(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 23 JUNE 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Budget 2010—Grant to Pacific Economic Development Agency

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: Why did he allocate $4.8 million in the Budget to the Pacific Economic Development Agency rather than making that funding contestable?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In the first place, the appropriation in the Budget does not amount to an allocation of $4.8 million to the Pacific Economic Development Agency. As I have pointed out to the member many times, there is a process of negotiation going on regarding a purchase agreement that will meet all the requirements of accountability and transparency. The Government decided to allocate some money to improvement of the skills and job prospects of young Pacific Islanders, alongside the tens of millions of dollars that it has allocated to any number of schemes designed to cushion people from the sharpest edges of recession and, particularly, to help younger people to maintain their connection with the workforce.

Hon Phil Goff: When the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs reported to him and to his colleague that this agency was unproven and untested, constituted a real risk, and had not completed any projects of real note, why did he decide to maintain the exclusivity of the appropriation to that organisation despite those warnings?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no exclusivity, and I think that is where the Opposition is labouring under a misunderstanding. The Government proceeded with the appropriation, and I would have thought that the Labour Party would welcome new money in a tough Budget to help young Pacific Island people get skills and maintain a connection to the workforce. The appropriation having been made in the Budget, negotiations are going on now with Treasury and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs. The member should await the outcome of that to see whether there is exclusivity.

Hon Phil Goff: If what the Minister says is true, why is there a single-line item in the Budget for the Pacific Economic Development Agency, and why did his Minister of Pacific Island Affairs announce on Budget day that that was exactly where the money was going?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said before, the appropriation process does not guarantee the money to any particular organisation. The appropriation was made with the full knowledge that there would need to be discussion about a detailed business case. This is a completely normal process followed all the time by Governments.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the mechanism for how the Pacific Economic Development Agency is to report on its spending one of self-reporting, as indicated in the Budget document itself, rather than the more robust reporting mechanism that generally applies to non-governmental organisations, as set out under section 32A of the Public Finance Act?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member raised that question yesterday, and I can give the member the same answer. There are no special arrangements because there is no contract in place. It is very straightforward. I would have thought the Labour Party would be supporting the Government trying to help young Pacific Islanders maintain their connection to the workforce and get some skills—or is the member unaware that this is the group most affected by unemployment in the recession?

Hon Phil Goff: When will the Minister get it into his head that the Opposition is not concerned about the fact that he might belatedly put some money into supporting the Pacific Island community, whose unemployment rate has doubled, but is worried about the lack of transparency and the shonky way in which he has put it in place?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I have in my head is the alarm among the Labour Party that a National-led Government is talking to the Pacific Island community, and doing it so constructively. I point out to the member that the kinds of bullying tactics from the Labour Party that failed in the Māori community will also fail in the Pacific community.

Hon Phil Goff: In claiming that the criticism of the Pacific Economic Development Agency is based on party politics and conspiracy theory, how does the Minister explain the statement made by National’s pollster and blogger David Farrar that giving the agency $4.8 million when it has no track record is “a reckless decision”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not responsible for him, and he is wrong.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister discuss with him as Minister of Finance any funding proposals that arose out of a meeting in Auckland last year between Mr Key and the Pacific Economic Development Agency director J R Pereira, a meeting that was also attended by Inga Tuigamala and Michael Jones; if so, what undertakings were made at that meeting?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know that the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat resentful of the Prime Minister’s popularity, but he—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That was totally uncalled for. A point of order was called, and the House will hear it in silence.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, I think you know what the point of order is. It was quite unnecessary to preface the answer to what was quite a straightforward question in the way that the Minister did.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member. The Minister was asked whether the Prime Minister had discussed matters with him following that meeting, and I think the Minister should attempt to answer that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a question is asked in that sort of carping, name-dropping manner, I think you need to ask yourself whether the question itself had validity. It was just totally—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member should be careful about what he says. I listened very carefully to that question, and I contrasted it with the previous question. In respect of the previous question asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Minister had licence to say almost anything that is permitted in this House, because the question was a very loose question with a lot of political comment in it. The question before the House now was a reasonable question: it asked whether the Prime Minister had discussed this issue with the Minister some time last year, following a meeting with one Pereira and a couple of other people in Auckland. I do not know whether the meeting took place, but the Minister should tell the House whether any discussions took place between the Prime Minister and him on this matter following that meeting.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not aware of the particular meeting, but I can tell the member that the answer to that question would be no. There was no discussion about funding until at least about February or March of this year, because there was no proposition to discuss funding for.

Rest Homes—Standard of Care

2. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree that older New Zealanders who live in rest homes are among the most vulnerable in our society, and is he satisfied that all rest homes provide safe levels of care for residents, as they are required to do under the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, and generally yes. I also agree with the Auditor-General, who last year issued a damning report that the previous Government did not respond quickly enough to address the weaknesses and risks in the arrangements it had known about since 2004. The new Government is tackling these years of neglect in a number of ways.

Sue Kedgley: How can he ensure that rest homes provide safe levels of care for residents, when there is no minimum training or qualification needed to be a caregiver, and when many people literally walk in off the street with no prior training or experience and begin to care for our vulnerable elderly?

Hon TONY RYALL: A number of training programmes are in place for those who go and work in aged care. The Government was also concerned about the lack of investment in nursing quality and supervision in rest homes, and that is why we put in an extra $18 million last year as part of meeting that need.

Sue Kedgley: How can he ensure that rest homes provide safe levels of care for residents, when according to the Nurses Organisation survey, large numbers of unregulated caregivers are doing jobs that would normally be considered to be the domain of registered nurses—jobs such as administering medicines without supervision, and even administering drugs like morphine?

Hon TONY RYALL: There are very clear rules about who should be administering drugs anywhere in the New Zealand public health service. If the member has any information about breaches of those rules, it should be made available to the authorities. This Government is beefing up the audit and compliance regime associated with rest homes in order to ensure that the problems identified by the Auditor-General are addressed.

Jo Goodhew: What were the conclusions of the damning Auditor-General’s report on the monitoring of rest homes?

Hon TONY RYALL: Last year the Auditor-General’s report identified longstanding shortcomings in rest home monitoring. The Auditor-General’s report found that under the previous Government, the Ministry of Health had struggled for years to ensure the quality and safety of the nation’s rest home services. The Auditor-General was highly critical of the lack of action between 2002 and 2008, and the Auditor-General was particularly critical of the agencies that audit rest homes, and this Government shares that concern. The same report recognised the action that the new Government has under way.

H V Ross Robertson: Considering that this Government is clearly turning a blind eye to elder abuse in rest homes, does it intend—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would not normally raise a point of order on a new member, but this is a very, very experienced member. He has been in the House for some 35 years. I would have thought it is quite inappropriate for him to start a question in that manner. It is question time, not statement time. I also want to know whether he has a hat to go with his scarf.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point of order is perfectly valid. I do not normally intervene. The more comment like that that a member makes when asking a question, the more licence that a Minister has to be political in his or her answer. That is the way that I normally balance it. But the member’s point of order is absolutely correct. The member should ask a question rather than make—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you absolutely endorse the point of order, you might want to check the maths of the Leader of the House. Clearly, he cannot add without taking his shoes off.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure what that has to do with order.

H V Ross Robertson: Indeed, he should have his maths checked. Does the Government intend to continue to turn a blind eye to elder abuse in rest homes, and does it intend to do anything about the other issues for the elderly that Grey Power raised yesterday—namely, cutting home help, cutting hearing aid subsidies, cutting elder abuse education programmes, cutting elder driving courses, allowing ever-increasing electricity bills, and transferring the financial burden of the emissions trading scheme from the polluter to the taxpayer?

Hon TONY RYALL: What I would ask is, where was that member for 9 years when the Auditor-General was slamming the party opposite for its behaviour when in Government towards rest homes in New Zealand? This Government has done more than any other in the last 18 months to address those issues. We are now auditing the auditors, we require the auditing agencies to have international accreditation, we are providing additional funding, and we have introduced spot auditing. We now have transparent reporting online of rest home quality standards as per the audit, which is colour-coded for easy reference. Blue is very good, and red is very bad.

Sue Kedgley: How can he ensure that residents living in rest homes now are provided with safe levels of care, when nurses who work in the aged-care sector report that they are responsible routinely for the care of as many as 64 residents and are so overworked that they simply do not have time to care for residents properly or safely?

Hon TONY RYALL: What I am well aware of is that the Government put in an additional $18 million last year to improve the nursing quality and supervision in rest homes. We have increased the subsidies a further $16 million this year. We are putting a considerable effort into improving the auditing and compliance regime. As I travel to rest homes around New Zealand, nurses are giving me a very clear message that the neglect of the previous regime is being addressed by this Government.

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the Government’s barracking during the asking of my question, I seek leave of the House to table the media release put out by Grey Power yesterday, which the Government did not believe.

Mr SPEAKER: The House is not about to do that.

Sue Kedgley: Is it not the case that as long as there are no minimum staffing levels in the sector or formal qualifications or training required to be a caregiver, he simply cannot ensure that rest homes provide safe levels of care for residents; and does he concede it was a mistake for the Government to veto a select committee inquiry into aged care?

Hon TONY RYALL: No, it was not a mistake for Government members of the select committee to not have an inquiry into aged care, because frankly it saved that member, who supported the previous Government for 9 years, from a lot of embarrassment.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table four documents. The first document is an email dated 19 May of this year, in which a caregiver on $13.26 an hour explained that she gives out medicines for 46 patients, including signing for and giving morphine.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table another email from a caregiver received on 10 June, explaining that on many occasions staff have found that residents had been lying on the floor for 2 or 3 hours after a fall, before being picked up.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is there a name on it?

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just clarify this for the House. Is the name of the person who sent the email on the document?

Sue Kedgley: No, I have removed the name of the person.

Mr SPEAKER: So we have got no idea who is making this allegation. Members are aware of that. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table the document with no name on it as to whom it came from. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a Nurses Organisation aged-care survey done in 2009, which points out that medication is frequently administered by caregivers without the supervision of nurses.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table my final document, from 17 May. It is from a nurse who said she has left the sector because she could not stand working in an environment where she was unable to ensure that patients received the care that they are entitled to.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the name of the person who sent that letter attached to it?

Sue Kedgley: I have removed that name.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document, to which no name is attached. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Economic Position—Current Account Deficit

3. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s economic position?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Today Statistics New Zealand published current account data for the March 2010 quarter. It shows a current account deficit for the year ended 31 March of $4.5 billion, which is around 2.4 percent of GDP. It is the lowest deficit in more than 20 years. However, the latest figure reflects a mix of permanent and temporary factors. It includes the benefits of recent high commodity prices, the revenues from major tax cases, and reductions in imports during the recession. Most forecasts show the deficit widening again, though not to the previous extreme levels of 9 or 10 percent of GDP. The data reinforced the need for New Zealand to tilt the economy towards savings, exports, and productive investment, and away from excessive borrowing, debt, and Government spending increases.

David Bennett: What are the main reasons for New Zealand’s current account deficit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The current account deficit has become particularly bad through the last cycle, partly because of the mismanagement of the temporary boom of recent years. New Zealand’s external liabilities have risen almost 40 percent to $167 billion over the past 5 years. The cost of servicing this is more than 5 percent of GDP. At almost 90 percent of GDP, our external liabilities are similar to those of Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, and Greece, names the House might recall from recent media coverage. This is why the Government has placed such emphasis on financial stability. We have been successful up until now, but there is still plenty of work to do.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why is he attempting to take credit for the recent result, when J P Morgan has labelled the improvement as short-lived, and both Treasury and the Reserve Bank are forecasting the current account deficit to almost triple over the next few years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not trying to take credit for it, and, actually, I pointed out in my answer to the primary question exactly that—that the forecasts are expected to get worse. What I have pointed out to the House, though, is that it is vital we turn round our external position, because under the mismanagement of the previous Government our external liabilities have now reached— [Interruption] The member should listen. Our external liabilities are now 90 percent of GDP. Other countries with external liabilities at a similar level are Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, and Greece, each of which has featured significantly in the international media because of its substantial financial challenges.

David Bennett: What steps is the Government taking to address New Zealand’s current account problems?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: To improve the current account, which, as the Opposition has pointed out, is forecast to get significantly worse again, the Government needs to raise exports and save more. The Budget was certainly focused on achieving this, with a new operating spending allowance of just $1.1 billion, which is about half the level of previous years. We have also set out to rebalance the tax system by increasing consumption taxes and taxes on property speculation, and reducing tax on income, savings, and productive investment. We should also acknowledge the success of some of the Reserve Bank measures in affecting the length of the term of the debt that New Zealand owes to the rest of the world.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that both the Government and the Opposition are now agreed that the problem is expected to get worse, and that the need for rebalancing includes closing the savings gap, why did the Government cut in half the incentives for KiwiSaver and continue to defer indefinitely the pre-funding of New Zealand superannuation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have answered those questions before, and no doubt Labour will spend the next 10 years trying to justify its policies of the last 10 years. We did that because we had better ideas, and, actually, it was not difficult.

David Bennett: What alternative economic policies would aggravate New Zealand’s current account position and mortgage our families’ futures?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a different set of choices the Government could make. We could, for instance, increase personal income taxes. We could increase Government spending significantly faster. That would increase the need for borrowing. We could meddle with the Reserve Bank’s toolkit for containing inflation. These are all polices advocated by the Opposition. We disagree with them.

State-owned Enterprises—Requests for Additional Capital

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Which Stateowned enterprises have indicated to him a need for additional capital, and what options is he considering to meet these needs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Discussions about the particular capital needs of particular State-owned enterprises are commercially sensitive, and I do not intend to divulge the full detail of those here. I can tell the member that State-owned enterprises regularly have discussions with the Government about how much of their profits should be retained in order to allow them to continue investing. Additional capital is considered where there is a sound commercial case. Under the policy constraints the Government has given itself for State-owned enterprises requiring savings, we can either lower their dividends or borrow in international markets in order to invest in State-owned enterprises.

Hon David Cunliffe: When did the Minister tell the Minister of Energy and Resources, Gerry Brownlee, about Solid Energy chairman John Palmer’s intention to call for the partial sale of Solid Energy during a speech last Thursday?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot recall every discussion I have had with Minister Brownlee about Solid Energy, but I assure the member there are regular discussions because Mr Brownlee is a very active Minister of Energy and Resources, and a strong advocate of the development of New Zealand’s energy resources.

Aaron Gilmore: By how much does he expect the Government’s assets to grow over the next few years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget outlined the fact that the Government owns $220 billion worth of assets, which includes something like $70 billion worth of financial assets and over $50 billion worth of commercial assets. The Government expects that the value of that $200 billion portfolio will grow by around $35 billion over the next 4 years. That is if we manage it well. I have

to say that the standard of management of some of these assets has been very poor, and the Government is working hard to lift their performance.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: When John Palmer told him he was going to call for the partial sale of Solid Energy, did he tell the chairman that the comments were “out of line” and “stepping over the mark”, or was the Minister of Energy and Resources, Gerry Brownlee, wrong when he made those comments and said: “No one was particularly happy about it.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is continuing the Opposition habit of trying to put words in people’s mouths. That was not the nature of the communication between the chairman and me.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister rule out ever selling some or all of Solid Energy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s position on asset sales is clear: no asset sales in this term of office, and if that changes we will go to the electorate and debate the issues.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister is not ruling out possible future partial privatisation of Solid Energy, in what respect did John Palmer “go too far”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member can play the game of ruling out, but actually Labour’s policy on these matters is much looser than National’s.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. By attempting to refer a question back to the Opposition, the Minister is failing to address it.

Mr SPEAKER: I think it is a fair point, actually. The Minister should not comment on the Opposition before attempting to answer the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, we are not going to play the game of ruling things in or out. The policy is the same, whether for the chairman of a State-owned enterprise or an ordinary taxpayer, the Government is not selling any assets this term, and if it changes its mind it will campaign on it in 2011.

Police—DNA Samples Taken from Young People

5. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Police: How many DNA samples have the New Zealand Police taken from young people 17 years old and under, over the last year; and what type of charges, if any, were laid against the young people who had DNA samples taken from them?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Police advise me that there are more than 100,000 profiles on the national DNA database, and that over the last 12 months only 190 samples have been taken from people aged less than 17 years. In the limited time available the Police have not been able to carry out an audit to establish the exact details of each of those 190 cases.

Hone Harawira: Has she seen the complaint from South Auckland lawyer Shane Tait that three of his clients were told by the police to give a DNA sample voluntarily, or face arrest for reporting late to the police station; and what action was taken to discipline the officers for their illegal activity?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, I have not seen that complaint, but I have seen numerous media comments about that, none of which gave any details as to the constables who are alleged to have done that, or the clients, or anything that could identify them. I invite the member, yet again, to give any details to either the Commissioner of Police or the Independent Police Conduct Authority. He can always send them to me if he likes and I will pass them on.

Hone Harawira: Has she seen today’s Internet posting, which reads: “Full credit to you Hone for bringing to light the Nazi-style tactics used by New Zealand’s biggest gang, the police, when collecting DNA samples. The issue, however, seems to be more widespread than just Māori. I am an educated European female who has never been convicted, or even suspected, of an offence but was subjected to similar, bully-style treatment and incorrect information with regard to provision of a DNA sample. I completed a Police Complaints Authority submission on this exact point earlier this month. It’s”—

Mr SPEAKER: I realise that the member is quoting, but he cannot quote endlessly like that when asking a question. I believe that he was asking the Minister whether she had seen something. The Minister may answer.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I doubt whether my supplementary question was the longest one we have received this week in the House, and I am surprised that you have cut me short before I had completed it.

Mr SPEAKER: With respect to the honourable member, he does not need to quote endlessly to make a point. I believe that he could have quoted sufficiently from what he wanted to quote and asked the Minister a question. The member could see the House getting restless as he was going on and on, and he knows the Standing Orders. Is he complaining that he has not been able to ask his question because I have cut him short?

Hone Harawira: I am complaining that the question I have asked is not as long as other supplementary questions that have been asked this week and not stopped, and therefore, I should have been allowed the opportunity to complete my supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member feels offended, I apologise, but the Speaker has ruled, and that is it. The member will resume his seat and the Minister will answer.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have not seen any Internet blog or comment from a self-described educated European woman, who then goes on to make quite atrocious comments about New Zealand police officers.

Housing—Access to Appropriate and Affordable Housing

6. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he believe that all New Zealanders should have access to appropriate and affordable housing?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: As the Minister stated in the House yesterday, we are committed to assisting New Zealanders most in need. Budget 2010 contains $1.76 billion for over 300,000 households, which are provided assistance through income-related rents and the accommodation supplement. That is an increase of 17 percent compared with Budget 2008. In Budget 2009 we also committed $350 million to insulate 180,000 homes over a 4-year period.

Moana Mackey: Why, when more than 1,100 people are on Housing New Zealand waiting lists in the Wellington region, 332 in the Hutt Valley alone, are more than 40 State houses sitting empty at Pōmare?

Hon TONY RYALL: As was made clear on television last night there are matters to be dealt with in the courts in respect of some antisocial residents in that area, and at the conclusion of that there will be a redevelopment of those properties in Pōmare. As the Minister indicated, there is also some difficulty with tenants preferring not to be in the Pōmare area.

Moana Mackey: Why does he keep claiming that court action involving three families is preventing him from going ahead with promised renovations to more than 40 properties in the Pōmare community?

Hon TONY RYALL: That is because the Minister is concerned that if there is to be redevelopment in Pōmare in order to improve the standard of the houses there, which the Government inherited from that member’s party, then it should be done at such a time when the antisocial element of that neighbourhood has been dealt with. Many people do not want to move to the area, because of their concerns about those tenants, and until that matter is resolved there will not be the redevelopment that people would want.

Tim Macindoe: What commitment has the Government made to providing appropriate housing for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants?

Hon TONY RYALL: Left a State housing portfolio in serious disrepair by the previous Government, this Government committed an additional $120 million to the housing portfolio in February last year. The corporation has completed over 20,000 upgrades to its homes since

February 2009, at a total cost of almost $152 million, and it will complete another 8,000 upgrades in the next financial year. This Government is also committed to increasing the State housing stock by 1,550 houses by June 2012. As at 30 April we have delivered 647 of those new homes.

Moana Mackey: Why is he choosing to punish an entire community for the actions of a few; and, despite his claims that no one wants to live in Pōmare, will he allow those people who said on television last night that they would love to live there, to have those State houses renovated and to move in?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Minister is not punishing a few people; the Minister is recognising that there is a community there in need of renewal in terms of the housing stock because so many mouldy and unsuitable houses were inherited from the previous Government. People want to know that if they are to bring up their kids in those houses, then they should not have to worry about an antisocial element that makes that neighbourhood not what it could be.

Chris Hipkins: Rather than continuing to stereotype the entire Pōmare community based on the actions of a few people, will he accept an invitation from me to accompany him on a visit to the Pōmare community to speak to the local residents firsthand and to see the state of the houses that they are asked to live in; and if he is willing to accept that, will he also bring with him the Minister of Health so that he can see firsthand the impact of the $300,000 funding cut that has been imposed on the local health service?

Hon TONY RYALL: First of all, I am sure it is not a neighbourhood where the local member needs to be accompanied by the Minister of Health to go there to visit it. I can tell that member that we would like the people of Pōmare, and, indeed, of the entire Hutt Valley, to know of the very poor state of the State housing stock that this Government inherited. That is why we have put millions into upgrading the State housing stock—so that New Zealanders have more home opportunities.

Workforce Advisory Group—Release of Report

7. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Education: Why has she released the report of her workforce advisory group for public discussion?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Last year I appointed a workforce advisory group to give me independent expert advice on the future of the teaching workforce. The group has produced a report called A Vision for the Teaching Profession, which I released earlier this month. I have released the report because I believe that this is a great opportunity to have an open discussion about how we can attract and train the very best teachers and ensure that they stay in the profession.

Allan Peachey: How can interested people have their say on the proposals in the report?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Submissions can be sent to the Ministry of Education by mail or email until 6 August. The report and a discussion document have been made directly available to schools and education sector groups. Both documents are also available to the wider public online. The Government will consider the advisory group report and outcomes of this consultation process later this year.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has she read and understood the report; if so, what was the main recommendation?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I have read and understood the report, and I have released it along with a discussion document asking for public input.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty simple question: I asked what the main recommendation was.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness, I think that, unlike the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, this question had two parts. The first question asked whether she had read and understood it; the second question asked what the main recommendations were. The Minister chose to say that she had read it and understood it, which meant that she had chosen to answer the first part.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with the main recommendation of the Education Workforce Advisory Group that 3 years is not long enough to do a quality basic teacher education programme?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I realise it comes as some surprise to the Opposition, but one releases a report with a discussion document for public consultation in order to get other people’s input into an issue. That is exactly what we have done. I do not want to pre-empt that public discussion about a very important issue like the training of our teaching force.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took your advice from the previous question and I asked, I think, the straightest question I could: I asked whether she agreed with it. She could have said that she did not have an opinion, that she agreed with it, or that she did not agree with it—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister’s answer was that her opinion was that it was not in the public interest for her to comment on it prior to getting feedback from the public. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to answer in that way.

University Courses—Restricted Enrolments

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Tertiary

Education: Does he stand by his statement in regard to restricted enrolments in some university courses that it “would not be ideal to see too much of this at this time”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): Yes. Universities have always had the autonomy to set their own entrance criteria, but it would be counterproductive to overly restrict enrolments for 2011. A number of factors will see demand pressures reduce in that year, including the effect of some policy changes announced in Budget 2010, plus the 765 new places the Government is funding over and above the record level of provision in 2010.

Grant Robertson: Why is the Minister standing by as Auckland University, Waikato University, Massey University, Victoria University, and Otago University all restrict entry far more than ever before, or is he no longer ambitious for New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Firstly, the restrictions on admissions are being caused by the move by the previous Labour Government to cap enrolments and cap spending, following its imposition of the interest-free loans policy. Having said that, a number of factors will come together next year to relieve that demand pressure, including a record number of funded places at universities in 2011. In fact, there will be 5,600 more than 3 years ago. Secondly, there is the easing of the recession. Thirdly, there are the changes to student loan entitlements for new residents and Australians, and, fourthly, there is the introduction of a performance element for students already at university.

Grant Robertson: Given that answer, does the Minister accept that his plans to relieve demand pressure is another way of saying that some New Zealanders will not be able to go on to tertiary study and achieve their potential?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. I am saying that it is important not to consider just the amount of funding, but also how that funding is used, which is something that seems to have escaped the Opposition. From the enrolments that are already funded in the university system we are seeking to ensure that people are making good academic progress while they are being funded by the taxpayers of New Zealand to complete their academic education. I think the taxpayers of New Zealand will see that as entirely fair.

Grant Robertson: Why does the Minister think it is acceptable that a policy of open entry to New Zealand universities, which has its origins just after World War I, is now being cast aside, and that he is not taking action to do anything about it?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is interesting to hear the member opposite rewrite history, but there has always been restricted entry, as far as I can remember—and I remember first going to university in 1981. I had a restricted entry to my vet degree that resulted in my doing the zoology degree that has often been talked about. There have always been restrictions on different courses at universities.

The point is that this year we have the highest number of core university places that have ever been funded in this country, and there will be a higher number next year. We have the highest number of funded core polytech places this year, and there will be higher number next year.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Progress

9. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What recent progress has the Government made towards its goal of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Last Sunday the Crown signed terms of negotiation with Ngāti Korokī Kahukura and Ngāti Hauā at Pohara Marae. Between the start of last year and June this year, the Crown has reached over 30 significant settlement milestones, including 14 agreements in principle and six deeds of settlement. This represents great progress, especially compared with the previous administration’s average of 1.6 deeds of settlement each year.

Paul Quinn: What support did Budget 2010 provide to help achieve the Government’s goal of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: This year’s Budget provided an extra $6.5 million over the next 3 years to help achieve the Government’s goal of settling historical Treaty claims by 2014. This extra funding comes on top of the additional $22.2 million in last year’s Budget, and illustrates the Government’s commitment to accelerating Treaty settlements.

David Garrett: Will the settling of claims to customary title over parts of the foreshore and seabed under the Government’s proposed legislation impact in any way, shape, or form on Treaty claims; if so, in what precise way?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That question raises a number of points. First, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that if an iwi has concluded a Treaty settlement, it will be able to come and talk to the Crown—for example, about extant customary rights it may claim—but the finality of its Treaty settlement will not be able to be challenged.

David Garrett: Will he be advising the Attorney-General that the foreshore and seabed legislation should specifically prohibit any holder of customary title from charging those who wish to enjoy customary recreations, such as fishing and swimming, for access to areas of the foreshore and seabed held under customary title; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Attorney-General and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations exchange pleasantries all the time, and I imagine that the issue of the—

Hon Trevor Mallard: When he’s not too busy directing companies.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Another day, another psychotic outburst from Mr Mallard.

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member, I say that it will lead to disorder if members use an open microphone to make unhelpful comments across House. I recognise that it was done in response to a fairly unhelpful interjection, but these things tend to lead to disorder.

David Garrett: My question was carefully worded, and it asked whether the Minister would be advising the Attorney-General with regard to the content of legislation. The answer I got was related to social intercourse between himself and that Minister, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the member is making in that I believe the Minister, in answering the question, was probably a bit sidetracked by the interjection. I think it was a serious question that the member asked, and I ask the Minister whether he could answer beyond just whether he talks to himself.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, there will be discussion between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Ministry of Justice. I can assure the member that what I said yesterday

was right in that there is no question regarding access to the foreshore and seabed. He need not have any worry about that issue.

Accident Compensation—Acceptance Rate for Counselling

10. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Did ACC alert him that the acceptance rate for ACC-funded counselling in the 6 months to 30 April 2010 was 11.9 percent, and, if so, when?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): No, but the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has kept me regularly informed. The figure is misleading, in that 32 percent of claims are awaiting further medical information for a decision. The main reason for declining claims is that the Accident Compensation Act 2001, which was passed by that member’s previous Government, requires claimants to have a diagnosed mental injury for them to be eligible for counselling, and most do not meet that legal test.

Lynne Pillay: When ACC released updated figures to the New Zealand Herald last week, was it before or after his written reply of Wednesday, 16 June stating he was unable to provide an update on the numbers of people not getting help for sexual abuse crimes, and was this a case of deliberately withholding the ugly and embarrassing truth that in the 1 month of March last year 238 people received ACC-funded counselling, but under this failed new regime, 178 people received counselling in a period of 6 months?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I make in the answer that I will provide the member— and she has asked many questions—is that expenditure this year on counselling for sensitive claims is not significantly different from what it was a year ago or 2 years ago. I am not aware of when ACC specifically had the discussion with the New Zealand Herald, but I have endeavoured to provide comprehensive answers to the many questions from the member.

Lynne Pillay: When did he instruct ACC to stop using the nonsense statistic of less than 4 percent in data categories for sexual abuse, as anyone with a calculator can figure out that in many instances the figure is actually zero, and that deliberate delays and fudgey statistics will never hide the fact that the system is not working, and that sexual abuse experts and survivors tried to warn him of that 8 months ago?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It has been a long-standing practice in a number of Government agencies, when members ask questions about, for instance, how many claims have been accepted in a region, and there is a very small number, and the agency may risk someone’s privacy, to simply list it as less than 4 percent. I have answered many questions from the member opposite, and I invited the member to meet with Dr Peter Jansen, who is the medical practitioner in charge of that area, and the member simply chose to personally attack the doctor.

Katrina Shanks: What action has the Minister undertaken in response to the concerns of some counsellors, psychotherapists, and others about the clinical decisions of ACC on sensitive claims?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been very reluctant to interfere in decisions of a clinical nature, but noting the concerns, I have established an independent clinical review of ACC’s policy and processes, which is being led by Dr Barbara Disley, and is due to be reported back to me next month. I was disappointed that Labour members refused my offer to be consulted on both the terms of reference and the membership of the review, which I believe is the proper and professional way in which to deal with this important and sensitive issue.

Lynne Pillay: Given that Denise Cosgrove of ACC admitted last week that ACC may have moved too swiftly in its failed new process for sexual abuse counselling claims, will he now admit that he has been supporting this atrocity against victims of crime in order to save face, and the truth is that even his claims that general practitioners supported the failed pathway is wearing thin, in light of the publishing of the general practitioners survey in the Christchurch Press today, stating that 70 percent of—

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the honourable member that her question is highly marginal. I was going to allow it, even though she has made allegations in a question that are totally outside the Standing Orders, but she cannot go on any further. I invite the Minister to answer what she has asked so far.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I refer the member to the statement from the College of General Practitioners last year, in which it indicated support for the clinical pathways—

Lynne Pillay: No, no.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It was provided by Massey University, and I would be happy to seek leave of the House to table that statement. I further say to the member that I have been reluctant to interfere, and rightly so. I really think it will be a slippery slope if we have clinical decisions being made by Ministers of the Crown, let alone in an area that is as sensitive as that of support for those who have suffered sexual abuse.

Prisoners—Increased Access to Drug and Alcohol Treatment

11. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: What progress is the Government making on its commitment to increase the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): I am very pleased to report that tomorrow I will be officially opening the first of three new drug treatment units in our country’s prisons. The new unit at the Otago Corrections Facility shows that we are delivering on our promise to double the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment from 500 to 1,000. Two further units at the Wanganui and Auckland prisons will be completed by 2011. They will bring the number of drug treatment units up to nine.

Sandra Goudie: Why is the Government committed to increasing the availability of drug and alcohol treatment places?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Department of Corrections is now managing an all-time high muster of 8,746 prisoners, in addition to more than 45,000 offenders serving community-based sentences and orders. We know that drugs and alcohol are major drivers of crime in New Zealand, and that two-thirds of our prisoners enter jail with drug and alcohol problems. Breaking the cycle of drug and alcohol offending is crucial if we want to reduce the number of people behind bars.

International Non-aggression Measures—Government Support

12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Is the Government committed to ratifying promptly the amendment to the Rome Statute reflecting the resolution adopted by the States parties to the International Criminal Court at their review conference in Kampala on 11 June 2010, incorporating aggression as a justiciable crime?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): The Government supports the resolution adopted by the review conference. The aggression amendment itself provides that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression is subject to a decision to be taken by the States parties some time after 1 January 2017. The Government does not intend to ratify the amendment until after that decision has been taken.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is the Minister aware that the fact that the crime will not become justiciable until after that decision in January 2017 in no way precludes any of the Governments that participated in the adoption by consensus 2 weeks ago from ratify it quickly, before 2017?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I am aware of that. The Government wants to be sure that the court, which is a very new institution, is ready to assume the additional burden of the jurisdiction of the crime of aggression before it supports the activation of that jurisdiction.

Dr Kennedy Graham: When that time comes, will such adoption of aggression as a crime leave unaffected the primary responsibility of the Security Council for peace and security, including

determining that an act is an act of aggression, or the right of veto held by the five permanent members?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I imagine so, although the member is aware of the consensus that was reached on the way in which the jurisdiction is to be exercised.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that is essentially the resolution adopted at Kampala—Resolution RC/Res.6, adopted on 11 June by the review conference.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Maryan Street: Does the Government intend to encourage countries, particularly Asian and Pacific countries that are currently not signatories, to sign and ratify the Rome Statute and the amendment on crimes of aggression; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have no direct knowledge of the matter the member has raised, although I will say that the New Zealand Government is very pleased that consensus has been reached. Between now and 2017 I think it would make sense to tell other countries about it.

ENDS

© Scoop Media