Questions And Answers - Tuesday, 26 June 2007

Questions to Ministers

Overseas Investment Act—Land Sales

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What was the total net area of land sold to overseas investors in the 21 months since the relevant provisions of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 commenced, and how does this compare with the total for the 21 months prior to their commencement?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The total net area of land sold to overseas investors for the 21 months before was 1,935 hectares—that is net, of course—and that figure increased in the 21 months after to 237,588 hectares. However, four significant and unusual forestry land transactions are excluded. The net area of land sold in the 21 months before is 31,320 hectares, and the net land for the 21 months after is 26,944 hectares.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister of Finance confirm, in referring to those four rather particular areas of sale, that even if the sale of Carter Holt Harvey’s forestry interests are not included, the total net area of land sold to overseas investors since the Overseas Investment Act commenced is more than thirty times that sold in the equivalent period prior to the Act; and is he satisfied with an Act that is virtually rubber-stamping the sell-off of our land to the highest foreign bidder?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not think that is the correct representation, because, for example, the significant thing about Carter Holt Harvey’s sale is that the forests were in overseas ownership and were purchased by a New Zealander with the intention of reselling them. So when the accounts are calculated at the point of purchase, there is a large net repurchase by New Zealand, and at the point of sale there is then a further net purchase offshore. The actual net outcome of the total transaction over a period of a couple of years was no movement, at all.

Hon Mark Gosche: What are the details of the four unusual transactions the Minister referred to in his primary answer?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Firstly, the sale of the Fletcher Challenge forests in February 2004 resulted in reduced overseas ownership of a net 71,000 hectares. Those forests, of course, had previously been in New Zealand ownership, and were then moved offshore, then came back onshore. Second, there was the purchase in September 2005 by GMO Renewable Resources of the US of a 22,416 hectare block of Ngāi Tahu’s forests in Otago. Third, in the same month James Fielding Funds Management of Australia purchased a net 10,344 hectares of the Evergreen forest, and fourth, of course, in October 2006 there was the sale offshore of Carter Holt Harvey’s forestry interests, which had only a couple of years or so previously been brought back onshore by the buy-out of Carter Holt Harvey by Graeme Hart.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister confirm the Reserve Bank’s guesstimate that up to 5 percent of residential property is now owned by overseas investors, thereby pushing up the price of housing; if he cannot confirm that, is it because the Government no longer keeps statistics on foreign ownership, so no one actually knows?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is a guesstimate, and, indeed, we have never kept statistics of overseas ownership at the individual household level, because most domestic housing would not have triggered, either before or after 2005, the interest of the Overseas Investment Commission or the Overseas Investment Office. So it is quite difficult to arrive at any accurate estimate of the offshore ownership of New Zealand houses. That, of course, can take many forms, such as ownership by people who come to New Zealand for periods of time during the year, ownership by offshore interests of properties that are rented out to New Zealanders, and ownership by New Zealanders who currently live offshore but intend to return to New Zealand. All of those are various forms of overseas ownership of New Zealand household property.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Prior to my tabling the various figures to do with the pre and post-Act periods, is the Minister aware that these figures represent just the tip of the iceberg, given real estate agents report that foreigners are increasingly opting for smaller pieces of land to get around inspection by the Overseas Investment Office, and that locals are losing out as properties rise out of their price ranges, and does he believe this situation—and I quote from the Act itself—results in “substantial and identifiable” benefits to New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: These are actually quite complex issues. Let me take another example. First of all, most of the land that is sold offshore is not in fact urban residential property land. It is farmland or—particularly the large blocks—it is forestry land. So the numbers I give in the House are actually almost entirely about farmland and forestry land. Secondly, in terms of urban land, it is not uncommon for Ministers to sign out approvals for the purchase of urban land for urban subdivision, but, because part of the land being bought for subdivision borders upon, say, a reserve or a river, it requires Overseas Investment Office approval. Of course, once subdivided that land is then sold back, and if any of it was sold to overseas ownership—even if of sufficient size—it would be only that part of the remaining land that then bordered upon a reserve or a river. The great bulk of the developed land probably would not border in that regard and would not come within the purview of the Overseas Investment Office.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the figures for the relevant periods asked about in the primary question.

Leave granted.

Police Numbers—Prime Minister’s Statement

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement made prior to the last election that “Some political parties are promising thousands of new police. Such promises are simply not credible.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Bill English: Does her Government therefore take responsibility for the risks to public safety set out in the internal and previously secret police report, which shows that the minimum standard for general mental ability for new police recruits has been dropped to the 23rd percentile—meaning that on any given day they have to be smarter than only 23 percent of the population, which includes many offenders?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would note that the target for recruiting an extra total 1,000 on to the numbers previously in the New Zealand Police is exactly the same as that which John Key promised in 2005. Secondly, I am well aware that the standard police test is tougher now than it was before the revision in 2004.

Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister put public safety ahead of Labour’s political requirements and instruct the Minister of Police to focus on raising the minimum standard of police recruits above the level set out in the internal and previously secret police report, to focus more on the quality of recruits and less on achieving the raw number of 1,000?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat: the change to the tests, which was announced in 2004 and implemented in 2005, makes the tests tougher.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that the recruits currently the subject of this question would have had, in the main, most of their education under a National Government, and whose fault is it if they cannot pass the exam?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is almost certainly the case. I also note that one of the reports that has been done on this issue points out that there are a group of people who were accepted as recruits under the police’s old sworn applicant testing process, which the National Party was perfectly happy with, and a number of current serving police officers, who would not be able to continue through the police recruiting process today without resitting the test and passing. I repeat: the standard test is tougher.

Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister believes that the standard is now higher, then why did the police go to so much trouble to make sure this report did not become public; and why have the police not published reports that show that the standard is higher if that is what she believes, in contradiction to the people who ran the course at the Police College?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The fact that the tests are tougher is well known. I might point out that the test that the National Party was perfectly happy with—the old test—had its booklet and answers available in the public area, and anyone who swotted up could learn them.

Hon Annette King: Has she seen any reports about public confidence in the New Zealand Police; if so, what do they say?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The State Services Commission has drawn our attention to the New Zealand Values Survey of 2006, which shows that the New Zealand Police is the most trusted organisation in New Zealand—something, of course, the National Party is keen to change by its constant attacks on the police. Mr Borrows said yesterday that he believed that public confidence had been severely dented. I am afraid that no matter how much the National Party attacks the police, the public continue to think very highly of them.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Commissioner of Police, Howard Broad?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this is another example where Labour has picked up a gimmicky slogan and has spent millions of dollars of extra money, and that that has led to a decrease in the level of service?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Can I stress, again, that John Key made exactly the same commitment for a thousand extra police. No doubt, Bill English thinks that is a gimmick too, but it might explain why when Mr Key was interviewed this week on whom he was leaving in charge while he was away, he listed Moonbeam, the family cat, before he got to Mr English.

Hon Bill English: Moonbeam the family cat could get recruited as a policeman these days!

Simon Power: He’s too bright!

Hon Bill English: He is too bright. What then is the Prime Minister’s response to the internal police report of serious concerns that low standards for recruits mean: “Some of our staff are in a very vulnerable position and some of the public are probably being placed at risk or offered very poor service,”; and that the police “are at risk of claims of negligent hiring because we know these things.”, or is she not worried about public safety and what the police think of their own recruits?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat that the standard test is tougher, that police having been admitted for training have to actually pass out of the college, and that one of the reports made available to the police shows that some of those admitted under the old test that National was happy with would not be admitted today.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Prime Minister confirm that both the old and the new test for standard of entry into the police are higher than the test for standard of entry into Parliament, for which there is in fact no test of competence at all; if so, is she prepared to arrange for all the members of the National caucus to sit the standard police test to see whether they can all pass?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have two points to make. The New Zealand Values Survey, which said that the police were the most trusted organisation in New Zealand, of course ranked trust in them considerably higher than trust in this Parliament. Secondly, I would be fascinated to see the results of asking members to apply their verbal, numerical, and abstract reasoning the new standard test. I doubt whether many members opposite could meet it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Prime Minister agree that the issue of poor English among police recruits is a reflection of previous immigration policies, which have not placed enough emphasis on English language requirements, and that berating the securing of 1,250 extra police is not consistent with a party that claims to be tough on law and order, but is consistent with a party that would seek to dramatically cut Government expenditure if returned to the Treasury benches—a party that also failed, because of losses on the INCIS computer programme, to train hundreds of policemen and gain the benefits that that would have made available?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I thank the member for reminding me how sorely pressed police budgets were under the National Government. Secondly, I point out that the Labour Government actually raised the standard of English language testing required by migrants, something that is constantly attacked all around the country by the National Party spokesperson, Pansy Wong.

KiwiSaver Scheme—Reports

3. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any recent reports on the merits of the KiwiSaver scheme?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I have received many, many reports on the merits of the KiwiSaver scheme, including, of course, full inclusions in the New Zealand Herald of major reports, and a range of other reports from people such as financial commentator Mary Holm, who said today that “practically all individuals will be better in than out.”, and senior Fairfax journalist Bernard Hickey, who said last week that “Enrolling in KiwiSaver is a no-brainer.” for just about everyone.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative approaches to supporting savings in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. I have seen reports that at various times challenge the existence of a savings problem, endorse KiwiSaver, criticise KiwiSaver, promise to keep KiwiSaver, promise to abolish KiwiSaver, and promise to keep some bits of KiwiSaver and abolish other bits of KiwiSaver. These reports all come from Mr Key and Mr English. I have also seen Jo Doolan’s assessment that “National’s grandstanding and lack of a definite policy is also less than helpful”.

Child, Youth and Family—Caregiver Selection and Approval

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

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes, I do. The department’s approval process ensures that organisations provide appropriate services, care, and support to young people in the youth justice system. However, it does not guarantee that there will be no absconding from programmes run by approved caregivers, even when the programme involves placement 5-hours horse trek away from the nearest other facility.

Anne Tolley: How were two 14-year-olds in the care of Child, Youth and Family able to abscond from a closely supervised camp and obtain high-powered rifles to shoot at police officers?

Hon RUTH DYSON: They were able to abscond by getting on horses and riding 5 hours away to the nearest facility, where they stole the rifles and a car. The rest is on the public record. Nothing guarantees that that sort of behaviour can be stopped.

H V Ross Robertson: Has the Minister received any reports on the effectiveness of programmes to reduce offending by young people in the youth justice system?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I can advise of two reports I have received. The first states: “If their self-concept is improved through the wilderness experience young offenders may be less likely to engage in delinquent behaviour.” The second report states: “Although many children from the East Coast grew up in a hunting and fishing environment, youth offenders were the ‘last ones’ who should be taught such skills.” The first report is from the last National Government, which highlights the effectiveness of wilderness programmes. The second report is from Anne Tolley, who has consistently opposed all attempts for any rehabilitation programmes to turn round the lives of young offenders.

Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister heard reports that one of the 14-year-olds was standing 5 metres away from a police officer, pointed a rifle at that officer, and pulled the trigger, and that the only reason that that officer is alive today is because the rifle jammed; if she has heard those reports, what confidence can she have in the standard of care that was being provided by Child, Youth and Family in respect of those two young offenders?

Madam SPEAKER: Just before the Minister responds, I draw to her attention and to the attention of the House that charges have been laid in this case. So the second part of the question may well be appropriate, but not the first.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have read those reports and can confirm that my advice confirms that those reports are correct. It is very difficult to envisage that any other more isolated programme could be made available. A 5-hour horse trek is about as isolated in our community as one could get, short of being literally on an island. In fact, we do run programmes literally on an island, as well, for such offenders. But nothing in previous behaviour would have indicated that the events described in reports at the weekend would eventuate.

Anne Tolley: What action will the Minister take on reports in the media today that youth with a significant history of offending have been taught how to use firearms in Child, Youth and Family camps, and how does this rehabilitate young criminals?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I have read those reports, as well. They will be part of the investigation that has been announced by the executive of Child, Youth and Family. Any access to rifles or other arms as part of a Child, Youth and Family programme would be totally unacceptable. The providers know that and deny such allegations.

Anne Tolley: Can the Minister confirm revelations in the media today that young offenders in a supposedly supervised Child, Youth and Family camp have been found drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I can confirm that those allegations have been made, that they have been referred by the department to the police for investigation, and that the police have agreed to follow up those allegations. That is the appropriate course of action.

Anne Tolley: What action will the Minister take on reports that due to a lack of Child, Youth and Family funding the trust involved was able to staff the course with only two people supervising, instead of the one staff member per three boys as required, and how does this rehabilitate young criminals?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, I would certainly not be able to confirm that. My advice is that the ratio has been met at all times on that site.

Anne Tolley: Will the Minister make public the review completed by Child, Youth and Family the last time that this trust lost track of a young offender and failed to report him missing for 3 months; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister agree that the fact that these boys had been in residential facilities and had, at the age of 14, a “significant history with Child, Youth and Family”, before the incident, shows that the leniency of the youth justice system is precisely what is entrapping young people in a lifestyle of crime; and does she agree with New Zealand First that it is time to urgently address the obvious failings of our youth justice system?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am able to confirm that due to the situations in which these young men were raised, they have been involved with Child, Youth and Family services through care and protection, and youth justice, throughout nearly their entire lives. That is a tragedy that I think the whole of the House would recognise as such. It does not, in my view, lead to the assumption that there is some systemic failure in the youth justice system. In the majority of cases the youth justice system, and rehabilitation, is successful, though clearly it has not been, in the case of these two young men.

State-owned Enterprises—Private Investigators

5. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What actions, if any, has he taken in response to the revelations on 27 May that private investigators acting for a State-owned enterprise had hired spies to infiltrate and undermine protest groups; and can he now assure New Zealanders that all State-owned enterprises have ceased this practice?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister for State Owned Enterprises): The Acting Minister for State Owned Enterprises wrote to all State-owned enterprises, clearly specifying the expectation that “All SOEs operate to the highest standard of ethical behaviour and therefore they do not use paid informants as part of their security arrangements.” As a result of this action, I am advised that no State-owned enterprise currently uses paid informants.

Keith Locke: Flowing from that answer, can the Minister assure us that the chair of each State-owned enterprise has actually replied directly to the Minister, assuring the Minister that no such spying is going on or has gone on?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am informed that all 18 State-owned enterprises have responded to the Acting Minister for State Owned Enterprises, stating that they are not using paid informants.

Keith Locke: Will the Minister, in the light of his concern that spying is “not acceptable, whether or not it is illegal or not, it goes over the limit of what we expect in New Zealand.”, have a meeting with the victims of the particular spying—the Save Happy Valley Coalition—which he has so far declined to do?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I would suggest that those who feel aggrieved by the actions of State-owned enterprises that undertook paid spying, as the member has said, should approach the Minister for a meeting, and I am sure he will respond.

Keith Locke: What is the exact nature of the response that the Minister has received from the Solid Energy board since he phoned the chairman, John Spencer, on 28 May to express his concern about spying; and has he seen reports of when the board met, whether it discussed the particular spying, and what the outcome of that board meeting was?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am advised that Solid Energy is to hold a board meeting in early July, so the board meeting that was promised has not yet been held. But there has been a response from Solid Energy, which advised that it does not currently use paid informants.

Emissions Trading—Carbon Footprint Reduction

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Does he stand by his statement to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority Biofuels Conference on 24 April 2007 that an emissions trading scheme “is a flexible way for business to find the least cost means of reducing their carbon footprint”?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): Yes, and that view is share by the New Zealand Treasury, a substantial number of other countries, and many USA states.

Gerry Brownlee: Has he noted in the Government’s biofuels obligation discussion document that it anticipates that a 1 million tonne carbon dioxide reduction for the first Kyoto Protocol period would cost the motor fuels industry $125 million in capital costs, or about $125 per tonne of carbon dioxide reduced; if so, why does he think the industry would spend $125 a tonne, when the Government claims it can buy that tonne in a trading market for just $13?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Two points are to be made there. The first is that the National Party supports that policy, I thought, and the second is that the cost is an inevitable cost of changing over infrastructure. That one-off cost has to be met before New Zealand can roll out biofuels.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Treasury website estimate that a tonne of carbon dioxide emission credits can be purchased in a trading market for just $13, when the capital cost of reducing a tonne of emissions through biofuel use is estimated by the Ministry of Transport to be at least $125, and which of these Government departments is right?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I repeat that to have any biofuels of any percentage there is a need to update New Zealand’s infrastructure in order to deliver those biofuels—whatever the volume is. The factor that the member gives as to the cost per tonne is just a division of that cost across the volume within that period.

Shane Jones: What reports, if any, has the Minister received on support for emissions trading?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Support comes from the forestry sector and many business groups, as well as individual businesses, and virtually all environmental groups. The leader of the National Party is also on record as saying he favours an emissions trading scheme. Support has also been expressed by other parties in this Parliament, and I look forward to continuing constructive dialogue on that topic.

Heather Roy: In light of that answer, has the Minister responded to the 6 June letter from the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, Federated Farmers, the Road Transport Forum, the Major Electricity Users Groups, the Business Roundtable, Business New Zealand, the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and the Wood Processors Association regarding emissions trading and the need for an adequate consultation process based on proper analysis; if so, what was his response to their combined concerns that there has not been consultation in good faith with officials working on a scheme, before consultation has even concluded?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have received two similar letters; I have responded to the first one, and the response to the second is in process and will go out this week. In terms of the process, emissions pricing has been extensively discussed in and around New Zealand over many years. We are not redesigning the wheel here; many elements of an emissions trading scheme will be uncontroversial, and can be readily adopted from overseas experience. My having said that, we are not going to rush things at the expense of getting them right, and there will be more than adequate opportunity to consult sectors and interest groups in respect of general design—

Heather Roy: Concurrently?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, not concurrently; actually before any legislation is introduced into the House. There will be more than adequate consultation on scheme design issues generally, but, in addition, we also envisage additional engagement around sectoral implications before any one sector comes into the scheme.

Gerry Brownlee: If a tonne of carbon dioxide emission offsets can be purchased for $13, why should the industry be forced to invest in technology and infrastructure when the cost will be in excess of $125 a tonne, or are the carbon value estimates on the Government’s website inaccurate?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I suspect that the reason the Government supports this policy as a good initiative is the same reasoning that the National Party applied when it came out in favour of the policy, which is that biofuels by their very nature are a new technology that require some new infrastructure, and that new infrastructure has to be built irrespective of what volume of biofuels is delivered.

Gerry Brownlee: Who will ultimately bear the cost of that infrastructure being put in place, and can the Minister confirm that the gross emission reduction arising from the use of biofuels at the current mandated levels excludes the cost of emissions produced in their manufacture and distribution?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The cost, in respect of the infrastructure costs that oil companies will pay, will be passed on to consumers. I think the estimate at the time was that by 2012 it might have a 1c per litre effect on fuel prices overall.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that his Government does not intend raising the excise on either existing motor fuels or biofuels?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government has already announced that for the period up to 2012 ethanol, which is one of the potential biofuel sources, will be absented from excise duty.

Early Childhood Education—Taxation

7. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Has he received any reports suggesting that a childcare tax deduction is a much fairer and more flexible way of delivering assistance to parents than 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I have seen the claim from the National Party that its childcare tax deduction approach, which Paula Bennett re-announced this weekend, is better than 20 hours free. I disagree with that claim. Under a deduction approach, families where one parent stays at home miss out entirely, and beneficiary families miss out entirely. The deduction would be paid in a lump sum at the end of the year through the Inland Revenue Department, so it would not help families to balance their books from week to week, and of course the childcare focus of the National Party is at odds with the need to fund quality early childhood education.

Maryan Street: How much do families benefit from 20 hours free, compared with a tax deduction?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Let me give two examples. Let us take a family that pays $144 a week for three 8-hour days. That family will save $3,600 a year with 20 hours free. National’s policy would halve those savings, so that family would pay nearly $2,000 a year more than it would under 20 hours free. A family with a mum at home that currently pays a donation of $15 to a kindergarten would save $600 a year, with 20 hours free. With National, that family would have to find that $600 itself; it would get no deduction, because mum would stay at home and not go out to paid employment. Families know also that under 20 hours free, the State is guaranteeing to pay for 20 hours of quality early childhood education, and that under National they are getting something for childcare.

Katherine Rich: Why would any party sign up to a policy called 20 hours free when it is blatantly not free; and does it not demonstrate a loss of focus on his part that he is concentrating on what other parties might do and he cannot answer basic questions, such as how many centres have opted in at this point, even though he has the forms from the Ministry of Education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, it does not show a lack of focus. It shows that finally, as the National Party has to show what it would actually do, its policies are shown to be to the disadvantage of children and families in this country. I repeat: if we take a family that currently pays $144 a week for 8 hours 3 days a week, there is a saving of $3,600 under this policy, and the National Party would cut that by $2,000. That is the focus, that is the difference, and that is why I am looking forward to campaigning on this policy against National’s policy.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Would it not have saved a great deal of angst if the policy had been referred to from the outset as a hugely increased subsidy that will significantly reduce parental costs for 20 hours a week, rather than to try to claim it would make childcare free over the same period for all parents?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I say to the member that underlying this policy is the funding of early childhood education. That is a very important point. The whole focus of this sector has been on the funding of early childhood education. The State is saying it is guaranteeing that payment because it understands that early childhood education is good for young New Zealanders. That is why we support it, that is why the sector supports it, and that is why Paula Bennett is so angry—because she has lost the battle.

Hospitals—Emergency Departments

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the length of time people wait for treatment at hospital emergency departments; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): No, I am not. The service for triage 1 patients, those who must be seen immediately, is reliably excellent. However, the service for triage 2 and 3 patients is below the best practice targets that have been set, even though that service provided in New Zealand hospitals is amongst the best in the Western World.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is no major hospital in New Zealand meeting the Government’s own benchmarks for safe and timely treatment for emergency department patients despite the extra $4 billion a year that this Government is putting into the health system?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me make several points in response to the member. The first is the one I have already made, which is that New Zealand’s emergency departments are, by international standards, amongst the best in the world. That is the first thing. The second point is that under the National Government there was no measurement at all—not any measurement at all.

Hon Bill English: That’s not true.

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is true—there was no measurement of emergency responses under a National Government, because it would rather not know. The third thing is that the standards have been set such that we could achieve them by lowering the standards, but we choose not to. The fourth point is that in the standards for triage 2 and 3—the triage 1 standard is already being met—we are moving closer to the target as each month goes by. In fact, I gave the member the proof of the improvement in triage 2 and 3, and he has chosen not to use it. He has chosen instead to have a go at those who work in emergency services.

Lesley Soper: How does the Minister come to the view that the response times in emergency departments are amongst the best in the world, and does he have any evidence to support his claim?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I do. I have the evidence. The evidence comes from the Commonwealth Fund, a respected American organisation, which compares hospital emergency response times in Australia, Canada, the UK, the US, and New Zealand. New Zealand came first.

Barbara Stewart: Is it possible that more people are turning up at hospital emergency departments because of a shortage of accessible after-hours care, and what is the Government doing to improve the provision of after-hours care?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, it is possible. There are many reasons for increased numbers at emergency departments, one of which, paradoxically, is the improvement in service. After-hours arrangements vary from district health board to district health board, and include general practitioner services being co-located alongside emergency departments in some cases. It seems to work quite well for some district health boards.

Hon Tony Ryall: What sort of poor quality service is the Government providing when one-third of people with imminent threat to life or limb are turning up at emergency departments, and waiting and waiting in pain, going way beyond the Government’s own benchmarks for when these people should be treated, and does the Government not realise that this is actually a basic service of the public health system and that despite $4 billion a year extra, this Government cannot provide patient safety?

Hon PETE HODGSON: If someone faces an imminent threat to life, he or she is seen immediately. In this county, those people are seen when they need to be seen under those circumstances. They do so reliably. [Interruption] It is not a laughing matter. In other countries, ambulances are rerouted to other hospitals—they just say: “We’re full.” That does not happen in this country, and that is why, when measured against four other countries that we like to compare ourselves with—and here they are again: Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US—this country comes tops. I want to know why that member cannot say something nice about the people who work in our emergency departments.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: What steps is the Minister taking to satisfy himself that North Shore Hospital accident and emergency department is going to be able to cope with an expected increase in patient numbers over winter; and why would the public feel confident that this Minister can fix the mess in our hospitals?

Hon PETE HODGSON: One goes to North Shore Hospital—

Hon Member: You don’t!

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do go to North Shore Hospital; I have been there many times. I can say to the member that because this Government does not have unaffordable tax cuts on its mind, the funding for the Waitemata District Health Board will increase by—wait for it—8.0 percent, on Sunday. That is the sort of increase we would never get from a Tory Government, because it wants to ensure money goes on tax cuts.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: When the Minister next goes to North Shore Hospital, would he like to speak to the lady in her 60s who went to the accident and emergency department there with pneumonia, was treated on a trolley in a corridor, was sent home too early, and then came back for another 30 hours on the trolley in the corridor; is it not plain that for all the blarney that this Minister speaks, and all the money he spends, things are actually getting a lot worse in accident and emergency departments?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Not only are things getting better, they are getting measurably better. The reason we cannot compare how things were this decade, with a decade ago, is that that member’s party declined to measure this stuff in the first place. It was not interested in transparency, it was not interested in telling the truth, and it was not interested in measuring improvement. We now can measure improvement, and although we have still not achieved targets for triage 2 patients, and we have still not achieved targets for triage 3 patients, we have achieved them for those who need them most, and we are the best of five countries measured.

Hon Tony Ryall: Would the Minister, in all seriousness, meet the family of the late Dean Carroll—a young man who turned up at the emergency department at Christchurch Hospital in absolute pain and agony, only to be turned away to die 12 hours later—to tell them that the public health service emergency departments are getting better every day; and in that tragic case why did the Prime Minister not attend his funeral?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I happen to know a little about that case. I am sorry that the member has decided to shroud-wave; I am very sorry that that has happened. Here are a couple of things—

Madam SPEAKER: It is becoming increasingly difficult to hear. Unless the comments are kept down, I will be asking for the answers to be heard in silence.

Hon PETE HODGSON: This dead man has a family, so let us be mindful of that. It is a matter of fact that this question was about waiting times and there were no difficulties—as I understand it—with waiting times, in that case. The situation in that case was a case of missed diagnosis. It was a diagnosis that was missed, first of all, in a primary health care setting by a general practitioner, then missed in a secondary care setting. It is regrettable that it happened, and I offer my condolences to the family, but I say that misdiagnoses in medicine do happen, and there is no such thing as a perfect record in diagnosis in medicine and it is not fair to ask that of the medical profession.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—United Nations

9. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What reports, if any, has he received on support for greenhouse gas emissions agreements negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): I have seen reports that the United States now agrees that the world needs a post-Kyoto global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that it ought to be done through the United Nations process. I note that the Kyoto agreement, previously opposed by both Kazakhstan and the National Party, was negotiated through the United Nations.

Steve Chadwick: Can the Minister please tell the House of other recent reports on support for greenhouse gas emission agreements negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can tell of two. The first is a letter to the editor dated 13 June 2007 from Dr Smith. The letter states: “Sir, Last Saturday your correspondent … claimed ‘… stated we should pull out of Kyoto’. This is grossly untrue. I have never stated this.” I cannot reconcile that report with the 2004 article in the same paper, which is headed: “Smith vows Kyoto exit”, and states that Dr Smith said National would opt out of Kyoto. This goes beyond climate change politics to integrity.

Madam SPEAKER: There are no more supplementary questions. I call question No. 10, Simon Power.

Simon Power: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Corrections—

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the letter to the editor of 13 June where Dr Smith—

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: The second document is the earlier article in the same newspaper, where Dr Smith vowed to pull out of Kyoto.

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

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could take the opportunity to point out to the member, who should know by now, that seeking leave to table a document is done either straight after a question is asked or at the end of all the supplementaries, not in the middle of another member’s supplementary question.

Madam SPEAKER: I note the member’s point, but if I had to do that with that member, I would have to do so with just about all members. As you know, points of order raised to seek leave to table documents are under consideration by the Standing Orders Committee. But I take the member’s point.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

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

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but I have made it crystal clear to the chief executive that he is responsible for making further improvements, with clear lines of accountability.

Simon Power: How can the Minister continue to claim that his department is on notice because of its poor performance, when in the last year $1.7 million was paid in bonuses to staff, including at least one staff member who received an individual payment of $20,000—or is his new “tough guy” routine over before it begins?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have never claimed that the department is perfect. A huge number of people in the Department of Corrections do an outstanding job every year. Although mistakes may occur, no mistakes are as big as that made by that member when, as National’s defence spokesperson, he said New Zealand should go to Iraq. How bad is that?

Simon Power: How can he justify $1.7 million in bonuses for his department in a year of construction cost blowouts, the death of Liam Ashley, a critical Ombudsmen’s report, the Graeme Burton rampage that resulted in the tragic death of Karl Kuchenbecker, staff corruption, riots, and so many more blunders that the Standing Orders prevent me from continuing with the list?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: A huge amount of good work has gone on in the Department of Corrections since we came into power. Prison escapes have fallen by 78 percent, the number of serious assaults on staff has declined by 88 percent under this Government, 65 percent of prisoners now have a single point of entry, and serious prisoner-on-prisoner assaults have fallen by 75 percent. A huge amount of good work is taking place in the department, but we are not perfect.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister tell the House whether the situation regarding security in prisons has increased and improved since 1999, when the head of Pāremoremo prison said the fence around the prison was not meant to stop the prisoners escaping but just to slow them down?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Absolutely! Since we came into Government, escapes have fallen by 78 percent while prison muster numbers have increased. We have built over 17 kilometres of proper fencing around prisons, because the previous National Government had neglected to spend anything on capital in this area.

Simon Power: How does the Minister think the public of New Zealand will feel, when a year after barely a third of them expressed confidence in his department in a public poll—the same year that the chief executive described as an annus horribilis—they hear Department of Corrections managers are being paid bonuses in the sum of $1.7 million?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Firstly, the chief executive has never made that comment. Secondly, the level of confidence in the Department of Corrections is still higher than that in politicians around this country, particularly in the National Party ones. A huge amount of good work and improvements are going on, as we speak, in the department.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that one of the criteria for receiving a bonus was the onerous goal that “all performance competencies have been meet”; and even if that was the case for Department of Corrections staff, is that not the least that somebody should be doing in his or her job, not the most, which ends up costing the taxpayer $1.7 million in bonuses?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The facts are that we have reduced the number of escapes by 78 percent and we have reduced the rate of positive results to random drug tests from 35 percent under the National Government down to 13 percent. That is because of a better performance by the vast majority of Department of Corrections officers, some of whom have deserved those bonuses.

Simon Power: How does the Minister reconcile those bonuses with the fact that nearly one-quarter of staff at the Department of Corrections’ head office have chucked in their jobs in the past year, yet by comparison turnover amongst the staff who actually deal with the inmates in the Public Prisons Service is just under 10 percent; and how bad have things got at head office in the environment that we have seen over the last 12 months—again, the environment where this Minister has allowed $1.7 million in bonuses to be paid?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am pleased to hear that the member acknowledges that the turnover of prison officers is indeed very low—lower than the average across the State sector. There has been a higher rate of turnover in the head office, partly, I am sure, because that member continues to make inaccurate accusations of all Department of Corrections staff. I have gone on record as saying there is a restructuring going on in head office, because we are going to better align the lines of accountability and responsibility throughout the whole system.

Aquaculture—Local Councils

11. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Local Government: What action, if any, is his department taking to ensure cooperation between local councils and the aquaculture industry?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I am a member of the aquaculture Ministers group, and am aware that officials from the central government Aquaculture Implementation Team are running an extensive programme of engagement with local government and Aquaculture New Zealand to collaboratively develop the planning tools required for the creation of aquaculture management areas, which include a $2 million contestable fund to assist local government in aquacultural planning.

Tariana Turia: What responsibility should the Whangarei District Council take for having approved a state-of-the-art bio-septic tank system, which malfunctioned and placed an oyster farm at Pārua Bay, on the Whangarei Harbour, at risk from pollution?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: That responsibility rests entirely with the regional council in Whangarei. I am advised that the regional council is currently monitoring the issue. Results from samples taken 2 weeks ago were within standards. The engineers and drainlayers associated with the development checked the design and installation. Some improvement works were required, and have been completed. If further work is required, it will be undertaken.

Tariana Turia: Does the Minister agree with Aquaculture New Zealand that the admission by the Whangarei District Council spokesperson that there is no routine monitoring to make sure septic systems are working is unacceptable; if so, what actions will he be taking to ensure that councils take responsibility for the risks that subdivisions pose to water quality, human health, and the $30 million a year aquaculture industry?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Just a matter of correction: it is not a $30 million a year industry; it is a $300 million a year industry. I would not want to undersell aquaculture! [Interruption] Oh really! The cross-Government Aquaculture Implementation Team is working with the aquaculture industry to promote discussions with local councils about the importance of maintaining water quality standards for the aquaculture industry. The industry has, of course, identified water quality as a major issue into the future, and understands the need to work closely with local councils on land-use planning.

Tariana Turia: I thank the Minister for the correction, but I was talking about Whangarei. What response will he make to iwi and Māori organisations in the marine-farming industry that have consistently raised concerns about the role of regional councils in the allocation of aquaculture space?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I would think that Māori organisations would be very pleased with the fact that the Government has funded the discussions about, and development of, aquaculture at a regional level to the tune of $2 million in direct funding and another $1 million to develop particular projects. The member might be pleased also to celebrate the fact that aquacultural areas have developed by 48 percent over the last 5 years, which is the fastest rate of aquaculture development in New Zealand’s history.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a document No New Aquaculture Space Created by Regional Councils Throughout New Zealand in Three Years.

Leave granted.

Labour, Department—Confidence

12. PAULA BENNETT (National) to the Minister of Labour: Does she have confidence in her department; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): Yes, I do; and as an example of why, the department has achieved significant productivity gains in a number of areas, as was recently explained at the select committee hearing. For example, the department is providing higher-quality and timely information and guidance for employers and employees, before an employment problem escalates. The Mediation Service has increased the proportion of recorded settlements, and the department’s call centre is now able to deal with a wider range of issues at first-contact time. These gains have been achieved with no extra funding. These gains aside, there is always room for improvement.

Paula Bennett: Does the Minister stand by her statement made in a letter complaining about me to the Speaker, dated 28 March 2007, that allegations that her department had broken Cabinet’s mandatory rules for procurement are “a serious charge”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Allegations of that nature are a serious charge; yes.

Paula Bennett: Why has her department breached Cabinet’s mandatory rules for procurement over the past year and given out seven contracts at a cost of more than $100,000 each, at a combined cost of nearly $1 million, without going through a tendering process?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I have been advised that of the seven, two actually had exemptions under the mandatory rules, but five did not. That is not acceptable, and I have reminded the chief executive of the Department of Labour and the senior management responsible for this area, of the literal meaning of the word “mandatory”.

Darien Fenton: What are the key pieces of work that the department has engaged in that will make an important contribution to the prosperity of the country and improve the lives of many New Zealanders?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A huge amount of excellent work is under way—too much to list here. But it includes the workplace productivity agenda, which is recognised internationally as a leader; continuing expansion of the paid parental leave scheme, which National opposes; implementing the pay and employment equity action plan, which National opposes; facilitating good employer-employee relationship, through the partnership resource centre, which National opposes; reviewing annual increases to the minimum wage, the latest being the largest increase ever, which National opposes; and last, but not least, overseeing implementation of the Government’s policy of 4 weeks’ annual leave for all workers, which National also opposes.

Paula Bennett: Why has the department been so slow to implement a simple set of rules, 12 months after the directive was issued, and the only explanations it could offer the select committee last week was that it was “improving this” and that it has “taken some time”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I share the member’s concern with regard to this particular point. They have been reminded of the actual meaning of the word “mandatory”.

Peter Brown: Will the minister confirm that the Department of Labour is overseeing an independent inquiry into casualisation at the behest of New Zealand First; and will she confirm that clearly the department has become much more capable and competent in recent years, because in 1997 and 1998 when New Zealand First was in coalition with the National Party, the National Party told us that that was impossible?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I can confirm every single point the member made in his question, but to elaborate on the issue of casualisation—which is of major concern to the majority of New Zealanders who believe in a fair deal for all New Zealand workers and that those in circumstances where their employment should be permanent should have the rights and entitlements attached—actually during the 1990s the process of casualisation was encouraged by the National Government.

Paula Bennett: Is the Minister holding someone in the department to account for the breach in Cabinet’s mandatory rules for procurement, or has she done that already via Dr Buwalda’s early departure?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes and no.

Paula Bennett: Why should the public have confidence in this Minister when her department has hired 288 new staff, increased the number of employees earning $80,000 by more than 15 percent, hired 118 temporary staff, and—on top of all this—the department still spends $8 million on consultants, all in the same year?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am not quite sure which of those points the member opposes. Does the member oppose people having jobs? Does the member oppose senior managers getting paid at a higher rate than they were in the 1990s? Or does the member oppose temporary staff being employed to fill temporary vacancies? Frankly, I do not see an issue with any of those points.

ENDS

© Scoop Media