Questions And Answers - Tuesday, 14 August 2007

Questions to Ministers

Education—Competition

1. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received about the need for more competition in the education system?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I have seen a report arguing that “there’s plenty of opportunities to have the private sector playing a bigger role in education.”, and that there should be “greater orientation towards privatisation in the education system”. However, I have also seen a report stating that “The New Zealand public education system is really good.”, and that “We rank sixth in the developed world for having a really good education system.” Those conflicting statements come from the same source, Mr John Key, and they leave one saying: “Tell the truth, Mr Key.”

Madam SPEAKER: That last comment was not in order.

Dianne Yates: What reports has the Minister seen on the quality of the New Zealand education system?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen a report that states that “students are coming out of our schools unprepared for life …”, and that “alarm bells should be ringing in the Beehive.” However, I have also seen a report that states: “We should not expect any drastic reforms from the National Party spokesperson, Katherine Rich.” Those statements are conflicting, and I ask Mrs Rich which one is the truth.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister explain the educational advantage to New Zealand of the 37.75 percent decrease in value per student of grants to independent schools created by the capping of funding at $40 million per annum in the year 2000, which is a policy designed to reduce educational competition; and does he believe it is time to revisit the capped funding policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The value of that policy, of course, is to ensure the quality of education for the 96 percent of students who are going to public schools. That is where our investment is going, and I ask the member whether he would care to ask Mr Key whether, during his meeting with the Exclusive Brethren, he carried out the promise of saying he would switch money from the public sector to the private sector—as he said he would in Nicky Hager’s book.

John Key: Did the Minister of Education see page A2 of the New Zealand Herald of a few weeks ago, which had a very interesting story about Lyn Avery, the principal of Glen Taylor School—a decile 1 primary school in South Auckland that has 100 percent Māori or Pacific Island students—who, after 4 years of following the approach that National suggests under national standards, now has stunning results for her students; and on the back of that, will the Minister of Education do something about supporting National’s move towards national standards in education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen that report from Glen Taylor School, which after 8 years under a Labour Government is doing stunningly well. Right across the whole of the education system results that were going nowhere under National during the 1990s are now going fantastically well. I say to Mr Key that he can go to any school in the country that he likes, and after 8 years that school would have done better under this Government than under his. I ask Mr Key to tell the truth.

Judy Turner: Has the Minister given serious consideration to claims by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that the Government could fund independent schools at a rate of up to 46 percent of the cost of providing a State education for a child and still save money; if so, does he plan to raise the cap on funding that the State provides to independent schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have to say that this Government is not in the process of trying to save money in our public schools. It may be Mr Key’s policy to move money from the public to the private sector; it is not this Government’s policy to do so. We believe in investing in quality, public education.

Dianne Yates: What alternative approaches to the allocation of education funding has the Minister seen?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen a report that lower-decile schools are “awash with cash”, and that the decile funding system for schools should change. The very next day I saw a report that stated: “We are not proposing changing to the funding.” Both of those reports came from Mr Bill English. I ask Mr English which one is the truth.

John Key: Will the Government be supporting National’s policy of national standards, which is delivering the stunning results at Glen Taylor School, or will the Government continue with its failed policies that see one in five New Zealand children leave school unable to read, write, or do maths anywhere near their chronological age?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The last time I looked the bill that the member refers to was still on the Order Paper, yet to be debated in Parliament. How the bill could be having an impact on Glen Taylor School is beyond me. The member is quoting results that arise from the fantastic policies around processes like asTTle in those very schools that are making a huge difference to those students. Under this Government Māori students in particular are finally seeing real progress. I thank the member for his backing, but I ask him to come clean on whether he intends to cut funding to public schools.

Tariana Turia: Does the Minister believe that the high number of Māori boys who are failing in the secondary school system is an example of success?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: An example of success that we are seeing now is that the number of boys from a Māori background who are leaving school is rising in relation to the qualifications they have. We are seeing changes there because of programmes put in place by this Government—unlike Mr Key’s party. What we want to hear from Mr Key is whether he will cut funding to public schools, as he appears to have promised the Exclusive Brethren.

Madam SPEAKER: I wish to put members on notice that the interjections are beginning to create disorder in this House. Members will be leaving the House if it continues.

Electoral Finance Bill—Select Committee Changes

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, in regard to the Electoral Finance Bill, that “obviously there’s going to have to be some change in the select committee”; if so, what changes does she think are “obviously” required?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes; any specific changes are, of course, a matter for the select committee.

John Key: If changes are “obviously” required to the bill, why did the Government introduce it in its current form?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Election legislation is always very carefully scrutinised in the select committee, as will be this legislation.

Tim Barnett: Are there overseas precedents for the major provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand that in respect of the provisions around third parties, many of the provisions are based on similar ones already in place in Britain and Canada. Of course, that does not suit the hollow men who like to buy elections.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to protect our democracy from the influence of money, then we must change this bill in order to get rid of both anonymous donations and secret trusts?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Those issues can be addressed in the select committee. I note that the Greens have made a number of constructive comments about issues they would like to see addressed there. I have said in the House previously that I believe there are trade-offs between the level of public funding—as in other countries—and what happens with regard to anonymous donations.

John Key: What changes does the Prime Minister think are specifically required to the Electoral Finance Bill?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: At this point those are not determined.

John Key: Why are they not determined, when yesterday they were obvious?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member should look more carefully at the quote he used in his own question. It said that obviously there will have to be some change; it did not mention any specific change.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister agree that any changes that are to be made should not allow a party that spent more public money in the 2005 election campaign, by a great margin, than any other party to be allowed to get away with that, simply because it did not know when the 3-month—

Sandra Goudie: Pay it back.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon? If the member wants to talk about paying it back, we will start with some National members.

Madam SPEAKER: Will the member now please ask his question in silence.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I take objection to a bunch of backbenchers who have stood for nothing complaining about my party.

Madam SPEAKER: I have addressed the issue. I have asked the member to ask his question in silence.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Does the Prime Minister agree that any changes to be made to the bill should not allow any party that spent more public money on the 2005 election campaign than any other party in this House, by a wide margin, to get away with that, simply because it did not know when the 3-month rule would begin?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand that the National Party, to which the member is referring, did not understand, despite it being clear in the law, that the capped expenditure permitted actually included GST.

John Key: Did Cabinet fully understand and agree on the definition of an electoral advertisement before the bill was introduced; and did Ministers know that they would be regulating bodies and suppressing the ordinary legitimate activities of bodies like Grey Power, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and the Post Primary Teachers Association?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Bills like this go through full Cabinet processes. They then go through a select committee process. The issue of definitions is one of many things that others have suggested be looked at in the bill.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are really only two explanations when it comes to this deeply flawed, Draconian, and anti-democratic legislation: first, that Mark Burton and Cabinet are totally incompetent and could not see what everyone else could see when it was finally shown to the rest of New Zealand, or, second, that they knew all along exactly what the effects were and they just hoped that nobody else would notice?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Neither; but what we always expected was that the hollow men would oppose any decent campaign law reform.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What reports has the Prime Minister received that justify a third party, not being a political party in this House, disguising the expenditure of over $1 million on behalf of one party’s campaign, then of the members of the political party that was supported by that outside group perjuring themselves on the issue of whether they knew about it?

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you know what my point of order is. To allege that any member of this Parliament perjured himself or herself is completely out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw that comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker, I mentioned a party. If the member thinks the glove fits and he wants to wear it, that is fine, but I did not mention him by name.

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that a member has raised the point that a reflection has been made. I ask the member to withdraw that reflection and to apologise, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a fact that National Party members were aware of the Exclusive Brethren contribution. They have all had to admit that via their former leader, Don Brash, and Mr Key, who in the emails in The Hollow Men is disclosed as having known. My point is that just because they are embarrassed—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. The member knows that that is not a point of order. Would the member please ask his supplementary question if he has one.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker, I am seeking to raise a point of order here. I am asserting what is a known fact, and you are demanding that I apologise. With respect, that is not how—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member knows that that is not the issue. The issue is whether the member is raising a point of order. The withdrawal and apology was for a term to which offence was taken. The member did the proper thing then. Would the member please just ask his supplementary question, and we can proceed.

Family Violence Prevention—Māori-specific Targeting

3. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Of the $60 million committed by the Government to family violence prevention over the next 4 years, what specific targeted investment has been made in Māori-specific initiatives and interventions, and what are the names of the programmes and services that have received support?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): The member’s figures need to be corrected slightly. In the 2006 Budget, I think she is referring to the $68.8 million over 4 years to programmes that help reduce violence in our families and communities. We should also not overlook the fact that the Ministry of Social Development already funds around $125 million per year into community-based organisations that deliver these kinds of services. All of this spending has an impact to some degree on Māori, but specific programmes that we might mention are Amokura, the Te Rito programme, which funds coordinators and whānau, and the violence programmes. It is worth pointing out that almost half of the 50 highest-paid funders of Ministry of Social Development funds are iwi-based or Māori providers.

Tariana Turia: Has the Minister seen the release from Te Korowai Aroha o Aotrearoa that states: “Despite the efforts of Māori organisations and their initiatives to stem the tide of whānau violence, Government support remains minimal.”, and would he not agree that $2 million out of these funds—given that Te Rito is not a Māori programme—allocated to Māori-specific initiatives is pitiful, and is woefully inadequate to stem the tide of whānau violence; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I share the member’s concern about whānau-based violence, and I know that one of the things that has happened—particularly in the last couple of weeks—is that a number of people have taken leadership to try to show how this issue can be resolved. I do want to point out to the member that the Waipareira Trust, for example, received $2 million a year alone, and I want to go back to the fact that almost half of the 50 highest-funded providers for the Ministry of Social Development and Employment are iwi or Māori-based providers. A large amount of money is running through a very wide range of programmes that will impact on this issue amongst Māori.

Dave Hereora: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that the issue of family violence has been addressed?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Of course, one of the core goals of the Government is to ensure that New Zealanders live in healthy, safe, and secure environments, and we have programmes running across all major agencies—health, social development, education, and so on. I point to the Family Violence Intervention programme, the Strong Pacific Families strategy, and the programme that is for young children who witness violence. Just recently my colleague Mr Hodgson released the Violence Intervention programme, which was well covered in the media and means that all front-line staff in hospitals will be trying to deal with the issue of family violence. Next month, I will be releasing the It’s Not OK programme, which will be a large programme focusing on all communities in this country standing up and saying “No” to violence, and then referring people who need assistance to the proper agencies.

Tariana Turia: Does the Minister believe that $500,000 given to a national Māori organisation to be shared amongst 200 agencies is sufficient to address this significant issue, and when does the Minister intend to take responsibility to invest in the most critical issue facing this nation and allow Māori providers to implement their own solutions, given the limited success of others?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I repeat that there is a large amount of money, far more than $500,000, running through a variety of programmes that are by Māori, for Māori, and are programmes that will impact on whānau. One of the things I would say to the member is that we have a cross-Parliament group currently working; that would seem, to me, to be an ideal place for the member to make concrete suggestions about how we might approach this issue in the future, and I would welcome hearing from her on those matters.

Tariana Turia: In my first question, I gave the Minister the opportunity to share with the House the names of those Māori providers that provide those services, and he chose not to answer it.

Madam SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister whether he wishes to address it. I recall that some names were, in fact, given, but would the Minister like to repeat them?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, just for the interest of the House, I have mentioned such programmes as the Waipareira Trust, but also I mentioned Hauraki, Ngāpuhi, Te Rawara, and Ngāti Raukawa; I mentioned groups such as Ngāti Maniapoto. As I said before—and I am happy to send the member the list of the 50 largest funding groups in the Ministry of Social Development and Employment—most of them are Māori or iwi-based, and she is welcome to have that list.

Metiria Turei: Supplementary question, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: There are no more supplementary questions indicated on the list today; three were allocated, and they have been taken.

Tariana Turia: I seek leave to ask one more supplementary question.

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

Tariana Turia: With the upcoming launch of a national campaign against family violence, what resources have been set aside for Māori communities and Māori providers to be involved in this campaign, particularly given the greatly increased demand on their services?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member will know that the campaign that says violence is not OK has $14 million attached to it. That will pay for the promotional material, and there will be some money available for people to apply for, to provide services. Māori providers will be welcome to apply for that money so they can step up their services in response to need.

Electoral Finance Bill—Freedom of Expression

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill, “Some members have already suggested that the third-party reforms unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression. They do not”; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; because the third-party provisions in the bill do not unjustifiably restrict freedom of expression—a point clearly made in the remainder of the sentence. The member selectively quotes from my first reading speech, in which I went on to refer to the Crown Law advice confirming that very point.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister believe that for groups like Grey Power, the Post Primary Teachers Association, and Forest and Bird—who could advertise their political views freely in every election up until now—the fact that they will be restricted to a couple of full-page ads for the whole of the 2008 election year might look to them like a restriction on their freedom of expression?

Hon MARK BURTON: No.

Ann Hartley: Has the Minister seen any other selective quotes about the provisions of the bill?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, indeed. In this letter—and it very helpfully relates to Mr English’s last question, too—apparently sent to hundreds of organisations such as the one he referred to, Mr English seeks to mislead and cause concern by implying that clause 47 of the bill requires disclosure of all donations to third parties, whereas clause 22 makes it clear that it applies only to donations contributing towards the funding of their election expenses, not their normal community activities. Mr English is making it up again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How do the provisions of this bill line up with legislation passed through this House in 1993 by the National Party and designed to stop another political party from using its own money to advertise on radio or TV, at a fine of $100,000 on each and every occasion that that party attempted that, which was the legislation Bill English supported in 1993 to stop New Zealand First getting any public promotion whatsoever—how does Mr English line that one up?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think it would be fair to say that this legislation has a broader base, but I think it is an altogether fairer and more balanced piece of legislation.

Hon Bill English: Was the Prime Minister present at the Cabinet discussion of the Electoral Finance Bill, and did she, along with the rest of Cabinet, agree to the current contents of the bill as introduced to the House?

Hon MARK BURTON: The Prime Minister chairs Cabinet—obviously the Prime Minister is present at Cabinet meetings. But, equally, I absolutely agree with the comments the Prime Minister made in response to an earlier question. It has always been the case that this bill was intended to go to a select committee where other parties and the wider community could have their say, and where I have always indicated it will go. We expect the bill to be refined and, in some cases, improved.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that in attempting to stop third-party advertising, Labour “may have cast the net too wide”, catching legitimate lobby groups; if so, does he consider Church groups in general and the Exclusive Brethren in particular to be legitimate lobby groups, and if they are not, why are they not?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think it is fair to say that in casting a net that sits somewhere between the provisions in jurisdictions such as Canada and the United Kingdom, the Government felt that this was a good starting point for select committee consideration. Clearly, the intent of this legislation—whether a group is a Church group, so called, such as the Open Brethren, or any other group—is to prevent the sort of National Party - supported rort of a $1 million-plus attempt to buy an election in 2005. Certainly, that goes well beyond any provision this Government can tolerate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he received any reports that go to the issue of integrity and credibility where a party is raising in this House concerns of fairness and freedom of information, and freedom itself, yet its track record is to seek to ban another party from advertising itself in a campaign completely, as recently as 10 years ago, supported by Bill English?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I have. I also can say that that same party is the party whose leader—then leader and present leader—received this correspondence telling them about the intent to spend over $1 million. [Interruption] I say to Mr Key that I am sorry but it is just not credible that he does not read his own mail. It is a $1 million - plus campaign in support of the National Party to get around New Zealand’s electoral law. That is what this bill is about, I say to Mr Key—to protect New Zealanders from that sort of National Party - supported rort.

Hon Bill English: Did the Minister or any other Ministers discuss in detail the definitions of political advertisement and third-party registration requirements with the Green Party, and had the Green Party indicated to him whether it continued to support the bill as introduced?

Hon MARK BURTON: A wide range of matters have been discussed with many individuals and groups, including some with the Green Party. The issue is that the introduction of the bill was secured in order that wide-ranging discussion and consideration of its contents can be made. It has always been clear that this bill, like every electoral bill before it, will be subject to scrutiny and, no doubt, improvement and refinement. That is a good thing, I say to Mr English.

Hon Bill English: Has he heard comments by the Prime Minister that the bill “casts the net too wide”, and does he believe that has happened because Cabinet looked at the provisions and did not understand them, and therefore signed off a drift-net to catch all criticism of Labour, or does he believe that Cabinet knew it was casting a drift-net to catch all criticism and hoped to get away with it? Which is correct?

Hon MARK BURTON: As is so often the case with the member asking the question, neither proposition is remotely correct. Do I agree that, in the context of the select committee, the consideration of whether the precise levels that have been set within the bill, somewhere between the Canadian and the United Kingdom provisions, may be subject to some change? Of course I do.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell the House just what he and the Prime Minister mean when they say that this legislation levels the playing field, and can he confirm that what that actually means to him is to level the playing field between the incumbent Labour Government with the vast resources of the State, on the one hand, and anyone who might dare to criticise them, on the other hand?

Hon MARK BURTON: I think I can perhaps suggest to the member that the Prime Minister and I would, perhaps, agree more with the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling when it said that, clearly, limits on third parties allow all citizens to have meaningful participation in the electoral process and are therefore beneficial. This legislation is about ensuring that the huge amounts of money that were attempted to be used to buy an election in 2005 cannot again be used for such a rort on the electoral system of the people of New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Sandra Goudie, would you please leave the House.

Sandra Goudie withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether this case would be caught: a business called Fay Richwhite paid a million dollars to the National Party to get itself an exemption from the BNZ inquiry, promised then by the National Party. Would such a donation be caught in 2008?

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is out of order to allege that any member of Parliament is influenced in that way from outside the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is not what is being alleged here. What is being alleged here is that an outside party paid a political party $1 million—[Interruption]— which is the fact.

Madam SPEAKER: I grasp what the issue is. There is another issue here besides that, and that is I do not detect there is any ministerial responsibility for that particular matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am asking whether the Minister can tell the House whether the provisions of this bill would catch such a case, and I have laid that case out. He does have ministerial responsibility for that.

Madam SPEAKER: If the member is asking a question of a hypothetical situation that is within the ministerial responsibility, that is correct.

Hon MARK BURTON: It is clearly the case that if an external or third party organisation sought to influence the outcome of an election by the use of $1 million, indeed, it would be caught.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have noticed, over a number days now, that when Government members ask questions of themselves, they ask Ministers whether they have seen reports, received reports, or could comment on reports. This appears to us, if one reads Hansard, to be a sort of a subterfuge to allow the Ministers to stray into all sorts of areas that are quite extraneous to the nature of the question asked in the first place. This afternoon we have seen two or three of those examples in the case of the Government asking itself questions through Winston Peters. In the case of Mark Burton, he twice answered: “Yes, I have.” If he has those reports perhaps he should be invited to table them.

Madam SPEAKER: On the latter point, it is only if the Minister is quoting from official documents that he is required, of course, to table them. But on the more general point, as the member is aware, there have been rulings that as long as reports are within the ministerial responsibility, then they are perfectly permitted. However, it is when comments stray to other parties and their policies that they are out of order. I would repeat, however, that it would assist no end if the Standing Orders Committee would clarify this, because also, as members know, hypothetical questions can be asked and hypothetical answers can be given.

Rodney Hide: Can he confirm that in the jurisdictions he cited—Britain and Canada—the Government does not limit spending on the basis of whether a lobby group is considered by the Government to be legitimate or illegitimate, and does he not think it is dangerous to have a Government determining what people can do with their own money in expressing their political views on the basis of whether the Government decides whether they are legitimate; and just who does he think is an illegitimate lobby group to be spending its own money putting across its own political views?

Hon MARK BURTON: In a sense the member asks a hypothetical question, because the bill does not do what he represents the bill to do.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Prime Minister is stated in today’s paper as saying that the net is cast too far.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member who called for a point of order please make a point of order and not a debating point. If the point was that the Minister did not address the question, I say that he did. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the member. If the member has a point of order would he please make a point of order in the context of the Standing Orders.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister did not address the question. All that he did was declare that it was hypothetical, and there is nothing hypothetical about it.

Madam SPEAKER: No, the Minister did address the question—

Rodney Hide: Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on this matter.

Rodney Hide: I know. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it possible for a Minister, in answer to any question whatsoever and no matter the content of the question, simply to say: “That is a hypothetical question.”, and sit down?

Madam SPEAKER: If it is the context of the question, yes.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is the Minister aware that the last time the Post Primary Teachers Association, Grey Power, and the Royal Forest and Bird Protecton Society in any way supported the National Party was in 1990—and Grey Power was rewarded with a broken promise and, effectively, three cuts to New Zealand superannuation—if so, can he confirm that the Government has no concerns about any activity those organisations might engage in?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If my question clearly was not in order, how could that question possibly be in order?

Madam SPEAKER: The question was in order. Would the Minister please address it.

Hon MARK BURTON: I certainly can confirm that. Of course the Government has no such concern. To be particularly helpful to Mr Hide, I say that the bill sets up a system where third parties that want to engage in election campaigning will have to register with the Chief Electoral Officer, not with the Government—and it will not be a matter of someone determining whether they are fit or proper. They will simply have to go through a proper registration process and declare their intent to participate in New Zealand’s electoral process.

Residential Property—Foreign Ownership

5. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What were the findings of the “further work” he requested be done into the issue of foreigners purchasing New Zealand’s residential property?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Treasury contacted Quotable Value New Zealand and the Inland Revenue Department to explore with them the possibility of further interrogating their databases. These organisations confirmed that their respective databases cannot provide further information about purchases of New Zealand property by overseas buyers.

Pita Paraone: Does the Minister agree that this issue will continue to cause some concern to New Zealanders who are struggling to enter the housing market, especially without the availability of full and proper information and given that there is much anecdotal evidence that suggests that foreign purchasers are having some effect on property prices?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is concern, though the fact that we have seen across-the-board increases in house prices in areas that are not even remotely of great interest to overseas buyers suggests that that has not been the primary driver. I have asked officials to look again, to see whether there are other ways in which we can try to develop better information on this matter. It is clear that the Quotable Value New Zealand and the Inland Revenue Department data does not give an accurate picture.

Pita Paraone: Has the Minister seen the point made by the Reserve Bank, in its submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s inquiry into the future monetary policy framework, that variations in new migrant arrivals should be used as a supplementary tool during periods in which demand pressures in the economy are becoming intense; and does he think that property information both on foreign nationals who are resident and on those who are not resident needs to be collated separately?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I hesitate to disagree with the Reserve Bank, but on this occasion I do. Firstly, it is extremely difficult, actually, to moderate the flow of migration with any great degree of success. We have seen that quite clearly over a long period of time. The matter is much more related to the economic cycle in New Zealand than to the ability to turn on and off a tap. The second, of course, is that when the economy is going through a strong growth phase, there is very often also a shortage of labour and a shortage of skills. If migration was cut off at that point—which is effectively what the Reserve Bank is arguing—that would lead to stronger wage pressures and the Reserve Bank would then be concerned about inflation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table the Sunday paper of 12 August, which discloses that an English domiciled resident and owner has bought 12 farms in New Zealand.

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

Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Ministry Conclusions

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Has the Ministry of Health investigated the handling of disclosures made by the whistleblower at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board in January 2006; if so, what were the ministry’s conclusions?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): No, the Ministry did not. However, the chair of the board rang the ministry in January 2006, and he rang me in January 2006, to advise that he had received a complaint and that the board would respond, which it then did.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Health wrote to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, seeking full information around the cancelled community services contract and other information associated with that under the Official Information Act; and why would one agency seek information from another Government agency under the Official Information Act if there was not going to be an investigation or a look at those matters?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I rather suspect that that is a slightly different issue—in time, anyway. I do not recall precisely the ministry doing that, but it may well have done so, and, if it did, it probably felt that was necessary because the information was not forthcoming otherwise.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Health looked at that information and found “nothing remarkable”; and does the Minister believe that the events that took place involving the whistleblower were in fact nothing remarkable?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I say again to the House—and I am not sure how many times I have said it now—that the continuing innuendo around these issues in general and around Mr Hausmann in particular reached a point where Mr Hausmann, some weeks ago, said: “Despite the fact that this has been looked at at length by this body or that, I would like it to be looked at again.” As a result of that I took the unusual step of asking the director-general whether he would establish an independent review group to take a look at it. That group was formed some weeks ago and is making good progress in its independent review. It has interviewed the whistleblower in question, has looked at a wide range of other stuff, and will report in due course to the director-general, who will report to me, and I will make the information public.

Sue Moroney: Did Mr Hausmann declare any conflict of interest at the time of his appointment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: He did. He did so in writing, and he did so at the outset. He also indicated how he intended to manage his conflicts of interest, and he did that in writing, as well. That contrasts dramatically with the actions of Dr Tony Bierre of the Auckland District Health Board, who kept his board colleagues in the dark and sought to enrich himself accordingly. He is, of course, a member of the National Party and a good mate of Dr Jackie Blue of this House.

Hon Tony Ryall: Was the Minister aware that his officials in the Ministry of Health, Mr McKernan and Mr Hill, in fact met with representatives of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board to discuss the full set of documents made available to them regarding this matter, and that they advised they had found nothing remarkable—was the Minister aware of that investigation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am aware that there have been a number of conversations between the Ministry of Health and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, and I am sure that they have included the two gentlemen involved—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Could the member just draw breath; I am trying to—[Interruption] OK, the member should not draw breath. The ministry has been interested in issues around the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board for some time. Amongst the many meetings there will have been, I am sure, meetings involving the deputy director-general of funding and planning and the director-general himself. In fact, I think I recall reports of those meetings—whether they were given orally or in writing, I am not sure. However, the fact of the matter does not really change: so far, the audit committee of the board has found that the issues around the contract in question did not occasion Mr Hausmann any particular advantage. That was its legal advice. Because the issues have not gone away, Mr Hausmann himself wrote to me, saying: “Please investigate me further.”, and I agreed to do that.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does he think the whistleblower’s being bullied and threatened that management had power in terms of her future job security was “nothing remarkable”, and how accurate can that conclusion be in light of those comments?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I feel that all those comments first came to my attention in a Sunday paper, probably about 5 or 6 weeks ago, and from memory the comments were made by the whistleblower herself. In other words, they were her view of what an interview was about. That same person has been interviewed by the independent review team, and I am sure other people around the issue have also been interviewed by the team, though I do not know all of the people who have been interviewed. I can assure the member that the independent review team will report to the director-general soon. I do not know when that will be, but it will probably be when the investigation is finished. Its investigations will be reasonably thorough, fair, quiet, reasoned, and reasonable, and I think the member should take comfort from that. Let us see what the review team has to say.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister aware that within months of the whistleblower having her job security threatened by district health board managers, the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board undertook a staff restructure, and lo and behold the whistleblower was the only person in the entire district health board to lose her job; does he think that was “nothing remarkable”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member makes an assertion that may or may not be true. He makes an assertion that the whistleblower was threatened. There is another assertion made by the whistleblower, which is that she felt threatened. Let us see what the independent review team would like to make of those two things, and let us see whether the independent review team thinks that the restructuring was reasoned and reasonable, or whether it was not reasonable. I think that team is likely to get to the truth of the matter, and I am quite keen to find that out. I do not think we should use this place as some sort of kangaroo court to try to sort things out beforehand.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table the Official Information Act request—something the Minister was unaware of—from the ministry to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

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

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table an email from the chairman of the audit committee of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, reporting on the view of the ministry.

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

Telecommunications—National Environmental Standards

7. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Environment: Is he concerned that the proposed national environmental standards for telecommunications facilities would allow masts and antennas for wireless telecommunications networks to be stationed on road reserve all over New Zealand without needing resource consent?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister for Environment): No, I am not concerned. The installation of low-impact masts and small antennas is already permitted, without the need for resource consent, in the majority of district plans. The proposed national environmental standards will ensure consistency and allowable thresholds across districts.

Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that if the new standards go ahead, in future people will have absolutely no say as to whether that will happen right outside their front gate or school?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that large structures, like traditional cellphone towers, are not covered by the standard but that smaller antennas that sometimes sit on power poles are. I can also confirm that this Government, unlike National, will not gut the Resource Management Act but will advance sensible measures to ensure consistency across the country and to lower compliance costs.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is it not the case that the proposed national environmental standards for telecommunications facilities were largely written by the telecommunications industries, which got everything they wanted in it; and will he now be asking Federated Farmers and the coal industry to write the national environmental standards for fresh water?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I am sure the Ministry for the Environment took into account more than industry submissions in the drafting of the draft national environmental standards, and I am sure it will take appropriate note of all of the public submissions that have been made upon the draft.

Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that under the new standards there will be no restrictions on how many antennas and other equipment can be added to telephone poles on road reserves all around New Zealand; no requirement to consult, or even inform people, when new equipment is installed outside their homes and schools; no restrictions on the uses that telecommunications companies could make of these new technologies; and no requirement to take into account the health effects of the new technologies; and why would his Government support these unreasonable requirements?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm all of those matters. I can confirm that one of the concerns that have been raised in submissions is that without restriction there could be a proliferation of these things, so that some telephone poles start looking like hedgehogs. I agree that is an appropriate concern, and I am sure that will be one of the matters that are taken into account in the drafting of the final standards.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table two documents from the United Kingdom pointing out the health concerns of increased radiation exposure.

Leave granted.

State Services Commissioner—Environment, Ministry

8. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: Did the State Services Commissioner, Dr Mark Prebble, meet his obligations under the no-surprises policy, to inform his Minister in advance of circumstances likely to attract public interest or political comment, in respect of the Ministry for the Environment’s disengagement of Ms Madeleine Setchell; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): The State Services Commissioner has many obligations, including providing leadership and guidance to the State Service in New Zealand. In order to meet his obligations, he has convened an investigation under section 25 of the State Sector Act 1988. This investigation will establish the facts of the matter, including how well the commissioner has met his obligations.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the House to understand from the Minister’s answer that the man who is responsible for ensuring that public servants adhere to the code of conduct did not tell her as soon as he became involved in giving advice to the chief executive about how to manage Ms Setchell’s possible conflict of interest, which surely was a situation where the Minister needed to be fully aware of all the facts as soon as possible in order that she was not surprised by them?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, what I am saying is that the State Services Commissioner will enable the investigation that he has set up, with Don Hunn examining the facts, to conclude whether he did meet his obligations.

Gerry Brownlee: Has she asked Dr Prebble to explain why the first time she became aware of the employment situation was when the acting commissioner advised her in early July that he had met with the Leader of the Opposition’s chief of staff to discuss the matter, when she—and we—now know that Dr Prebble had been involved in the matter since May; and what was the date that she first became aware of Dr Prebble’s involvement?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No.

Gerry Brownlee: Why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Because I will enable the investigation to get to the bottom of the facts so that rather than hearsay, we will know what really were the facts of the matter, rather than what people surmise them to be.

Gerry Brownlee: Did Dr Prebble tell Iain Rennie there was a significant employment issue being dealt with at the Ministry for the Environment—an issue involving the Minister’s office—prior to going on leave and Mr Rennie becoming acting State Services Commissioner; and has she asked him, if he did not, why he did not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am unable to answer that question, because I do not know the answer.

Gerry Brownlee: Did Dr Prebble keep file notes of his discussions or interactions with Mr Hugh Logan on this matter; if so, were these given to Iain Rennie when he was compiling his initial briefing that the Minister released on 20 July?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am unable to answer that question, because I do not know whether Dr Prebble keeps file notes. That would need to be addressed to him, and I am sure Mr Don Hunn will be getting all information when he is looking at the facts of this matter in the investigation.

Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill—Deferment

9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of State Services: What are the consequences of the Government’s decision to defer progress on the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill at this time?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): The consequences are severe, especially for the complementary medicines sector. Last week the Australia regulator imposed strict new rules on manufacturers who seek to export there. Those new rules will result in increased compliance cost for those manufacturers. That would not have happened if the agency was proceeding to be established; the joint sovereignty arrangement would have prevented unilateral actions like that. I believe that petty politicking by the National Party has ensured that New Zealand loses its preferential position and, as a consequence, our complementary medicines sector is taking a serious hit.

Darien Fenton: Could the Minister remind the House about the progress that has been made on the regulating framework with Australia?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The first joint regulator between our two countries was established in 1995 and regulates our food standards. The framework negotiated meant that New Zealand has one vote out of 10, is founded upon Australian legislation under the control of the Australian Minister for Health and Ageing, and lacks any accountability under the Official Information Act or the Ombudsmen Act. The National Government of the day did not consult with any other political party on that decision, even though it gave sovereignty to the Australian-based regulator. The joint therapeutic regulator, on the other hand, ensures that New Zealand retains its sovereignty. Each country has mirror legislation that is under the control of the two Ministers of Health and is accountable to both partners. The arrangement where 21 million people accepted equality with a country of 4 million people was rejected by John Key and the National Party because he was unable to control his caucus.

Hon Tony Ryall: Are not the facts here that the very costs the Minister is now claiming are excessive are very similar to the costs that she, in fact, negotiated with the Australian Government, and that her costs would have applied to every manufacturer in New Zealand, not just to those who export to Australia?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member has been poorly informed, has thwarted the process throughout, and continues to thwart the process. He does not know what it means; he is more interested in politics.

Darien Fenton: What advice has she recently received on cross-parliamentary support for the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I received an email dated 13 August 2007 from Michelle Beckett, executive director of Natural Products New Zealand, the peak industry body for complementary products in New Zealand, following a meeting requested by Tony Ryall with her organisation. The meeting, according to Ms Beckett, was greatly pared down from what was promised, with John Key seemingly never invited by Tony Ryall and Bill English not turning up. That left Mr Ryall who, according to Ms Beckett has “quite clearly, previously indicated his inflexibility”. Ms Beckett said that she and her colleagues left the meeting with a feeling that the natural products industry and complementary medicines had “little importance to the new leadership of the National Party and that this sector is seen only as a political football to be leveraged to any political advantage, regardless of the consequences to what has been a growing New Zealand export industry.”

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister bothered to object to what the Australians are proposing to do; and has it not always been the case that those companies that wish to export to Australia will have to meet the requirements to get in, and that what New Zealand natural health product companies do not want is the excessive bureaucratic charges the Minister negotiated that would have applied to the rest of the domestic industry and to those who export other than to Australia?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think that it is a terrible shame that the member shows his ignorance in the House. The costs for the joint regulator are not negotiated by the Minister; they are in the draft rules that are worked through with the industry itself—the draft rules that the member has never read.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister approved them.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, the Minister has not approved them; the member opposite is quite wrong about that. The party opposite has never understood it, never tried to understand it, and has played politics with it to the detriment of not only the complimentary medicines sector but the medical devices and pharmaceuticals sectors in this country. The member continues to play politics with it today. When are the National members going to get over it? When is Mr Key going to come out with his pen?

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise quite a serious point of order that goes to the heart of the accountability of the Government to this Parliament. You will be aware that we have a very unusual and novel arrangement in this Parliament—the first time in our Parliament’s history—where we have a Government spokesperson on energy efficiency and climate change. We know from the paper record that that member has been the architect of the policy. That member has given presentations to the select committee on the estimates that are covered in that area of the vote. We know that the member has worked closely with officials. We also know that the member is the person who both announced the policy and responded to media queries about it.

The reason I wish to raise this is that if we go to Standing Order 370(1) we see it states that we should be able to ask questions of members of the House concerning their area of responsibility. It covers Ministers, chairs of select committees, and it also covers those members who are in charge of a bill. The point I wish to raise with you is that if one looks at Speaker’s ruling 140/4, one sees that Speaker Hunt determined that one could ask questions of Associate Ministers. Over time in the Parliament we have had the development of Associate Ministers, and we can ask questions of those. When lodging this question, I attempted to lodge it to the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency and conservation, Jeanette Fitzsimons, but was told that that was not possible. What I seek from you, Madam Speaker, is an appropriate course of action in response to this novel Government spokesperson. I seek a new Speaker’s ruling that when we have a Government spokesperson who clearly has responsibility for the Government in an area of policy, we as members of this House should be able to ask questions of that spokesperson in exactly the same way as of chairs of select committees, Ministers, and Associate Ministers.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I think this issue is actually very simple. One must read Standing Order 369 and also Standing Order 376. Standing Order 369 is quite clear. It states: “Questions may be put to a Minister”. That is what we are on at the moment: questions to Ministers. But Standing Order 376 states: “A Minister or Parliamentary Under-Secretary may answer a question on behalf of another Minister”—and it was not a ruling by Mr Speaker Hunt; it is in the Standing Orders—“who is not present when a question addressed to the Minister is asked.”. In other words, the only people who can answer on behalf of a Minister are another Minister or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. An Associate Minister is, of course, a Minister in that respect.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): While there is actually nothing I would enjoy more than to answer the member’s questions in the House, the member is, in fact, well aware that the constitutional situation is that the Minister retains full responsibility for the programme that I am leading. Everything I do is discussed with the Minister and declared to the Minister. The Minister retains accountability to the House and to Cabinet for it.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the members for their contributions. I think the matter is a serious one. I agree that there may well appear to be something of a contradiction between the two Standing Orders. I therefore reserve my ruling on this matter and will come back to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave for question No. 10 of the questions for oral answer to be referred to the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency and conservation.

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

Solar Water Heating—Green Party Initiative

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy: Has the Green Party initiative “Switch on the Sunshine” announced last November been successful in the goal to double the number of solar water heating systems being installed?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): The solar water heating initiative has been successful in establishing quality systems for solar hot water systems, ensuring energy savings are known, and starting new training courses for installers at polytechnics throughout the country. Obviously, as the new incentive programme began in May we have not doubled installations from when we started, but those installations are at over 400 percent of where they were at the end of the member’s time in Government.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Minister explain the fact that the industry grew by 23 percent in 2002, by 58 percent in 2003, by 41 percent in 2004, by 37 percent in 2005, and by 26 percent last year but that after the Greens announced the “Switch on the Sunshine” initiative, installations, far from doubling, have actually dropped by 5 percent?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think I addressed that in the previous question. I note that during May installations increased by about 10 percent—and, obviously, it will go up and down from month to month. I also note that Dr Smith’s reported solution is to cut the cost effectiveness criterion, which ensures we subsidise only those systems that repay their cost from electricity systems within 20 years. It is that sort of economic illiteracy that shows the difference between this Government and his proposals.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister agree with the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency that: “I don’t want consumers being conned into buying solar heating if it isn’t cost-efficient for them.”; if so, what sort of nanny State is it when the Government, rather than consumers, is left to decide what is cost effective; and what would this carbon-neutral Government view as a con for people wanting to invest in solar technologies for altruistic the reason of wanting to reduce their carbon footprint?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would tell the member to stop digging, actually, because the cost-effectiveness threshold is designed to subsidise only those units that are cost effective. If they do not repay themselves in 20 years out of electricity systems, they should not be subsidised. People are still free to buy them if they want to buy a system that is not cost-effective, but I am certainly not recommending—and neither would the Government spokesperson recommend—that we subsidise those ones.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister aware of any solar suppliers who believe that they can sell at prices that are cost-effective for consumers?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Indeed, I am. I think that one of the very good aspects of this project, which has been designed in great part by the member who just asked the question, Jeanette Fitzsimons, is that we now, for the first time, have comparable data as to the comparable cost-effectiveness of different systems.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Minister reconcile his statement to Parliament on 23 November last year that the policy was a very significant advance and was well designed when the Chief Executive of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, Mike Underhill, has stated that since the scheme was launched in May, after its announcement in November, not one single grant has been made; and if this is a well-designed policy, would he like to tell us what a badly designed policy might look like?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am informed by the Government spokesperson on this issue that amongst the applications that have been made for funding have been applications by organisations that are bulk-builders of houses, and that one such application alone represents a proposal to fit solar hot water devices to 1,200 new houses. I think that is an illustration that this policy is going to work and is succeeding.

Peter Brown: Noting those answers, will the Minister confirm that some household solar panels are experiencing corrosion, and that many have been installed without the necessary building consent; and as these problems are creating additional costs for homeowners, will he advise—if he aware of it—just how deep the problem is; and can he confirm that the Green’s spokesperson on this is aware of the issue and has dismissed the allegations as non-events?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm that the spokesperson has dismissed those concerns. She has raised concerns with me in relation to the various quality aspects of some installations, and that is why the programme includes criteria to ensure that only effective, efficient, well-priced systems are subsidised and that other systems are not.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does this policy suffer not from the same flaw as the Government’s so-called 20 free hours early childhood policy in that the Government is imposing price restrictions and regulations nationwide when it should leave the issue of prices to consumers and to a competitive market; and if he is so convinced that this policy will work, given that it has resulted in a drop in the number of installations, will he commit to a date as to when it will achieve a doubling of installations of solar water systems?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That member’s illiteracy suggests that he should go back to preschool and get some education—

Madam SPEAKER: That is an unnecessary comment. Would the Minister please just address the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I say to the member who asked the question that that suggestion is just daft. If there are inappropriate systems that do not repay their cost to those people who purchase them within 20 years, they ought not to get a Government subsidy. There is no prohibition on people who want to purchase inferior systems from doing so. They are free to do so, but this Government will not subsidise them to do so.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Would the Minister agree that one of the primary considerations for a well-functioning market is for consumers to know what they are buying and to have accurate information; that they have never had the information about the energy savings of particular solar water heaters until the performance-testing system that is being developed under this scheme; that there has never been a training scheme for installers in New Zealand until this scheme began; and that its success is shown by the huge enthusiasm for the Volume Build Scheme, where we have already signed off grants for the first 20 houses only a month after launching it and when it is rumoured that there are another 1,300 coming up in the system?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can. I would also add to that that the answer to all things does not lie in subsidies. In fact, one of the most effective parts of this scheme is to ensure the reliability of systems, their cost-effectiveness, and to give confidence in the industry.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the data from the New Zealand Solar Industry Association showing the first ever drop in the number of solar water heater installations.

Leave granted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the international data that shows that in terms of solar water heating installations per 1,000 people, New Zealand is running at one thirty-third of the rate—

Leave granted.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the industry figures showing a 400 percent increase since 2001, and an increase in May this year.

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

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a copy of Dr Smith’s release, where he proposes that the efficiency criteria be dropped.

Leave granted.

Question Time

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise, a point of order, Madam Speaker. You rightly ejected a member of the National Party from this Chamber. I would have understood that that was to be an ejection until the end of question time; so what on earth is that member doing back inside the House? She has vanished now but she was in the House just 5 minutes ago. Now that is in contempt of the Speaker’s ruling. You had said that she had to go, we would assume that to last till the end of question time, yet I looked over there just a short while ago and she was plainly inside the Chamber. Again, that is in contempt of your ruling. What are you going to do about it, Madam Speaker?

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I did not actually see the member come back, but if she did, I will look into the matter.

Homeownership—Government Assistance

11. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Housing: What assistance is the Government providing Kiwi families to buy their first home?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): As of 12 August, 2,930 families have used the Welcome Home Loan scheme to buy their first home. Over 1,000 of these loans have been settled since the Government enhanced the scheme last September. Families living in every region of the country have bought homes with a Welcome Home Loan this year, proving it is still possible for households on modest incomes to buy a home with a mortgage of up to $280,000— although obviously most loans have been in lower-priced housing markets.

Lynne Pillay: Has the Minister seen any reports of alternative homeownership schemes?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes, I have seen a suggestion from John Key that State house tenants should be able to buy their own home. I am advised that the average net assessable income of State house tenants is $303.75 per week, which is an income of $15,795 per year and enough for a maximum affordable mortgage of only $53,000. This is a long way off the average value of a State house in our three major cities of between $204,000 and $289,000. Mr Key’s promise is a hollow promise. There is no way that Sate house tenants could afford to buy their own homes, and it is a cruel hoax to pretend otherwise. Tell the truth, Mr Key!

Madam SPEAKER: I tell Ministers that when responding to questions those comments are not appropriate and are outside the Standing Orders. If Ministers continue to follow that practice they will not have an opportunity to answer the questions.

Phil Heatley: Can the Minister confirm that 6,000 State house tenants currently pay market rents—exactly the same rent as their neighbours—and that if those neighbours have dreams of homeownership, perhaps those 6,000 State house tenants also have dreams of homeownership; and why does the Minister not support State house tenants owning their own home, or does he not like the idea of State house tenants becoming independent of his Government?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can confirm that just 9 percent of State house tenants pay a market rent, and many of these tenants—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. We are not going to get through question time with this level of disorder. Will the Minister please answer the question in silence and do so briefly, to the point, and within the Standing Orders.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can confirm that just 9 percent of State house tenants pay market rents. Many of these tenants are located in small provincial centres, where the average rent—not the average price of a house—is very low. What I can confirm is that the Government is providing opportunities for New Zealanders to buy their own homes. We are not interested in issuing hollow promises that are simply not true.

Courts—Access to Justice

12. KATE WILKINSON (National) to the Minister for Courts: Does he have confidence that the court system is delivering effective access to justice?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): Yes.

Kate Wilkinson: How can he claim that the court system has been “steadily improving” under Labour when the median waiting-time for criminal jury trials in the High Court has increased by 62 percent since 2003; it has gone up from 6 months to 10 months, and is doubling in Auckland, and tripling in centres like Blenheim?

Hon RICK BARKER: The court does not have any control over the number of applications that are filed with a court; the court simply deals with them. What this Government has done has been to invest heavily in courts. We have invested another $156 million into justice. We have appointed more judges and more staff, and we have put in place more information technology systems and built more buildings. We have invested heavily into the system, and the rates of disposal in our courthouses have gone up dramatically.

Kate Wilkinson: How can the Minister claim that the court system has been steadily improving under Labour, when the number of outstanding High Court criminal jury cases has increased by 79 percent since 2002, including a doubling of the number of cases in Auckland, Dunedin, Hamilton, Rotorua, Wellington, and Whangarei?

Hon RICK BARKER: The High Court disposal rate has increased by 9.4 percent. The High Court has increased its rates of disposal, but what the court does not have control over is the rate of filing of applications. I think it is a sign of how effective this Government has been in cracking down on crime, arresting criminals, and bringing them before the courts.

Kate Wilkinson: Does he stand by this statement that he made at a select committee: “Predictions are always difficult, particularly when they are about the future.”, or is he more confident when making predictions about the past?

Hon RICK BARKER: The point I would make about that Opposition party is that they cannot make predictions. It has no policy. If we want to look at the National Party’s website today to see what its justice policy is, what do we get? We get this statement: “Give us your views on justice.” The National Party is all about whinge, grizzle, and moan, and it is absolutely bereft of any ideas, whatsoever. All it does is oppose. When the Government puts forward good legislation like the Criminal Justice Reform Bill, National opposes and opposes. It has no ideas.

ENDS

© Scoop Media