strong>Questions to Ministers

Health Services—Access

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health : What responsibility, if any, does he take for a lack of access to health services for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The member’s question is very broad. When she asks about access to services, is she referring to the increase of 50,000 operations a year, the increase of 110,000 specialist appointments a year, or, maybe, the fact that we have improved cancer treatment such that no patients are flying to Australia—in contrast to her 761 patients—or maybe it is about the extra 400,000-plus children getting free doctors visits and prescriptions? What I know that I am not responsible for is the cut of 1,000 surgeries at Capital and Coast District Health Board between 2000 and 2005, on the member’s watch.

Hon Annette King : When he takes responsibility for children receiving free doctors visits, does he also take responsibility for the 93 children who were waiting in Northland in June, up from 48 in January, for surgery for rotting and abscessed teeth?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : As the member knows, that is not my delegation. But what I can say—[Interruption] You know that that it is not my delegation. You have actually addressed that question to the wrong Minister. What I can say is that in all dimensions across health, we have increased services for New Zealanders. If you look at the global picture, more New Zealanders are getting more services all the time. This is a big change from her failed reign as health Minister.

Simon O’Connor : What recent reports has he received in relation to individual cases raised in question time?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : Last Thursday in question time, Mrs King raised the case of a woman called Catherine from Whangarei, who, she claimed, had had her home support cut. I went and followed up on that case and asked for a report from Northland District Health Board. It turns out that, actually, the district health board did not cut the support for this person. In fact, the individual had requested the support to stop. The district health board then followed up on this request with the patient, who has since agreed to 5½ hours a fortnight of home management and support. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The House will settle. I have heard most of the answer, until now. I want to hear a bit more.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : This is yet another example of this member getting her facts wrong, just as she did when claiming 22 of 26 GP clinics were not giving free under-13 doctors visits. It is no wonder I question the cases that she brings before the House, because when we check up, they seem to be wrong. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! [Interruption] Order! A point of order has been raised. [Interruption] Order! Can I just advise the Minister that I am calling for him to present a point of order. There is no need to have a conversation.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : I seek leave to table a report from Northland District Health Board detailing what really happened with Catherine from Whangarei.

Mr SPEAKER : Leave is sought to table that particular report. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Annette King : When he takes—[Interruption] What is that, Gerry?

Mr SPEAKER : Order! [Interruption] Order! Right, only one warning to Mr Brownlee today, so consider that he has had it. We will now continue with supplementary questions.

Hon Annette King : When he takes responsibility for more operations, does he also take responsibility for the anger and the frustration of the specialist who wrote to the GP last week, saying: “Although your patient had a significant invasive tumour removed, without a significant increase in resourcing, we cannot provide reconstructive plastic surgery to him or many other patients.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : Once again, it is hard to comment. There is no name, no detail, and no district health board. In terms of anger and frustration, the only person I know in that category is the person who is coming second to “don’t know, don’t care” in the Labour deputy—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! There is no ministerial responsibility there. [Interruption] Order! I might have to issue another warning very shortly.

Hon Annette King : When he takes responsibility for more doctors and nurses, does he also take responsibility for the looming oral health workforce crisis, reported 3 weeks ago, stating a bleak outlook for kids’ dental treatment over the next 5 to 10 years because of the ageing workforce, with the Canterbury area alone having 77 percent of its workforce over 50?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : I know that member was a dental nurse, but I also expect her to know who has got the delegation for oral health. What I can say is that there is work going on around the medical workforce, right across all aspects of the portfolio. We look at this strategically. As I said before, we are doing more and more for more New Zealanders all the time, and, actually, oral health will be part of that.

Hon Annette King : When he takes responsibility for funding Herceptin, does he also take responsibility for failing to increase Pharmac’s budget sufficiently this year to allow other cancer patients to access modern biologic drugs to help prolong their lives?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : We have talked about this in the House before, but in actual fact, an extra 70,000 New Zealanders gained the benefits of new medicines and new designations in the last year. There were more medicines introduced, and, actually, unlike that member, we are able to make better use of the money available to provide more services, more drugs, and better care for all New Zealanders.

Hon Annette King : I seek leave to table a pay-walled article from the New Zealand Medical Journal dated 15 June 2007 showing that Herceptin was funded in New Zealand from July 2007—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The document has now been more than adequately described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular article. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Annette King : When he takes responsibility for faster cancer services, does he also take responsibility for the 1999 cancer report to the incoming Government that stated that cancer treatment barely met demand, that there were chronic staff shortages, that services were under resourced, and that patients faced delays, which led to patients being sent to Australia?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : Well, I know that Annette King was around in 1999. In fact, she was around in 1981, I think it was. But look, this is going back a long way. I mean, how on earth could I be held responsible for a 1999 report? This is going back 17 years—it is ancient history, just like the member—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! That part will not help the order of the House. [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order.

Hon Annette King : I seek leave to table the Working Party report New Zealand radiation oncology treatment services 1999-2004, withheld by the Minister, who said he did not have it.

Mr SPEAKER : On the basis that this is a report from quite a long time ago, I will put the leave. It may be of interest—[Interruption] Order! It may be of interest to members. Leave is sought to table that particular report dated 1999. Is there any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Annette King : I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request dated 1 September from the Northland District Health Board showing that 93 children are waiting for extractions.

Mr SPEAKER : Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act request—[Interruption] Order! I am putting the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular report. Is there any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman : I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response to the office of the Leader of the Opposition detailing the cuts to appointments and operations under Labour from the period of 1999 through to 2008.

Mr SPEAKER : Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act report. Is there any objection? There is—[Interruption] Order! When I am putting the leave, I do not expect the conversation to carry on. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Economy—Job Creation

2. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Finance : How many more jobs have been created in New Zealand since the economy started recovering from the global financial crisis?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance): on behalf of the Minister of Finance : Economic growth is the best way of delivering more jobs and higher incomes to New Zealanders. Since the start of 2011 New Zealand has had 18 consecutive quarters of economic growth, the economy has expanded 12.6 percent after inflation, and there are 199,000 more jobs in the economy. Recent forecasts show continuing moderate growth of 2 to 2.5 percent over the next 2 years, with an outlook for continuing job growth.

Ian McKelvie : In the last year, how has employment growth tracked, and how does New Zealand’s employment rate compare with other countries?

Hon PAULA BENNETT : Over the last year we have seen 68,000 jobs added to the economy, including 24,000 additional jobs in the manufacturing sector. Over that period the labour force has expanded by 79,000 people, driven in part, of course, by a higher labour market participation rate, which is now at 69.3 percent, the third-highest rate on record. The number of unemployed has increased from 5.7 percent to 5.9 percent, but that is a product of people coming into the labour market faster than jobs are being created. New Zealand’s employment rate—that is, the share of the working-age population in employment—is 65.3 percent, one of the highest rates in the OECD.

Ian McKelvie : What trends have been evident in wage growth across the economy over the last 4 years?

Hon PAULA BENNETT : In addition to growing employment, what we are also seeing, of course, is higher wages. The average wage is now over $57,000. That is $10,000 more than when National came into office—[Interruption]—or, as those members would like to hear, 22 percent higher than that time. After-tax incomes have increased by 29 percent since 2008, and that is 29 percent more money in the pockets of New Zealanders.

Defence, Department—Expenditure

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Defence : Does he regard all expenditure within Defence as being of high value?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): Overall, defence expenditure in 2015-16 will be around some $3.2 billion, and it has been at that level for some time. So the answer to the member’s question would need a line-by-line analysis, which I have not been able to achieve in the time since the question was lodged.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Why did the Government sell the 10 Iriquois helicopters plus parts to a US company, at enormous disadvantage to New Zealand companies dealing in helicopters and parts, and at a loss to New Zealand’s economy and jobs?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE : It might interest the questioner to know that the original proposal was to give the helicopters away. I suggested that they might go to a public tender to see what might be realised on behalf of the taxpayer. The details of the tender were published on the Government Electronic Tenders Service website, certainly from January of this year, and it was a very open tender process. The Minister does not decide who wins a tender. There are always restrictions on whom products can be sold to at the time they are bought. Those restrictions would have been put on during the 1960s. All of that would have been followed through the tender process, and New Zealand companies had as much opportunity as anybody else to bid into that tender process.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Why should New Zealand businesses dealing with Iriquois helicopters and parts now have to buy those commodities at a seriously inflated price as a consequence of his Government’s decision?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE : The tender process is a proper process. It delivers a result in accordance with Government disposal rules, and the persons who win the contract eventually are able to buy it. What they choose to do with those helicopters is their business, clearly stated inside the tender intentions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : In this photograph of the Minister visiting our troops in Taji, was he wearing a flak jacket off the shelf or one that was custom-made and more expensive than a normal New Zealand serviceman’s flak jacket?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE : I do not know, but anybody taking a bit of a glance would know that off-the-shelf is not something I regularly purchase. But what I would say is that there are big flak jackets and there are small flak jackets, and then there are flak jackets that are not required. A man of the member’s stature probably does not require one—so small, such a little target. Therefore, between him and me, we balance it out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Is it not true that for this one visit he had a special jacket custom-made, costing four times the price of a normal serviceman’s jacket, and why does he not save the taxpayers money and just visit troops in a suitable flak jacket, namely a tank?

Mr SPEAKER : The Hon Gerry Brownlee—either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE : The first point is that the member may be a little surprised to learn that he is not the arbiter of how long my career as Minister of Defence is. Nor is he, therefore, the determiner of how often I might visit those troops. But if he would like to come with me next time and not wear a flak jacket, then I will welcome him to stand at the front of the parade every day we are there.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : I seek leave to table a paper that was handed to us on 23 September online, and not published until 25 September, showing all the places around this country in respect of defence that the Minister, Mr Brownlee, has never visited. That is the list there.

Mr SPEAKER : No, I am not even going to—[Interruption] I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE : I would be very pleased to get hold of that, because I will guarantee that a lot of that is just empty sections, and you never know what we might be able to put on them by way of social housing.

Mr SPEAKER : I will hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : I would love for him to have a chance to get hold of it, because his department wrote it.

Mr SPEAKER : If the member is so keen to have it tabled, and it appears that Mr Brownlee is also keen to see it, on that basis I will put the leave and it is over to the House. Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? [Interruption] There is objection.

Child, Youth and Family—Serco

4. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development : Does she stand by her answer to written question 10747 (2015) that “Neither the Ministry nor myself are aware of Serco staff ever visiting any Child, Youth and Family site”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I have been advised this morning by Child, Youth and Family that case managers from the Serco-managed Auckland South Corrections Facility visited Korowai Manaaki Youth Justice North on 4 May 2015. I have also been made aware that case managers from the Serco-managed site have visited other Child, Youth and Family sites to discuss the relationship between the prison and Child, Youth and Family, and/or the transition and management of young people from youth justice into adult corrections systems. I make the point that Korowai Manaaki and Auckland South Corrections Facility are next door to each other. I answered written question No. 10747 on the advice I was provided by the Ministry of Social Development. This advice was incorrect, and I apologise to the member.

Jan Logie : Given that so many other MPs on this side of the House knew about those visits, does the Minister really expect us to believe that she did not know—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! [Interruption] Order! That question is completely out of order. It is questioning the integrity of a member of this House. Does the member have further supplementary questions?

Jan Logie : I do, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER : Good. We will hear them.

Jan Logie : Is the Minister satisfied with the relationship she has with her staff in the ministry—that she was not aware of those visits when so many of us in this House were?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : I am very disappointed that I got incorrect information to answer a written question, of course. But I would point out that in the management of young people from youth justice into the prison system it is absolutely essential, and I would expect nothing less than, that there was a good relationship to manage that transition. That is a normal operational activity, and I would be surprised at anything less than that.

Jan Logie : Is the Minister assuming a transition from youth justice to adult prison? I thought that this Government was seeking to break that relationship.

Mr SPEAKER : The first part of the question is in order.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : For the member’s education, there are occasionally young people who are on indictable charges and it is very obvious that they will be transferred into the prison service from a youth justice facility, where they may well be on remand or they may well be awaiting sentencing. In those cases, of course there needs to be a well-managed transition, for the sake of those young people.

Jan Logie : Given the stories that this House is well aware of, of the standard of care within Serco prisons, is that the aspiration she has for the care of those young people currently in youth justice services?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : No Minister has any ability to overrule a sentence handed down by a court.

Jan Logie : Why is the Minister also expecting philanthropic trusts to fund child advocacy, a core component of the new proposed care model, which will effectively outsource this core Government responsibility?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : It is a hang of a long way away from the primary question, but I am very happy to answer it—because in fact the young people themselves have asked for it. I would have thought that any advocacy on behalf of young people in care needs to be independent from the Government. I have stated publicly that I support independent advocacy for them. I have indicated that there may well be some services that the Government may wish to contract from them, looking at overseas models. But I think it is exceptionally important that they are able to act and advocate for young people in care completely independently from the Government.

Jan Logie : Does her decision not to fund the child advocacy service and the circling interest of Serco indicate an underlying agenda of privatising childcare services?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : The member needs to take her tin hat off. The two are completely different, and I would say—if the member reads the report that I released today—no decisions have been made about what to fund or what not to fund. So stop looking for secret agendas and welcome the fact that this Government is actively supporting, and the expert panel are recommending, and philanthropic organisations are very interested in funding, an independent advocacy group for young people in care.

Carmel Sepuloni : When I asked written question No. 10310—“How many times, if any, have staff members from the Ministry of Social Development met with staff from the private company Serco in the last 12 months …”—why did she reply on 20 August that she had had no discussions with Serco about the provision of services in the social sector, given all I wanted to know was had they met?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : Because my answer to the question was absolutely correct. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! If I am going to call a member—[Interruption] Order!

Carmel Sepuloni : Given that she has been asked the same question twice and answered incorrectly both times, how can we and the general public be assured that she is providing accurate advice?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : Because I have had two different answers. [Interruption] The answer that I gave—

Hon Members : It was wrong.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : No, it was absolutely correct. I have had no discussions with Serco, because if the member cares to read the answer that I gave to the written question—

Carmel Sepuloni : I read out the answer. Wrong.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : If the member stops talking and listens—

Carmel Sepuloni : Give us something worth listening to.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I suspect there is not much point in carrying on the answer if the member does not want to hear it.

Housing Market—Tax Reform

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Revenue : Does he agree with the New Zealand Law Society that “This bright line test is a bad idea and shouldn’t be enacted as in our view it will be ineffective in meeting the stated policy objective”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue : No.

Grant Robertson : Why was Mr Tomlinson from the New Zealand Law Society wrong when he described the brightline test legislation as “incoherent”, and rather than capture speculators it will capture those who are forced to sell their properties within 2 years, including those who are involved in mortgagee sales?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH : The brightline test exempts the sale of the person’s main home, and it also exempts inherited properties and properties transferred under the Property (Relationships) Act, and we believe that is an appropriate arrangement.

Grant Robertson : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that did address the question that I asked.

Mr SPEAKER : No, I think in this case it definitely does. The question asked, effectively, why Mr Tomlinson was wrong. That gave a very wide ambit for the Minister to respond.

Grant Robertson : Supplementary question—

Hon Gerry Brownlee : Ask your own question. Stop asking other people’s questions.

Grant Robertson : How about you answer, Gerry? How about that? That would be—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! Grant Robertson, supplementary question.

Grant Robertson : Why was Peter Vial, New Zealand leader at Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, also wrong when he described the brightline test legislation as “not sound tax policy”, “arbitrary”, “unfair”, and “blunt”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH : I am sure there are wide varieties of views on all tax legislation brought before the House, and that is his opinion. But the point I would make is that the member has a habit of complaining endlessly about a problem—in this case, housing affordability—and he also complains endlessly about any efforts to do anything about the problem. This Government is concerned about getting on with the problem.

Hon Gerry Brownlee : Does the Minister consider it strange that a party that is proposing a capital gains tax is now mounting an attack against a capital gains tax on behalf of those who do not like the capital gains tax?

Mr SPEAKER : Order! There is no ministerial responsibility there whatsoever. [Interruption] Order! I have not called the member yet. [Interruption] Order!

Grant Robertson : Why was David Snell, executive director at Government administration, Ernst and Young, wrong when he said that the brightline test legislation was “unclear” and “overly complex”, and that as someone who does tax accounting for a living, he found himself “professionally confused” by the Government’s approach?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH : I cannot explain why that particular gentleman is professionally confused, but I would say that the brightline test will catch property speculators who buy and sell property quickly. That is the object. It will help to ensure that property speculators pay their fair share of tax, and I am surprised that the member’s party is not supporting that.

Grant Robertson : In light of that answer, is it correct that Treasury advised Ministers that a short brightline test of less than 5 years would be easily planned around and would not work, and that there should not be retrospective legislation—both of which are pieces of advice that the Government ignored?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH : The point I would make in relation to that is that property speculators should already be caught under the current tax rules for land sales, and the brightline test primarily serves to make sure that there is no uncertainty as to what the intention is of the property developer.

Grant Robertson : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I am going to allow the member to repeat that question. I do not think it was addressed.

Grant Robertson : Is it correct that Treasury—

Hon Gerry Brownlee : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I hope the member is not at all questioning a decision I have just made, because that would be very serious.

Hon Gerry Brownlee : Well, I do not mean to challenge you in any way at all—

Mr SPEAKER : Well, then, I would advise the member to resume his seat.

Hon Gerry Brownlee : Well, then all I would say is that Mr Robertson always says that his question is not answered properly. The Minister on that occasion did point out to him that there was an opinion.

Mr SPEAKER : I think the member is on dangerous ground. There are—[Interruption] No, I do not need any assistance—

Grant Robertson : No, I am not—I am going to ask—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! Grant Robertson has twice in this question asked whether his question had been addressed. I warned him on the first occasion that it was. On the second occasion I listened very carefully to the answer. I acknowledged that I might have missed something. I did not believe it was addressed. That is the end of the matter. I am allowing the member to ask the question again.

Grant Robertson : Is it correct that Treasury advised Ministers that a short brightline test of less than 5 years would be easily planned around and would not work, and that there should not be retrospective legislation—both of which are pieces of advice that the Government ignored?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH : I do not have that information in front of me.

Grant Robertson : Is it not the truth that, rather than Treasury, the Law Society, the Chartered Accountants of Australia and New Zealand, Ernst and Young, KPMG, and Chapman Tripp all being wrong, the brightline test is, in fact, deeply flawed because it was a rushed, last-minute, political response to the very real problem of housing speculation, which the Government has totally failed to address?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH : No, I do not agree with that assessment of the situation at all. What the brightline test is about is this Government rapidly addressing a very important issue that is of great importance to, particularly, Aucklanders who are concerned about housing speculation. And I am surprised that that party is not supporting us in this effort.

Child, Youth and Family—Reports

6. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Development : What recent reports has she received regarding the state of Child, Youth and Family?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Today I released the expert advisory panel’s report into Child, Youth and Family. The report builds on the Children’s Commissioner’s recent state of care report and shows that New Zealand’s child protection system is not delivering effectively for vulnerable children and young people and that transformational change is required. The key findings from the report are that there has been a high and growing proportion of repeat notifications, and that there are concerning levels of revictimisation amongst children in care. The panel also found high levels of complex needs among many of the families of children coming to the attention of Child, Youth and Family; an overrepresentation of Māori children in the system; and poor long-term outcomes for children in State care, despite significant fiscal expenditure. The panel has now started work on a detailed business case and future operating model, which it will provide to the Government by the end of the year.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar : What steps is the panel taking to develop a detailed business case?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : In its interim report the expert panel has set out four key areas that will underpin the new operating model. Firstly, the system must be child centred. Secondly, an investment approach must be taken, where data and evidence on what works are used to target earlier intervention. Thirdly, an effective professional framework must be established to allow staff to use their professional judgment, rather than focus on rules, compliance, and time-driven practice. Finally, the model needs to engage all New Zealanders and communities to provide loving, stable homes for vulnerable children and to support them in their communities. A feasibility study on the use of an actuarial valuation to support that investment approach is already under way, and the panel is engaging with the philanthropic sector to develop a new child advocacy service and a plan to better engage all New Zealanders to build an understanding of what role they can play.

Rules Reduction Taskforce—Expenditure

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Local Government : How much has been spent on the Rules Reduction Taskforce in total?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government): The cost of the task force—the most up-to-date number I have got is from 31 August 2015, when $727,241 had been spent.

Phil Twyford : Why does she think that it is a good idea to let builders certify their own work when there is so much poor-quality building going on in Auckland that the council has set up an investigations unit to crack down on rogue builders and has laid 22 complaints, with another 39 pending?

Hon PAULA BENNETT : I do not, necessarily. What it says in the report, quite clearly, is that there are quite a few issues to work through, particularly with the licensed building practitioner scheme. So it is about—[Interruption] No, it says we have got a mixed picture of the industry—[Interruption] No, keep going. Done? Right. So we have got a mixed picture of the industry. We have got a whole lot of cowboys, who, quite frankly, should not be, but we have also got a whole lot of people who are really quite excellent and probably could. We have got electricians who currently do their own work; we have got gasfitters who do. For some builders who are at a certain competency and have been licensed—maybe we need to look at that.

Phil Twyford : Does she agree with Nick Smith, who said that it is worth considering allowing builders just to get on with the job without needing a building consent, in light of today’s revelation that a Christchurch family used newspaper to plug the gaps in their leaky home after a shoddy Earthquake Commission rebuild?

Mr SPEAKER : Either of those two supplementary questions, the Hon Paula Bennett.

Hon PAULA BENNETT : First of all, get us the name and address, because I just heard the Minister say that he would like to look into that. But, more important, there are most definitely some builders who should not be certifying their work themselves. There are others—particularly if we tighten up the licensed building practitioner scheme, if we make sure that we have them at a certain level of excellence, and if they are actually insured, as well, for their own work and are under an association—for whom, maybe, as the Minister has said, the idea is worth exploring, and that is what we are saying.

Phil Twyford : Why does she think the country has moved on from the leaky homes disaster, given that the National Government’s last experiment with deregulating the building industry continues even now to curse homeowners with untold cost and misery; or does she just think it has been forgotten?

Mr SPEAKER : Again, either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon PAULA BENNETT : As someone who actually owned a leaky home, I had extreme sympathy for others who were in that situation, and I still do. Under no circumstances will we be going back to that, neither do we want to see that same kind of building happening. We also need to recognise, though, the additional costs that are involved and take a common-sense approach that if they are licensed and insured, we should at least be exploring it and making sure that we can. There are different products now.

Phil Twyford : When she went on television in May raising examples of red tape like the banning of lolly scrambles or the requirement to wear a harness when using a stepladder, did she know then that they were myths, or did she need to spend $700,000 of taxpayers’ money on her task force to tell her that they were myths; and does this not show that this is yet—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The question has been asked.

Hon PAULA BENNETT : There were more than 2,000 submissions, and it is actually a case of listening to people who are experiencing things. What I will say is that as much as I love tradies—and I even married one—they are the greatest ones for having one experience and then sitting in the lunchroom and saying that that is gospel and the rules that are out there. Often they are not true. We can actually do more for costs and we can do more for efficiencies if we break down some of those myths as well, and that is a big part of it.

Health Services—Specialist Assessments and Elective Surgeries

8. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health : Can he confirm that a record 542,000 patients received a first specialist assessment in the last 12 months, and that a record 167,000 patients received an elective surgery operation?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, I can. The number of first specialist assessments and the number of elective surgery operations have increased year on year since this Government came into office. We are now delivering more services to more patients in our public health system than we have ever done before, and we are keeping ahead of population growth. This increased level of hospital service is supported by the 5,500 more doctors and nurses, faster cancer care, and free GP visits and prescriptions for 750,000 children.

Hon Annette King : I seek leave to table a letter from the consultant plastic surgeon of Hutt Valley District Health Board to a GP, dated 1 September, stating that they needed increased resources to be able to carry out the work needed for this gentleman.

Mr SPEAKER : Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Annette King : I seek leave to table three emails from Catherine of Whangarei, the first dated 8 September, where she said—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! Just list all the emails, and I will put the leave.

Hon Annette King : The second one is from the 14 November, saying there had been no action, and the third one is from the 22 September, saying that nothing had been done.

Mr SPEAKER : Leave is sought to table those particular three emails. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! There is no objection. [Interruption] Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! [Interruption] Order! If the Hon Annette King and the Hon Jonathan Coleman wish to continue their conversation, I could assist by asking them both to leave the Chamber. Is that their wish?

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman : No, I did that last week.

Mr SPEAKER : Yes, you did. So I suggest that if you want to have your conversation, leave voluntarily, but if you need to continue the conversation, I will assist by making it a compulsory situation.

South Auckland Youth Justice Facility—Serco

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): To the Minister for Social Development. Did Serco visit the South Auckland Youth Justice facility, Korowai Manaaki—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The level of interjection has still not ceased. I invite the member to start his question again.

9. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development : Did Serco visit the South Auckland Youth Justice facility, Korowai Manaaki, due to any issues identified at that residence?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I am advised by Child, Youth and Family that representatives from Serco have not visited Korowai Manaaki due to any issues identified at that residence. As I said in my answer to question No. 4, nine case managers from Auckland South Corrections Facility visited Korowai Manaaki on 4 May 2015, and the purpose of that visit was to build relationships, given that the sites are next door to one another.

Darroch Ball : What is she doing now to address the current and serious issues in youth justice facilities, given that her Government has had the capacity to make changes for 7 years and that all we have got so far is an interim report that states the obvious?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : As I outlined earlier, I have released that interim report from the expert panel, and the accompanying Cabinet paper, so that people can see there is a clear path ahead. I have said publicly that I am not going to be rushed into making patched-up changes. That has happened 14 times to Child, Youth and Family over various Governments, and we are going to do it properly this time so that we get good outcomes for young New Zealanders in State care.

Darroch Ball : Is the Minister comfortable with continuing to wait for her panel’s business case to begin addressing reported issues occurring at Korowai Manaaki Youth Justice North, including secure cells being left unlocked; RT radios being smuggled out; cellphones, SIM cards, and chargers being smuggled in; a unit cellphone being stolen by youth to make a 111 call on 6 September; and intimidation of staff by youth; if not, what is she going to do about it?

Mr SPEAKER : Either of those supplementary questions.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : Well, I think it is important to realise—in fact, it is one of the issues that I have raised with the panel and one of my concerns about the youth justice residences—that they are increasingly being used for remand. In fact, when you look at the 20 beds that are available, you can see that 17 or 18 of them are being used for remand. Young people can be staying 1 or 2 nights—sometimes up to a week—and, in fact, the only sentenced young people there could be as few as two or three. I think that is of great concern. It is a security concern, especially when you see that despite that large number being in custody in remand, less than 75 percent of them are given custodial sentences when they come before the Youth Court. So as the panel in the report shows, we do need to have a close look at a better way of dealing with young offenders, and we will do that.

Darroch Ball : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is no way that the Minister addressed that question in any way.

Mr SPEAKER : As I recall, the start of the question was “Is the Minister concerned …”, or words to that effect. It has, without doubt, been addressed according to the Standing Orders.

Darroch Ball : Is the Minister comfortable with continuing to wait for her panel’s business case to begin addressing reported issues occurring at Korowai Manaaki Youth Justice North, including staff bringing in KFC, MP3 players, and TVs for some youth; staff bringing in R18 movies like Fifty Shades of Grey for minors to watch; multiple assaults, including a serious assault on a staff member just last week; under-reporting of—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! [Interruption] Order! The question has been asked. It was too long anyway.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY : What I would say to that member is that if he does have concerns of the nature that he is outlining, I am very happy that he brings them to me and I will investigate them.

Darroch Ball : I seek leave to table a redacted internal letter from Korowai Manaaki dated 20 July 2015, detailing issues at that facility.

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

Mr SPEAKER : Question No. 10—Mojo Mathers. [Interruption] Order! I am seeking silence for the—[Interruption]. Order! Mr Brownlee, order! I am requesting silence for this question.

Captioning—Rugby World Cup Games

10. MOJO MATHERS (Green) to the Minister of Broadcasting : Does she think it’s acceptable that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who live with hearing loss are unable to access the TV commentary for any Rugby World Cup games because we do not have mandatory captioning requirements in this country?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Acting Minister of Broadcasting): I think we are doing a good job in terms of improving captioning in this country, but we can do better. I am advised that there are technical limitations that prevent captioning of the Rugby World Cup games. In terms of mandatory captioning requirements, in the past decade we have seen a tripling of New Zealand’s level of captioning for free-to-air television. As such, we do not have plans to introduce mandatory requirements at this time.

Mojo Mathers : Does the Minister accept that the fact that something of such significance as the Rugby World Cup is not being captioned shows that the current model of relying on public funding, rather than making captioning mandatory, is not working?

Hon NIKKI KAYE : I repeat what I said before, which was that we think that overall we are moving in the right direction. We have seen a tripling of captioning content in the last 10 years. We have increased the budget from $2.4 million to $2.8 million. We know that we can improve. We are going to work with Sky TV and Prime Television to ensure they have the technical capability in the future, but we do not think that mandatory captioning is the way to go.

Mojo Mathers : Does the Minister realise that the All Blacks game against Argentina was screened live with captions in Australia, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, and other nations with mandatory captioning, but not in New Zealand, and does she consider that acceptable?

Hon NIKKI KAYE : As I said before, we are aware that other countries do have mandatory requirements here. But the point that I would make to you is that the organisation that won the rights to broadcast does not have the technical capability. We are aware of that, and we are working with Sky TV and Prime Television. We have increased the investment in this area, but they are not technically capable at the moment.

Mojo Mathers : Does the Minister think that it is a sign of a fair and decent society that thousands of New Zealanders are unable to fully experience the excitement of following our national team play our national game because we do not have mandatory TV captioning?

Hon NIKKI KAYE : We believe that in a fair and decent society it is important to improve captioning. That is why we have gone from $2.4 million to $2.8 million of funding. We have also ensured that, I think, under our watch there are 265 hours per week of captioning for free-to-air television available, 31 hours per week of audio-described free-to-air television is now available, 100 percent of prime-time content on Television One and TV2 is captioned, and we will be working with Sky TV and Prime Television to try to ensure that this capability exists in the future.

Mojo Mathers : In light of the fact that the Minister told the House on 12 August that “watching the All Blacks is something that I think New Zealanders really do regard as being a critical part of being a New Zealander.”, will she commit to making TV captioning mandatory in time for the next Rugby World Cup in 2019?

Hon NIKKI KAYE : Obviously I am answering on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting, but, as I have said before, and with regard to the comments that you made, all of us believe that rugby is a great part of our society and we want people to have accessible content, but it is about how you get there. We actually think that making it mandatory would provide unnecessary cost to certain broadcasters. We think we can get there with voluntary captioning, and we are working with a range of organisations to improve captioning. I think we are moving in the right direction. As I have said before, we have gone from $2.4 million to $2.8 million and more hours than ever before, and we will work with them around that technical capability.

Vehicle Registration—Levies and Risk Ratings

11. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC : Does she stand by her decision to change to the risk rating model for ACC motor vehicle levies that has resulted in 115,000 vehicles being reclassified in the first 3 days?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): Yes, I stand by my decision to ensure risk rating is introduced into New Zealand. It is the right thing to do. As a Minister, I stand by decisions that I can reasonably control. As the member knows, there was a technical error that caused that reclassification, and it was only a fraction of the number of cars that were actually impacted. It was not 115,000 that were actually impacted.

Sue Moroney : Why was the 2011 Kia Sportage more dangerous than the 2012 Kia Sportage, when they have the same safety specifications?

Hon NIKKI KAYE : As I have said to the member before, there are 2.7 million cars. We have said that we are working with the motor vehicle advisory group to look at potential changes in the future. In fact, if she reads the press release of the chair of the board of ACC, it confirms that next week we will be announcing some things that we will be consulting on as part of ACC’s regular consultation.

Sue Moroney : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very crystal clear.

Mr SPEAKER : I heard your question. What is the point of order?

Sue Moroney : My point of order is that I still do not know why one car is more dangerous than the other. I have had no explanation from the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I am going to invite the member to ask the question again. I suspect the answer could have been a bit clearer, as to why.

Sue Moroney : Why is the 2011 Kia Sportage more dangerous than the 2012 Kia Sportage, when they have the same safety specifications?

Hon NIKKI KAYE : As I have said to her before, there are 2.7 million cars. We always accepted that when we designed the system there may be some inconsistencies, like the one that she mentioned. So there will be changes in the future. But what I can tell the member is that it is unacceptable to this side of the House to continue to have a country where people die on our roads. We can do more when we have systems like this. It costs $2 million per serious injury, and we are investing to make sure that we actually get safer cars on the road. That is the right thing to do.

Sue Moroney : Why does the fact that the 2003 BMW Z4 has not been involved in enough crashes in its 12 years of existence make it the most dangerous of cars, under her risk-rating model?

Hon NIKKI KAYE : Again, if she is going to read out every single model of car, then she is being completely unreasonable, because there are hundreds of models of cars. So the point that I would make to her is that actually we are using laboratory crash-testing data, and we have been very clear that we do that for a proportion of new cars because real-world crash data is not available. She knows that. The reality is we will be consulting on further changes in terms of the integrity of the data. But, at the end of the day, she knows that this side of the House is focused on ensuring that we reduce serious injuries. That side of the House—if they want to dump the system in the future, they can do that, but it is the wrong thing to do. We have to, as a country, have price signals around those that bear the greatest costs in terms of injury.

Sue Moroney : I seek leave to table a copy of an email to me, dated 21 September, from the owner of a Suzuki Grand Vitara, confirming that ACC has given his car a lower rating than the Suzuki Grand Escudo, an identical vehicle—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The document has been well and truly described. I will put the leave on this occasion. Leave is sought to table this particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Sue Moroney : I seek leave to table a copy of an email sent to me, dated 24 September, from the owner of a 2011 Nissan—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! Again, this document has now been described. I will put the leave. Does the member have any others?

Sue Moroney : Yes, I have several.

Mr SPEAKER : Well, then we will put them all together. Very quickly, just give us the dates of the emails and I will put the leave.

Sue Moroney : May I have time to describe them—

Mr SPEAKER : No, you cannot. It is very doubtful whether we should even be putting the leave. It is not about making a political point. If the member quickly lists the dates, I will put the leave.

Sue Moroney : There are several of them, so I will leave it there and ask a further supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER : Leave is sought to table the particular emails first described. Is there any objection? There is none. Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee : This is Harry Duynhoven revisited.

Sue Moroney : Is that what you are calling your Minister, Gerry?

Mr SPEAKER : Order! If the member wants a supplementary question, I would advise her just to ask it. I know she is responding to an interjection—ask it.

Sue Moroney : Why has ACC given up refunding car owners whose vehicles have been wrongly classified under her flawed model, telling them instead that they have to put a submission into the ACC levy consultation process, which means the error will not be corrected until July 2016?

Hon NIKKI KAYE : She is wrong again. As I have said to the member a number of times, we are refunding people who have had incorrect classifications as part of this levy round. What we have said is that the levy rates will stand for this year, but in the future we will be consulting on changes. But what I can say to the member is that under our watch people are paying a lot lower levies. In fact, the average car registration has gone from $330 to $195. It is a good system overall, but there is a proportion that we are working through, in terms of changes.

Sue Moroney : I seek leave to table a copy of an email to me, dated 2 July—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! Be aware I am not going to put the leave. Leave is sought to inform members. I have been generous in allowing the leave to go forward earlier. It is not about making political points. I am not putting the leave.

Sue Moroney : Who came up with the policy of defining risk by compiling Australian and New Zealand data first: was it her with these botched ACC levies, or was it Michael Woodhouse with his worm farms?

Hon NIKKI KAYE : The vehicle risk rating policy has been in place and was decided on by Cabinet earlier last year, and then we signed off, obviously, on ACC’s implementation, so it was not Minister Woodhouse. But what I can say to you is that, at the end of the day, under this Government we inherited an ACC scheme that was a shambles—$4.8 billion deficit; $10 billion to $31 billion. Motor vehicle registrations—$330 to $195. This is a small proportion of cars—

Mr SPEAKER : Order! [Interruption] Order! We are now deviating well past the actual answer to the question.

Pest Control—Announcements

12. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Conservation : What recent announcements has she made about boosting community pest control?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Yesterday I opened the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust conference where I announced that the fight against introduced predators across New Zealand will receive a further $2.13 million boost through this year’s Community Conservation Partnerships Fund. This will mean that 31 community groups from Whangarei to Fiordland will be able to start new pest control measures, expand existing efforts, and make plans for the future. As part of the $8.4 million of Community Conservation Partnerships Fund funding this year, $918,000 will go towards the recently launched War on Weeds, and an additional $345,000 will be spent on wilding conifer control.

Todd Muller : What other Community Conservation Partnerships Fund funding has she recently announced?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY : Only this very morning I announced that nearly $570,000 of Community Conservation Partnerships Fund funding will go towards six environmental education and outreach programmes to inspire our young people to get involved with protecting New Zealand’s natural world. For example, $240,000 will be going towards Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust, and a further $66,000 will go to Kids Restore the Kepler. Contact with nature, as Opposition parties might like to note, inspires creativity, lifts achievement, and helps to create lifelong interest in the natural world.

ENDS

© Scoop Media