and, how does this fit with National’s promise to cap but not cut public service numbers?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member will have to ask individual Ministers for confirmation of those figures. I can tell the member that after 9 years of a free-spending Labour Government, the number of back-office public servants is out of proportion. This Government is determined that the focus will go on improving front-line services for New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave to table a newsletter from the Hon Heather Roy, in which she says that all Government Ministers and departments are looking at 10 percent cuts in public services.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that newsletter being tabled? There appears to be no objection.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

11. District Health Boards—Financial Health

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

11. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on the financial health of district health boards?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : I have received several reports. I regret to advise the House that, in total, these reports reveal that the new Government has inherited district health boards that are on track to financial crisis. The outgoing Labour Government told New Zealanders that district health board deficits were expected to grow to $111 million in this financial year. One of my first actions as Minister was to personally require district health boards to provide information on their true financial situations. Their responses have revealed that district health board deficits are expected to be around $160 million this year. The Labour Government’s legacy includes 18 of 21 boards with worsening financial deficits.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What is the latest advice the Minister has received in relation to district health board deficits?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have received fresh advice this week from the Crown Health Financing Agency. The agency expects district health board deficits to be well in excess of $200 million in 2009-10. It is a matter of very serious concern that the agency also expects seven further district health boards to be classified as at risk, meaning 14 of our 21 district health boards will be at risk according to the Crown Health Financing Agency.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Did the former chairperson of the Otago District Health Board show any commitment to resolving issues of that board’s deficit, as compared with, say, the chairperson of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, who said publicly, in relation to his board’s deficit, that its predicted $500 million savings were never real and were presented only to pacify the Minister?

Hon TONY RYALL: The former Minister will be interested to know that the Otago District Health Board’s deficit has worsened from $9 million to $13.2 million.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has the Minister received in relation to capital?

Hon TONY RYALL: The blowout in deficits to $160 million is very concerning for this year, but as serious or more serious is the crisis track in relation to resources for important capital works like new hospitals. In 2008, over $200 million in capital requests were unable to be funded, and in 2009, requests of over $400 million have already been received—a total of over $600 million in capital needs from district health boards. The Labour Government left very little provision for any of these demands.

12. Schools—Healthy Food National Administration Guideline

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

12. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Education: Did she seek advice from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, or Sport and Recreation New Zealand on her decision to remove the National Administrative Guideline requiring schools to sell only healthy food; if so, what concerns, if any, were raised?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : As I am the Minister of Education I sought advice from the Ministry of Education. A concern was raised that money previously spent on the policy may be seen by the public to have been wasted. The ministry also advised me that, as with any policy change, there was a risk of some criticism. What has become clear to me from discussions with the sector is that this regulation was confusing and burdensome. Rather than retain onerous regulations for boards of trustees and principals, this Government trusts them to make appropriate choices about healthy food. The Minister of Health totally supports the decision.

Sue Kedgley: How can the Minister claim that schools were confused and opposed to the guidelines, when public health nutritionist Bronwen King says: “Contrary to what is being suggested, most schools, in our experience, have embraced the guideline positively and have been right behind providing a food environment that promotes better learning and behaviour.”, and when a Waikato school food coordinator I spoke to earlier today said she had not heard of one complaint about the guidelines amongst the 150 schools that she deals with?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We accept that many schools have done work in the area to ensure that their students can make informed decisions. We are not asking schools to change their existing practices. They are free to decide on an individual school basis how they promote healthy food and drink. From all the comments that I have seen in the media and have received personally, our confidence in schools’ judgment is well placed.

Hon Chris Carter: Can the Minister explain what she meant in her press release of 5 February 2009, when justifying her decision to reintroduce junk food into school canteens, when she said that the decision had nothing to do with teaching and learning, despite extensive educational research that shows strong linkages between diet and classroom behaviour, and that childhood eating patterns are a strong determining factor leading to adult obesity?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think there is a general acknowledgement that there is no silver bullet to solve the obesity problem. Unlike the Labour Government we will not be using computer games on expensive websites to lure kids out into the playing fields. As Minister of Education I am focused on getting more schoolchildren engaged in regular physical activity, and on working with the Minister of Health and the Minister for Sport and Recreation on plans to get more schoolchildren regularly participating in sports teams and clubs.

Allan Peachey: What reports has the Minister received in response to her decision to remove clause 3 from National Administration Guideline 5?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen several positive reports from school boards of trustees and principals. I have seen a press statement from the New Zealand School Trustees Association, which stated: “At the practical level, many schools could see that their efforts would be better placed focused on the more important task of improving learning outcomes for all students, rather than becoming the food police.” I have also received numerous positive emails from principals, one of whom wrote to me and said: “I just wanted to say how pleased I was to actually see a Minister of Education take away excessive and unnecessary work for staff and principals. Anything that gives me more time to concentrate on teaching students how to read, write, and do maths is great, in my book.”

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that as a result of her decision, there are now no minimum standards for schools about the food and drink they sell, and that schools are now free to sell whatever high-fat, high-sugar junk food they like, even if it undermines the school food guidelines and contributes to rotting teeth, type 2 diabetes, and bad behaviour; and is the Minister becoming the Marie Antoinette of education Ministers, advising school boards: “Let them eat cake, drink coke, and go nuts.”?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may answer whatever part of that question she chooses to.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think that the member is rather exaggerating, and I refer her back to the announcement. Schools are still required to promote healthy food under National Administration Guideline 5.2. I believe that the scenario the member has raised is most unlikely. At the end of the day, this Government trusts schools more than that member and will not retain regulations that are burdensome to comply with and can be thwarted by a kid hopping over the fence and buying a pie at the local dairy. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to show the member asking the question some courtesy. It is difficult to hear.

Sue Kedgley: Can the member confirm that although there is an obligation to promote healthy food, there is absolutely no obligation on any school in New Zealand to sell healthy food; and has she seen the Public Health Association’s release, which says that her decision flies in the face of latest international evidence on the link between obesity and behaviour, that it is a giant step backwards, that it is an ill-advised decision that appears to have been made on no evidence, and that it flies in the face of clear evidence of harm?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. I invited her to ask a supplementary question, not make a speech. I call the Hon Anne Tolley, and not too long please Minister.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The majority of students bring food from home. The previous rule did not stop students from taking unhealthy food to school or stopping off at the local dairy or pie shop on the way to and from school.

Hon Chris Carter: I seek leave to table a response from the health foundation condemning the Minister’s move.

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a statement by a dentist—Dr Rob Beaglehole saying it is a retrograde step that will have negative ramifications for children’s health and teeth.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a statement by a dentist. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a statement by the National Heart Foundation pointing out the huge benefits in the classroom in terms of learning and concentration when children consume nutritious food.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Sue Kedgley: Finally, I seek leave to table a release by the Public Health Association saying that the decision appears to have been made based on no evidence and that it flies in the face of clear evidence of the harm caused by overeating and obesity.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to make this clear; is it a press release?

Sue Kedgley: It is a press release.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a press release. Is there any objection that press release being tabled? There is.

Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table a document showing that for the Greens, it is OK for our kids to smoke dope, but what they cannot do is have a cake now and again.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is being sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? No, there is no objection, but I do stress that the document must be tabled before the end of the House today.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know quite what document—

Mr SPEAKER: The House has already dealt with that document.

ENDS

© Scoop Media