Questions to Ministers

Mortgages—Interest Rate Levy

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that a mortgage interest rate levy is a “dead duck” and “unlikely to see the light of day again”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement of 29 April in respect of a capital gains tax on housing investment that “It’s not been considered. We’ve had the door firmly closed on that.”, and given that she ruled out both of those proposals, will she also rule out the recent proposal to ring-fence losses on investment in housing, for tax purposes?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is correct that I also ruled out the issue of the capital gains tax as not being Labour Party policy. I am aware that there is a select committee inquiry; I am not aware of whether the National Party will actually be participating in it. But before that inquiry takes place, no doubt all manner of ideas will be canvassed, including the idea of ring-fencing losses on investment properties.

Darren Hughes: Has she received any reports indicating a willingness to discuss issues around mortgage interest rates?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is certainly my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition has expressed interest in discussing instruments that might reinforce monetary policy, but he has consistently been overruled by his deputy, Mr English.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she has overruled the Minister of Finance on three occasions when he has floated proposals to attack housing investment; and does this mean that no one should listen to Dr Cullen, because in this area he does not have the backing of the Prime Minister for what he says?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I cannot confirm any such thing.

Hon Bill English: Given that the Prime Minister has had to overrule the Minister of Finance on three separate proposals he has made in respect of tax policy, which Minister of Finance does she back on personal tax—Dr Cullen, who said he would make announcements on the future of personal tax reductions in the next Budget, or Trevor Mallard, who told an Australian newspaper that Labour would cut personal taxes in the next Budget?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I said in reply to the previous supplementary question that I could not confirm any such thing. Therefore, the “given” that started this question was, of course, not a given at all. Secondly, having subjected the latter two statements to which the member refers to close textual analysis, I did not see any contradiction.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister support Trevor Mallard’s proposal to cut personal taxes in the next Budget by increasing the thresholds or Dr Cullen’s opposition to tax cuts under almost any circumstances, including his proposal today that any extra money should go to top-ups for KiwiSaver, not personal tax cuts?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There are so many misquotes in that question that it is scarcely worth even responding to. I will repeat what I said in my answer to the previous question. Having looked very closely at both the statements concerned, I was hard-pressed to find a contradiction.

Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House whether she intends to overrule Dr Cullen’s proposal that tax losses on investment in housing be ring-fenced, or does she back that proposal; if so, why, when she ruled out the previous two proposals?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I understand it, it is a proposal made by the Reserve Bank that has gone to a select committee, which the National Party may or may not participate in.

Hon Bill English: Is it now the Prime Minister’s position that Dr Cullen has never said anything about ring-fencing tax losses on investment housing; and why does she not just front up and admit to Parliament that she has had to overrule him twice, and that she will have to overrule him again, because she does not support his attacks on investment in housing?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member must be completely deaf. Dr Cullen has advised this House that it is not Government policy, and he has not said that it is Government policy.

National Land Transport Programme—Passenger Transport Funding

2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: How does a 12.6 percent decline next year in national spending on passenger transport, included in the 2007-08 National Land Transport Programme, help achieve the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): I believe the member has misunderstood the funding for passenger transport. Rather than a decline, there will an overall increase in Government investment in passenger transport during the coming year. That is because not all of the Government’s investment in public transport is allocated through the National Land Transport Programme. A sizable investment also goes into rail. The total Government investment in passenger transport is expected to be $506 million in 2007-08, which is an increase of $75 million from last year. This year’s investment includes $263 million through the National Land Transport Programme and $243 million provided directly to ONTRACK and the regions for upgrades of the Auckland and Wellington urban rail networks.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister saying that the National Land Transport Programme is wrong when it shows public transport funding declining from $301 million this year to $263 million next year—and is the New Zealand Herald also wrong—and how can she claim to be putting new money into Auckland rail electrification when Auckland has to pay all the servicing charges on the long-term Crown loan?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I am not saying that the National Land Transport Programme is wrong, but I think it is rather difficult when talking about passenger transport to talk only about buses and not about trains, because trains, as the member knows, make up a major and growing part of passenger transport. So to isolate one part out, and to say that it is not enough to achieve the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality, I think is being too cute.

Hon Mark Gosche: What importance does the Government place on passenger transport?

Hon ANNETTE KING: This $506 million investment reflects the importance that the Government does place on improving passenger transport as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also providing better transport choices. This Government has enabled a major step change in the funding provision for passenger transport. I just remind members that in 1999 the investment in passenger transport was around $45 million.

Hon Mark Gosche: What is the National Land Transport Programme funding allocated to Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city, which was starved of funding under the National Government?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is a very good question. The Government is allocating nearly $780 million to land transport in Auckland through the programme. That is a $221 million increase from last year and does not even include any of the rail announcements made in Budget 2007. This year Auckland is receiving a major boost with the opening of the northern busway, which will provide dedicated and high-occupancy vehicle transit lanes and facilities between the Auckland Harbour Bridge and Albany. Further, in the past year Government funding has enabled the successful completion of the central motorway junction, Panmure Station, and the Esmonde Road interchange, just to name three projects. I remind the House that in 1999 the National Government was investing around $18 million in public transport in Auckland.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How will she explain to the thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint that next year the Government’s National Land Transport Programme will spend $113 million more on roads and $38 million less on public transport, despite the fact that the National Land Transport Programme makes it quite clear that the Land Transport Fund can, and does, spend on rail?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I do not think people in New Zealand will be confused at all about this Government’s commitment to passenger transport. In fact, in the National Land Transport Programme announced last night, predictions under this Government’s agenda are that passenger transport funding will increase by 75 percent over the next 10 years. I would put that record against that of any other party in this House that has had the opportunity to be in Government.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does a State highway that is mostly used by local people to get from one side of a city to another get funded 100 percent by central government, whereas a rail line or a busway that does exactly the same thing must be paid for half out of local rates; and is that not a reason that we do not get very many public transport projects applying for funding from the Land Transport Fund—because the locals have to find half the money?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think that most New Zealanders want to be fair about this. Most New Zealanders who use their cars or drive trucks pay the petrol excise duty. They pay the road-user charges, and that is the funding that goes into the National Land Transport Fund. So they put the money in, and I believe that most New Zealanders believe they should also get benefits out of it. But they do not mind—most of them—also putting some money into passenger transport for those who do not pay the petrol excise duty directly, or who do not drive cars. So there has to be fairness in terms of allocating money to roads and to passenger transport. This Government is committed to increasing the allocation to passenger transport, and I welcome the support we receive from the Greens, particularly on the announcement today about the major investment that will go into trains—for example, here in Wellington.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister confirm, in relation to her answer about motorists’ funding, that analysis in Auckland shows that 44 percent of the benefit of upgrading the rail system in Auckland goes to motorists and only 28 percent to passengers on trains; and is that not a reason for motorists to fund more of the public transport system?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Increasingly, New Zealanders who drive cars will pay for more passenger transport, because, for example, the use of the train in Auckland when it is electrified comes from a fuel tax. That is paid for by people who drive their cars and trucks. So they increasingly do pay for passenger transport, and I do not think they resent that. But they would resent it if there were not an ability for them also to have roads on which they, too, can move around. I do agree with the member in one respect—that is, if we can get people off the roads and into passenger transport, it will be easier for those who are on the roads to move around. So there is definitely an advantage. But the member constantly tries to play one group off against another, and I do not think it is helpful, when we are trying to encourage people to accept their duty to pay to help fund passenger transport, if people cannot see a benefit coming from it for themselves.

District Health Boards—House Officer Vacancies

3. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the Acting Minister of Health’s answer in the House of 15 May 2007, “I am informed that the three Auckland district health boards have house officer vacancies … estimated at less than 2 percent … I am also advised that it is not expected that the overall shortage will worsen in the next quarter.”; if so, what is the latest information he has on the next quarter?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes I do. I was advised this morning that the gaps in the rosters—that is, positions not filled by permanent house officers or by locums—whilst they vary across shifts, are still about 2 percent.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is the Government being so evasive about the true level of the junior doctor vacancies in New Zealand, when this leaked memo to all chief executives of district health boards in New Zealand says:

“New Zealand is currently facing a huge shortage of junior doctors, which has been gradually increasing over the last 7 years. As at the 2nd of May the Auckland hospitals had vacancy rates of 18 to 23 percent for house officers in the third quarter, predictions for the fourth quarter vacancies approach 40 to 50 percent, and these numbers are mirrored in some other hospitals throughout New Zealand.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The fact of the matter is that the number of doctors employed by Waitemata District Health Board, and by other Auckland district health boards—Waitemata is where the problem is thought by some to be most acute—has been rising steadily every year this Government has been in Government, and will continue to rise, including from next Sunday when that district hospital board’s funding increases by 8 percent.

Ann Hartley: Have there been any increases in doctor numbers in New Zealand hospitals over recent years; if so, what are the details?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes there have been. There has been an increase of 1,400 doctors in the last 6 years. That is a significant increase by anyone’s standards. For Waitemata District Health Board, supposedly the problem district health board, the increase in the number of doctors has been more than significant; it has been dramatic. By trawling through Waitemata’s recent history and making adjustments for methodology, the number of doctors employed by Waitemata has increased from 320, 6 years ago, to 570 doctors today—from 320 doctors to 570 doctors. That is a 78 percent increase in doctors in that district health board in 6 years. Of course there is a 2 percent vacancy rate now, but that needs to be measured against a 78 percent increase in the last 6 years. This is the sort of improvement that can happen when a Government decides to invest in health and invest in health professionals.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is the Minister saying that the vacancy rate is only 2 percent, when this document prepared for every chief executive of a district health board in New Zealand shows that the junior doctor vacancy rate is, at the moment, 10 times what he is saying, and it is predicted to be 50 percent in the next few months; and is that why representatives of his district health boards are about to fly over to Britain to try to recruit 30 doctors to try to fix this problem?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Indeed I can confirm that New Zealand district health boards are very interested in the fact that medical unemployment is now arising in Britain. If we can secure the services of well-trained British doctors as a result, well and good, I say. In respect of this business about a 20 percent vacancy rate, the member is talking about something different from what I am talking about. In fact, the member may care to reflect that those who are doing locums are the same junior doctors who would be permanently employed if they wished to be. What those junior doctors are doing is trading less job security for more money.

Heather Roy: In respect of hospitals, just how important is Labour’s employment law when Hutt District Health Board house surgeons have been told they cannot take any leave, contrary to employment law, because of the house surgeon shortage, and house surgeons at Capital and Coast District Health Board are allowed to take leave but management then directs senior doctors to pressure the house surgeons, again against the law, to cover gaps above and beyond their normal working hours?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Assertions are made easily in the health sector and they come from the opposite side of the House each day, apparently. We now have an assertion of a crisis in one district health board from the National Party, when the facts show that there has been a 78 percent increase in doctors in the last 6 years; it is hard to manufacture a crisis out of that. The member has made a couple of assertions, unsupported by evidence, which may or may not be true. How would I know? All I have to say to the member is that district health boards obey New Zealand law, including New Zealand employment law.

Hon Tony Ryall: Who should New Zealanders believe—

Madam SPEAKER: The level of intervention is rising again in the House. Would members please keep it at an acceptable level.

Hon Tony Ryall: Who should New Zealanders believe: the management of district health boards, who are the people who run our hospitals and who are saying that the workforce crisis in New Zealand is deepening and that health care services will be affected by a 50 percent vacancy amongst junior doctors in the next quarter, or the Minister of Health, who has been so evasive in trying to admit that there is a major problem facing hospital services in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: District health boards in Auckland advised me about a month ago that they think they will walk into a problem of a shortage of doctors. Maybe that is—

Hon Tony Ryall: You’re going to look so stupid when you see this.

Hon PETE HODGSON: They, in fact, wrote me a letter about a month ago to tell me; presumably that is the letter the member has. The ministry’s response to the district health boards is: “Well, what are you going to do about it? What are your contingency plans?”. Those contingency plans have been received. They are regarded by the ministry as thoroughly satisfactory and in-depth, but the member continues to assert that we have a crisis when it is difficult to see what it might be.

Jo Goodhew: Can the Minister confirm that the likely cause of increasing numbers of doctors opting to be locums is the high degree of industrial unrest in the sector and those doctors being undervalued and not listened to by this Labour Government?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My guess is that there probably is a linkage between industrial unrest and assertions. It is quite interesting to look at what the assertions are about a crisis in this workforce and match them up against what is going on in the industrial relations scene at the time. For example, we had a report a couple of weeks ago that said there was a 40 percent turnover in nurses. When we take a little look, to get to 40 percent—it is nothing like 40 percent; it is not even half of 40 percent—we have to add in everything. For example, we have to add in the fact that nurses who are in their first year of training would move from one rung to another to get themselves a little bit of experience, and every time those nurses change their rung, it is called a resignation and a re-employment. If we are to do that, we can get ourselves bewilderingly large figures. Sometimes that happens in health. My interest is ensuring that we get to the truth.

Jo Goodhew: Does the Minister realise he could save heaps of the money that he is spending sending recruiters overseas to lure home New Zealand doctors just by posting to those doctors the press cuttings from Trevor Mallard’s announcement of tax cuts in 2008?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member draws a long bow, wastes a lot of parliamentary time, and gives me a question for which I have no responsibility.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

4. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has he received on the policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I saw a report on Sunday from a person saying that the policy is “unworkable”, and that they “wouldn’t offer the scheme”, and “haven’t changed our policy from childcare tax deductions.” I have also seen a report today from the same person in today’s Dominion Post denying that she would scrap 20 hours’ free early childhood education, and stating that “childcare tax deductions are not what we are going to be fighting the election on.” In both cases this comes from National’s Paula Bennett. The shaking has begun, and the flip-flop is about to take place.

Darien Fenton: What other responses has the Minister seen to the policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Linda Mitchell, a researcher from the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, calls the policy “a very important and visionary policy that acknowledges the real value of early childhood education for children and families”. The Wellington Region Free Kindergarten Association chair, Anne Hare, says: “This policy will be of huge benefit to New Zealand families.” Earlier this week a Taranaki parent who estimated saving $36 a week from 20 hours’ free education, told the Daily News: “I think it’s a great thing we can put a bit of money aside.” Therefore, it is no wonder that John Key, in full aspirational mode, has told us that he wants all young children in this country to have access to 20 hours’ free education.

Katherine Rich: Why would any party want to sign up to a policy called “20 hours’ free” when it is not free, and why is he spending precious parliamentary time, boxing at shadows, when he cannot answer even the simplest questions about his policy, such as how many centres have opted in, and how many kids will actually receive 20 free hours next week?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member wants to know why we might spend parliamentary time—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I cannot hear the response. We will have it in silence.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member wants to know why we are spending parliamentary time on this. I say to her that it is because the country has become extremely interested in what the National—

Katherine Rich: How many? You can’t answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please be seated. I ask the member who intervened to please leave the Chamber. I said that we would have the answer in silence because we could not hear it. Members have continued to intervene. The member who intervened will please leave the Chamber.

Katherine Rich withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member was asking why we would want to spend parliamentary time on this question. I think it is because the country has become extremely interested in what the National Party campaign against 20 hours’ free education means. We need to tell the country that at the moment it means, we think, a childcare tax credit. However, that policy is now being refuted by the National Party spokesperson, Paula Bennett, and that kind of confusion is worth airing in the House so that the country knows what it might get if it dared to vote for a National Government.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The difficulty you have, Madam Speaker, is that the member asked a perfectly proper question. The question did not ask what National’s policy was, or anything like that. She asked how many children would get the service and how many centres have signed up. The interjection from my colleague whom you have tipped out was simply to try to get the Minister to answer that question. Now that you have kicked her out, perhaps we could get an answer from the Minister to the member’s question.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister was addressing the question. Members know what the rules are. It was impossible to hear. The level of intervention through barracking had become impossible. I had asked for that particular answer to be heard in silence so that members could hear, so that we could return to a regular exchange. The Minister did address the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened very carefully to the Minister. He gave a long answer as to what National’s policy was—for which he has absolutely no responsibility—and at no time in his answer did he address the question in relation to how many centres and how many children, which is the question on the minds of every New Zealand family with preschool children.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to repeat his answer and to address the question.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I point out that the convention in the House under the Standing Orders is that I have to reply to one out of many questions in a question. One of the member’s questions asked why we are focusing attention on this issue, and that was the question I answered.

Madam SPEAKER: I also note that Katherine Rich has a question. She should be allowed to return to ask that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any reports whatsoever from any source whatsoever explaining what the beleaguered mothers and fathers of preschool children in New Zealand, or those whom John Key has described as the underclass, have done to deserve, of all people, as their mouthpiece, Paula Bennett?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is a difficult question for me to answer, as the member would expect, but my understanding is that the portfolio is allocated by John Key, and I can only say he wanted people to have—

Madam SPEAKER: There is no ministerial responsibility for that. It is not a sensible question.

Foreign Nationals—False Documentation

5. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: How many foreign nationals have made it to New Zealand’s borders with falsified or fraudulent travel documents since 1 January 2004?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): In all likelihood many fewer than under the previous National administration, which for its first 7 years had not one fraud investigation officer in place and which by the time it ended had just appointed its first. In contrast, as well as building a fraud investigations unit of 18 officers, this Government has focused on installing preventive measures at the top of the cliff, such as Advance Passenger Processing, which was set up in 2003; the immigration profiling group, set up in 2005; the Regional Movement Alert List, set up in 2006; the risk targeting programme, set up in 2006; and a range of offshore interdiction programmes.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I do not think the Minister did address the question. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order, I would argue, with respect, that I did address the question. The question asked how many are likely to have occurred, and I said the likelihood is that there were more under the previous administration because the infrastructure was less well developed than it is now. I do think that addresses the question.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has had this question on notice for some hours. The question does not ask about the likelihood. The Minister is misleading the House in that assertion. The question is quite plain. It asks how many foreign nationals have made it to New Zealand’s borders with falsified documents. It does not ask what is likely; it asks for the facts. This Minister should deliver the facts to this House.

Madam SPEAKER: I have heard enough. Certainly, as members know, they cannot demand a specific answer to the question. That normally comes with phrases such as: “Yes, no, how many, give a number.” The Minister did, I think, in that context, address the question, but I can understand that the way in which he gave his answer—he included a lot of detail that did not appear relevant—led to people thinking it was not specifically addressed. The answer may not have been a satisfactory one, but, as members know, Ministers do not have to give specific answers to questions. They merely have to address them, and under those circumstances, however unsatisfactory the answer may be, the Minister addressed the question.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is actually quite an important issue. A Minister was given a question on notice that is in the public interest. The Standing Orders are very specific. They require a Minister to answer the question—that is very clear in the Standing Orders. The Minister must answer the question in a manner that addresses it, and I suggest to you humbly that to put the addressing of the question ahead of answering it is not what the Standing Orders intend. The Standing Orders are very explicit. They say the Minister must answer the question if an answer can be given consistently with the public interest, and the answer that is given must address the question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Indeed, the member just contradicted himself at the very end of his speech. The Standing Orders do say very clearly that an answer that seeks to address the question must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest. Clearly, in this case the Minister, having determined that it could be given, has to address the question—indeed seek to address the question. So the member cannot demand that a “how many” type of question must lead to a specific “273” or “186” type of answer. The Minister gave an answer, but, of course, the Speaker is able to make comments that I thought the member might have taken a hint from, in terms of the satisfactory or unsatisfactory nature of the answer.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that none of the 596 identity fraud case files referred to in the Auditor-General’s report pose any security risk to New Zealand; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have directed the department to apply additional resources to clear that backlog, and all of those case files have been allocated. It is impossible to give a number to the member when that analysis has not yet been completed, but by way of example let me give two statistics. Firstly, in the last year the Government’s prosecution efforts have had an 84 percent success rate. Secondly, in the last year the department has conducted 55 prosecutions. In the last year of the failed National administration, it managed only one.

Steve Chadwick: What successes have followed from the Labour Government’s preventive border security measures?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that of the 5 million border crossings each year, 762 people have been denied the ability to board planes to New Zealand under Advance Passenger Processing, 1,214 people were refused entry at the border, over 100 people have been refused entry through the risk targeting programme, over 12,000 application decisions have been made by the immigration profiling group, with a decline rate of 20 percent since June 2005, and—sorry—an 86 percent, not an 84 percent, conviction rate has been achieved for all the fraud prosecutions undertaken by the department. Again, I contrast that to just one in the last year of the doomed National Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether he has read the Department of Labour’s 2002 briefing to the incoming Minister of Immigration, which states under the heading “Managing fraud is a major issue” that “The New Zealand Immigration Service is faced with increasingly sophisticated fraudulent documents. It is essential that the New Zealand Immigration Service has the tools to respond effectively to fraud.”; and can he explain why in the 5 years since that briefing his department has not put the personnel, the technology, or the resources in place to properly scrutinise the people who come into our country?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Let me answer that in two fairly full parts. Firstly, no, I did not read the 2002 incoming Minister’s briefing; I read the one to me in 2005. Secondly, on resources, National spent $730,000 in 1998-99 on immigration risk profiling. Since taking office, Labour has spent consecutively $10 million, $8 million, $19 million, $66 million, $14 million, and $16 million on border security. I think the answer is plain: the Government has vastly upgraded the effort.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If the Minister has such very good figures at his fingertips, will he tell us how many of the 596 fraud case files identified in the Auditor-General’s report on immigration identity fraud relate to people who are currently in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I said, all of those case files have now been analysed, and I have directed that additional resource be put into conducting that analysis. It will be obvious, even to the Opposition, that one cannot logically answer that question until that analysis has been completed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether his department will review all recent refugee and migrant applications to ensure that no applicants have been able to enter the country by fraudulent means, especially in the light of the report that admits that the department’s fraud database was “corrupted” in 2005 and 4 months of information was lost; and if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General found that overall, the department has “systems, processes, procedures, and relationships … in place to prevent, detect, and investigate immigration identity fraud.” I have directed the chief executive to put additional resource behind the analysis of the existing queue of cases, and to report monthly to me and on the department’s website as to the progress that is being made. I am also working with the department to ensure that all 15 of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General’s recommendations are implemented expeditiously.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister confirm that he has told this House just now that he does not know how many of the 596 fraud case files identified in the Auditor-General’s report are for people who are actually in New Zealand right now?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have said to the member that I want to see the analysis done before I give him numbers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What in the Auditor-General’s report suggests that the Minister’s department has learnt from the numerous cases that have been brought before this Parliament by New Zealand First, including the case of the former Minister of Agriculture in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq being on the streets of Auckland without this Minister’s department having any idea about that; what in the report suggests that he and his department have learnt anything from all the examples of a failed system happening in our country?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Again, I will give a two-part reply. As to the first part, with great respect to the member, I say that I have seen no evidence that indicates the case he referred to was actually a matter of immigration identity fraud; it may have been a failure of the border security admission system. But, second and more important, since becoming Minister I have championed the immigration change programme, which as the member knows, in cooperation with his party sets up a very widespread three-tier reform programme of legislation, policy, and operations that seeks a fundamental upgrade of the department’s systems.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When the Minister said yesterday that “there is a gap between where you want to be and where you currently are”, can he give an assurance that falling through that gap have not been any individuals gaining access to New Zealand who could pose a security, criminal, or even a public health, risk to New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have given the assurance publicly—and I am happy to repeat to the member in the House—that every one of the recommendations of the Auditor-General will be implemented, and that that gap will be closed to my satisfaction.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the Department of Labour’s 2002 briefing to the incoming Minister.

Leave granted.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table 49 written parliamentary questions, in reply to that briefing, that have been asked by New Zealand First since 2002 with regard to immigration corruption.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Eligibility

6. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: How many 3 and 4-year-olds currently attending kindergartens does he expect will receive 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): As I have noted previously, the data is being finalised. It is my intention to release full details, as I have said frequently, broken down by the type of service, how many centres are in the scheme, how many children are benefiting, and where they are.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Do you know anything?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, quite a lot.

Katherine Rich: When the Minister says that the data is being finalised, is he trying to tell the House that although this policy is going live on Monday, he has no idea how many kids will actually receive 20 free hours’ early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member has asked this question frequently, and on each occasion I have encouraged her just to relax. The policy is under good control. I think the Ministry of Education has done a very good job on the policy, and it has been processing the centres and the numbers. As I have said frequently, the policy is launched on 1 July. I know that the member is eager to see it, because I know that her leader is aspirational about it. I will make sure that those figures are made known to her, as well, at that time.

Moana Mackey: How many 3 and 4-year-olds currently attending kindergarten does he expect would qualify for a childcare tax deduction?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Very few. Many kindergartens are no longer asking parents for regular donations, because of the 20 free hours policy. If it were scrapped, kindergartens would have to go back to asking for donations, but donations would not qualify for a childcare tax deduction. Moreover, many parents in the situation where one parent stays at home with the kids would be disqualified. Based on a recent New Zealand Council for Educational Research survey, it appears that two-thirds of kindergarten households are in that situation, which would make a childcare tax deduction meaningless.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that when the ministry surveyed all early childhood education providers, it arrived at an average cost of provision of $6.40 per student hour, and that the actual subsidy being offered ranges between $11.10 per student hour for a fully qualified teacher service, down to $3.20 per student hour?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm those figures. As the select committee was told—a meeting at which the Opposition spokesperson was present—the Ministry of Education surveyed all centres and got a 56 percent return. The peer reviewer of that research said that a 25 percent return would have been adequate to get an accurate picture. So the ministry gained a very, very good picture of the current costs being incurred by the sector, and those are the figures that it arrived at.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that, from next week, the bulk of the kids that he will be counting as receiving 20 free hours will be kindy kids who were technically receiving a free service anyway; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is a very good point. I refer the member to the general manager of the Central North Island Kindergarten Association, who recently told the Waikato Times: “I must correct the impression … that the Government has always provided 20 hours of free hours to three- to four-year-olds at kindergarten. In fact parents have always had to meet the cost of day-to-day running of kindergartens by making donations, paying fees and fundraising.” And as the Lower Hutt Kindergarten Association has pointed out, the days of that happening are over because under this policy they now get stable funding 4 months in advance.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister still stand by his belief that this policy has been sold well; if he does, how does he explain the amount of angst that it has created?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have to say that the policy has had a few debates over the past few months, but they can be traceable to, essentially, three people. Two of them are in the House, and one of them is the chief executive of the Early Childhood Council. If anybody else was to be asked—Irene Cooper of the New Zealand Educational Institute, researchers like Linda Mitchell, people like Nancy Bell who run services, or the many people who run kindergarten associations around the country—such people would say they have simply gotten on with it.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that next week he will be counting 43,000 children who are already receiving free early childhood education through free kindergartens across the country as kids receiving 20 free hours, when the parents of those children either will receive no financial gain as a result of his policy, or, in some cases, will actually be paying more for early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do feel that this member has never really understood this policy, so I take her back again to the general manager of the Central North Island Kindergarten Association, who said that 20 free hours have never been available to this category of young person. The parents have raised money, they have paid donations, and they have paid fees, all across the country. Right now, the Lower Hutt Kindergarten Association, for example, is charging nil to its parents, whereas before they fund-raised, paid fees, and made donations. I am looking across at Mr Simon Power, the father of a young child; he will be looking forward to not having to do that when he enrols that young child in a kindergarten association.

Paula Bennett: How does the Minister respond to those parents currently receiving a Work and Income childcare subsidy who have now discovered that they will be worse off, and will end up paying more under something that is supposedly free?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Parents whose children go to early childhood centres and get a Work and Income subsidy will, of course, benefit. If they get 20 free hours, they benefit. But the one thing they must fear is a childcare tax credit, which would mean they would lose heavily. A beneficiary, for example, would get nothing. But they should also fear the sheer confusion that surrounds all of the policies from the National Party, and, of course, they should expect that a flip-flop is about to arrive.

Paula Bennett: How does he respond to one mother who receives a Work and Income subsidy who describes as bizarre the fact that under the 20 free hours policy she will be $15 per week worse off; and another who states: “I work part-time and am a solo mum who currently pays $30 per week. If I opt in for 20 hours free scheme, I end up paying double, which I can’t afford.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: All I can say is that the member has turned up in the House with a number of hypothetical cases. If she would care to give us any of those kinds of situations, we would look at them. But usually we find out she is wrong.

National Land Transport Programme—Key Features

7. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Transport: What are the key features of the 2007-08 National Land Transport Programme announced last evening?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): The National Land Transport Programme allocates a record $2.4 billion across 12 activity classes. This is a record level of expenditure. A key feature of the programme is that it clearly demonstrates this Government’s commitment to transport infrastructure. We are investing over 145 percent more in transport than a National Government did in 1998-99. Furthermore, in the coming year the Government expects to invest over $500 million in public transport. There is also increased funding for walking and cycling, road safety, and much more.

Darren Hughes: Has the Minister received any comments about this large increase in funding for the National Land Transport Programme?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I have. I have seen many comments praising the Government for its commitment to New Zealand’s infrastructure. However, I am rather bemused by the comments from Maurice Williamson. He admitted that there has been underspending for decades, that there was a huge amount of catch-up to do, but he dismissed the increases in funding as something that just goes up every year, anyway. Well, let us see whether it does. This graph, which my colleague is holding up, shows the level of under-investment by a National Government in the 1990s. It shows, in fact, that this present Government is serious about addressing under-investment. Have a look at the figures for National, then at the figures for Labour, and then look at the predicted increase. What a lousy increase we had under a National Government. The other thing is, poor old Mr Williamson said he had difficulty getting money out of the then Minister of Finance. Well, that was his Minister of Finance, and I know that our Minister of Finance understands the need to invest into New Zealand.

Housing New Zealand—Confidence

8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes; but there is always room for improvement.

Phil Heatley: How is it that a person can be allocated a State house in Māngere, and, at the same time, own a holiday home in Russell?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would welcome further information about that case.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to judge whether that is a fair answer, given that the Minister gave me that information yesterday with a cover letter.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, that is not a point of order.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister tell the House what reports he has seen on Housing New Zealand Corporation’s efforts to improve insulation and energy efficiency in State houses?

Madam SPEAKER: Members do want questions to be addressed. I would remind members that we want to hear the answers, please.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We have completed 14,000 energy retrofits since 2001. This is a subject that members of this House are very interested in. Last Friday, for example, a resident of McGehan Close in Mount Roskill told the corporation that she had been contacted by members of the National Party in Wellington who were interested in the insulation of her house. Previously she had been given a thermometer by National list MP Jackie Blue, who asked her to measure the temperature of her house. As all maintenance issues at this resident’s property are being addressed, she has informed the corporation that she will not respond to Jackie Blue’s request. I guess this is a vote of confidence in the corporation from one of our tenants.

Phil Heatley: How is it that a person not only can get away with owning a holiday home in Russell while having a State house but also can get away with not living in the State house, instead renting it out for a tidy profit to an unwitting family?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am astonished to learn that that member claims he received a letter from me about this subject yesterday. I would like to sit down with him after question time, be shown this letter, and find out a bit more information about this case. It is really astonishing.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the letter.

Leave granted.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Official Information Act request explaining these details.

Leave granted.

Phil Heatley: What action has the Minister taken to investigate Housing New Zealand Corporation over this scam, given that one of the neighbours has formally testified to the corporation that the tenant “gloated he knew someone in Housing; that is how he got the place.”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Such alleged behaviour by a tenant would be totally inappropriate. I will be investigating it very carefully after question time.

Phil Heatley: Was the State house tenant ever prosecuted, and was an official investigation ever made into allegations that to pull off this scam the tenant had insider help from a Housing New Zealand Corporation mate?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: All sorts of allegations can be made by all sorts of people. I can assure this House that I will be looking into this case very carefully, very quickly.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. What response has the Minister made to the 2006 report called Māori Housing Experiences: Emerging Trends and Issues, carried out under contract to Housing New Zealand Corporation and Te Puni Kōkiri, which recommended that: “Māori capability in the housing sector should be better resourced so as to support the development of Māori collective initiatives.”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have been concerned for some time that progress on Māori housing has not been as rapid as it could have been. Some very significant announcements to speed this up will be made in the next few weeks.

Health Services—Primary Health Subsidies

9. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on the security of primary health subsidies?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have. The National Party said in September 2005, just prior to the last election, that in effect, under National, doctors’ fees for 25 to 64-year-olds would double, and prescription charges would rise from $3 to $15. However, I then read in the Bay of Plenty Times earlier this month that National’s health spokesperson, Tony Ryall, is now not sure what National’s policy will be. So we have certainty and security of low doctor fees and low prescription fees under Labour, and uncertainty and insecurity if ever there were to be a National Government.

Martin Gallagher: Given the disturbing answer from the Minister with reference to my primary question in terms of the information contained therein—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That member may well be disturbed, but the word “given” at the start of his question is not appropriate.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I agree.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think it is absolutely inappropriate. You may recall that in question of the day No. 1 Mr English started off his—I think—second supplementary question with a “given”. I think it would be very good to enforce that ruling in every case.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I was aware of the first transgression of using the word “given”. If members could remove the word “given” from their vocabularies when they are asking questions, that would be helpful.

Martin Gallagher: In the light of the Minister’s answer—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member just ask the question. This is his last opportunity.

Martin Gallagher: What is the effect on the average New Zealand family of the Labour-led Government’s policy to lower the cost of going to the doctor?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The last phase of the roll-out starts this Sunday. From that point all New Zealanders will have cheaper doctors’ fees and cheaper prescriptions. For an average family the cost of going to a general practitioner has fallen from about $940 a year to about $440 a year. This is what the National Party Opposition is placing at risk with its indecision. National used to be indecisive, but now it is not so sure.

Child, Youth and Family—Confidence

10. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she have confidence in Child, Youth and Family Services; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes, I do; because it delivers its difficult statutory role in both care and protection and youth justice matters in a hard-working and conscientious manner.

Anne Tolley: Does the Minister stand by her statement in this House yesterday that last weekend’s incident, when two 14-year-olds escaped from a closely supervised Child, Youth and Family camp to go on a crime rampage across the Bay of Plenty, culminating in the attempted shooting of a police officer, “does not, in my view, lead to the assumption that there is some systemic failure in the youth justice system”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes.

Anne Tolley: How can the Minister say there is no systemic failure in youth justice at Child, Youth and Family, when in March the Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, condemned Child, Youth and Family for its handling of a young offender, calling its treatment of a 16-year-old boy who committed serious crimes while supposedly being monitored by a social worker he had never met as “grossly unacceptable”, and saying that nothing had changed at the coalface?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I agree that breaching court-imposed conditions is grossly unacceptable behaviour on the part of any youth justice employees. But I do not agree with the conclusion that the member has leaped to—which was also leaped to by another member yesterday—that there is systemic failure in the youth justice system.

Sue Moroney: What significant pieces of work is Child, Youth and Family engaged in that contribute to the well-being of New Zealand children?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A great deal of work is under way. There is too much to list it all here, but it includes helping to raise awareness in the community of caring for our children and preventing abuse; implementing the differential response model, to ensure that all families receive the right support from the right agency; responding to increasing numbers of notifications faster, and completing investigations in a timely way; increasing the workforce, training, and capacity of youth justice services; and increasing the number of social workers—in particular, the number of registered social workers. I might add in conclusion that the percentage of social workers with a level 6 or higher qualification has increased from 45 percent in 2001 to 76 percent today.

Anne Tolley: How can the Minister say there is no systemic failure in youth justice at Child, Youth and Family, when in April Mataroa Barton, a dangerous sex offender in Napier, was so badly supervised by Child, Youth and Family that he was able to escape from his 24-hour-a-day minders at least eight times to jump over a fence and peer into his neighbour’s windows; and when just last weekend the media revealed that a P-addicted 16-year-old had his escaping charge thrown out by the Youth Court after the judge said that Child, Youth and Family had done nothing to ensure that the boy was effectively detained?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I agree that, in the case of the Napier youth justice offender, which has been discussed on many occasions in this House, that was not acceptable. I said that both to this House and to the chief executive of the department. To leap to a conclusion that there are systemic failures is just shallow, and the member should acknowledge that.

Anne Tolley: What is being done to address the serious concerns of Judge Becroft and other youth justice professionals that Child, Youth and Family is doing an appalling job of managing young offenders; and why should we trust this Minister when 7 years ago this Government promised to do better, but, after producing report after review after report, to quote Judge Becroft, nothing has changed at the coalface?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I would be very happy to produce again for the member the department’s implementation of the youth justice strategy. I would also be happy to table in the House letters of commendation from Judge Becroft about the performance of the department in the youth justice area. The member should get a little more up to date.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister in the House yesterday whether she would publicly release a report from the Wairaka Kokiri Trust, which was subject to a review. The Minister said in her answer that she would make it public. Could I ask that that report be tabled in the House today?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. That is a matter the member can take up with the Minister.

Securities Commission—Insider Trading, Tranz Rail

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What recent reports has she received regarding the Securities Commission’s insider trading case involving David Richwhite and Sir Michael Fay?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I have seen a number of reports advising that the Securities Commission has successfully reached a financial settlement in this matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has she received any other reports regarding political figures supporting the innocence of Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite, as claimed by them; if so, who would these people be, and why would they have some understanding of merchant banking?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I did indeed see a report that said that Fay Richwhite had “settled with no wrongdoing”, and that “they’ve taken the course they felt they needed to take, and that is the end of the matter.” That came from the leader of the National Party, who, not surprisingly—and consistently with The Hollow Men—appears to have a closed mind on the issue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has she received reports explaining why someone with merchant bank experience would argue against what was clearly catalogued in the Weekend Herald last week, concerning $438 million being profited to Fay and Richwhite, they having purloined $271 million from the New Zealand taxpayers and shareholders; who on earth would excuse that sort of behaviour?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I indicated in my earlier answer, excuses for such behaviour may well be proffered by those in The Hollow Men.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is she aware of the circumstances around the purchase by Capital Markets of BNZ interests, which were then sold off to Fay Richwhite, the private company of Michael Fay and David Richwhite, which were then sold at three times the value the same day, thereby advancing them to the tune of $100 million, and who has inquired into that?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am aware that the incoming National Government in 1991 did indeed effect a very large bail-out of the Bank of New Zealand, which I understand at the time was 30 percent owned by Fay Richwhite.

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): I seek leave to table a very extensive document, which was supplied to Mr Phil Heatley on 22 June 2007, under the Official Information Act, which indicates that the matters he referred to in question No. 8 were referred to the Crown solicitor for prosecution.

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

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may need to point out to the Minister that he cannot table a document that has already been tabled. The National Party has put that document in the public arena.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, as the member well knows.

Diabetes—“Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa Programme

12. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: What has been the total funding for the diabetes “Get Checked” programme since its implementation?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): My answer must be an estimate, because the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme is funded through district health boards. The annual cost is estimated to be a bit over $4 million a year this year, or about $18 million over the 6 years since the programme’s inception. The cost per person per year is a little under $50.

Dr Jackie Blue: What does the Minister think it says about his competence when he is not able to provide an accurate figure, only an estimate, of the amount of money spent on “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa, and when it is also clear from the Auditor-General’s report that he cannot be sure how many people have enrolled, how well they are doing, and whether the right people are being identified?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member needs to be aware that the New Zealand health system—and I thought she was aware of this—is operated somewhat at a distance from this Government. It has 21 boards, elected and appointed, between it and myself. That is how it has been for some years, and that is how it will be for some years more. I have given the member my best estimate. It is likely to be accurate. She is shaking her head. I have given the member my best estimate. There is not a pure estimate. [Interruption] What do I do? Give her a thermometer! I just say to the member that the number of people in “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa has increased very significantly in recent times—30 percent in the last 2 or 3 years. There are now 80,000 New Zealanders in the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme. It is a very good programme and one that she should support, I hope.

Dr Jackie Blue: Why did the Government not act in 2004, when it became clear that the number of people enrolled in the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme was remaining static in some district health boards and decreasing in others—a clear signal that the programme was struggling and going backwards?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member’s assertions simply do not stack up with the facts. Here is the 2004 and 2006 data for a few district health boards: for Northland, 2,200 people have become 2,600; for Auckland, 4,500 people have become 8,000, for Waitematā 6,500 people have become over 7,000; and so on. The number of people going into “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa is going up, not down as the member would assert. I would enjoin her to surround herself with a few facts.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā nō koe, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister give any possible explanations as to why only 40 percent of Māori who are expected to have diabetes are enrolled in the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme, compared with 60 percent of those of all other ethnicities, and does he have any plans to address that, bearing in mind the disproportionate number of Māori who are affected by diabetes?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member raises a good point. The number of Māori going into the programme is increasing at about the pace that the number of people going into the programme in total is. For example, if we were to look at the 2001 figures, we would see there were fewer than 4,000 Māori in the programme. There are now more than 10,000 Māori in the programme. I think that is good progress. But, on the other hand, progress in Pasifika communities has been even stronger than that. Accordingly, if it can be as good as that in Pasifika communities, we should test ourselves to see whether we can improve still further the Māori numbers.

Dr Jackie Blue: When Māori are known to have prevalence rates for diabetes that are nearly three times higher than those for Europeans, was he at all concerned early on after the programme started that many district health boards showed a trend of static or falling numbers of Māori being checked, and why did he not ask the question: is this programme working?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am surprised and a little bewildered that the National Party now requires the Government to better target Māori, when those members spend most of their time abusing us for targeting Māori at all. I will give the member some facts. In 2001, 3,788 Māori were enrolled in “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa. Every year, without fail, that has gone up—6,100, 8,900, 10,600, etc. This Government is pretty keen to address disparities, and one of the ways to do that is to target at-risk populations. We are doing so, with some success. I think the member would be entitled to ask whether we assert that even more success would be good. We certainly think it would be; we do not lack ambition.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Is not the recurrent theme of Labour’s health policy that the Government throws money at a problem, but the Minister has no way of measuring what difference that money is actually making, and is not “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa a case in point?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member certainly does take the cigar with that question! I would say to him very straightforwardly that we do measure how good this programme is, and we actually measure ourselves internationally as well. Let me give the member some international data. The New Zealand “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme ranks as about as good as, but no better than, the Swedish programme, ranks as being slightly better than the UK programme, and ranks as being usefully better than what is arguably the best programme in the United States, which is run by Kaiser Permanente—and I see the member continues to permanently interrupt me, as though he can speak and listen at the same time. In other words, in each case we are doing either as well as or better than the few countries that do pay as much attention to diabetes as we do. What is more, we know the number of people whose status has stayed the same or is much better. This is a chronic disease that was characterised by an inexorable decline. We have stabilised or improved the diabetes status of most of those 80,000 New Zealanders. That is not a bad result.

Dr Jackie Blue: I seek leave to table a report that shows the number of district health board enrolments in “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa since 2000.

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media