Questions And Answers - Tuesday, 28 March 2006
30 March 2006
Questions And Answers for Oral AnswerTuesday, 28 March 2006
Questions toMinisters
Television New ZealandaForeign Affairsand Trade, Ministry
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of theOpposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by herstatement in relation to the agreement between HarmeetSooden s family and Television New Zealand, "There s been alot of public interest and then to see the one media outlettry to scoop everybody else I don t think is veryappropriate."; if so, does she approve of the decision ofthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to attempt tofacilitate such an agreement?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN(Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister:Yes. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provideda significant amount of support to the family, including intheir dealings with the media, over an extended period oftime. Although extending that role to pass on the family srequest for financial assistance for travel was, in my view,an error of judgment, it should be noted that the officialwho did so advised against that particular move.
Dr DonBrash: Does the Prime Minister think it appropriate forGovernment agencies and public servants to act as mediaagents for people trying to gain financial support in returnfor exclusive interviews; if not, will she be conveying thisview to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and hisministry?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the latter point, I amsure the Minister of Foreign Affairs is already cognisant ofthe Prime Minister s views. On the former, I think it isvery important to be quite clear that the Ministry ofForeign Affairs and Trade was not involved in seeking anexclusive relationship with Television New Zealand. Itmerely passed on the request to both Television New Zealandand TV3athe family s request for financial assistance fortravel.
Dr Don Brash: Is she concerned about reports inthe media this morning that Ministry of Foreign Affairs andTrade staff only contacted a private TV network to offer itan exclusive deal with the Soodens and failed to contact theState broadcaster, and does she believe the ministry shouldat least have been impartial when negotiating cheque-bookjournalism deals?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have been awareof a number of reports but my advice is that the approachwas made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade toboth Television New Zealand and TV3 and that they would haveno role in negotiating any deal; that would have to be donedirectly with the family.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would thePrime Minister accept that this was an extremely delicatesituation over a number of months and that, in passing onthe request of the family, the Ministry of Foreign Affairsand Trade may have unconsciously got itself involved in apossible negotiation process, even though it warned thefamily that that was a bad idea?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN:That is correct. It is very important to note that theMinistry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did warn the familythat this was a bad idea and also to place on the recordthat the ministry had, over an extended period of time, goneout of its way to assist the family, as had of course otherGovernment agencies.
Keith Locke: Does the Prime Ministerwelcome media coverage of peace worker Harmeet Sooden scritical assessment of the American and British militaryoccupation of Iraq, and is it not very appropriate to havesuch media coverage at the time British Prime Minister, TonyBlair, is visiting this country?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Ido not think Mr Blair has to come to New Zealand to facecriticism of Britain s role in Iraq.
Dr Don Brash: Is thePrime Minister aware that the Ministry of Foreign Affairsand Trade has negotiated exclusive deals of this kind in thepast, and does she expect it to be negotiating any more suchdeals in the future?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I reiterate,that the ministry did not negotiate this deal. It simplypassed on the family s requestato both Television NewZealand and TV3. It was the family who sought an exclusivedeal with Television New Zealand.
Rt Hon Winston Peters:Would the Prime Minister confirm that at all points inrespect of Harmeet Sooden the Canadian Government was thelead agency and that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs andTrade in New Zealand was purely engaged in trying to assistthe Canadian Government in its attempts where he wasconcerned, and the United States and the UK in respect ofthe other three captives; and is it not the point that we asa Government and as a foreign affairs department have soughtto do the humanitarian thing, without trying to make somecheap political points out of it?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN:It is absolutely clear that the Canadian Government had thelead role throughout. Of course, Mr Sooden is a Canadiancitizen. Canada acted entirely properly throughout and keptus informed throughout of any progress that was beingmade.
Dr Don Brash: Has she asked the Minister of ForeignAffairs whether he had any knowledge that the Ministry ofForeign Affairs and Trade was acting as media agents for theSooden family; if so, what was his response?
Hon DrMICHAEL CULLEN: No, I repeat the ministry did not act asmedia agent. Firstly, it merely passed on a request, and,secondly, it stated to the family that it thought actuallythat was not itself a wise move, and, thirdly, it declinedto be involved in any negotiations between the family andTelevision New Zealand, because that was a matter for thefamily.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the Prime Minister sposition that if a member of the House wants to know whatthe Minister of Foreign Affairs did, it would be a good ideato ask him?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is fair tosay that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has always beenextraordinarily approachable in terms of ascertaining hisviews on matters.
Gerry Brownlee: Does she thinkTelevision New Zealand got good value for the deal, as itappears to have paid $10,000 per second of air time and TV3ran the same footage for nothing?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Ithink it is clear that if this were a value-for-moneyexercise it would fail to meet the criteria the Governmentmight lay down in those respects.
StudentLoansaInterest-free Policy Savings
2. MOANA MACKEY(Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How manyborrowers will save under the interest-free student loanpolicy coming into effect on 1 April 2006?
Hon Dr MICHAELCULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): Around 470,000 NewZealanders will benefit. Around 350,000 will get animmediate benefit from the policy, and around 120,000 peoplewho are already studying interest-free under Labour s 2000policy will benefit when they finish studying.
MoanaMackey: Has the Minister received any reports suggestingalternative approaches to setting interest rates for studentloans?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Over recent years I havereceived many such reports. One report states: "Interest hasto be charged because you are using taxpayer money." Asecond states: "Although the total of student debt has risento over $7 billion, it is small when compared with privatesector debt." A third condemns student loans that will takemany people decades to pay off, and a fourth highlightsaspects of the previous scheme that are unfair. The firsttwo reports are from Dr Donald Brash, the third is from newNational MP Paula Bennett, and the fourth from Dr LockwoodSmith.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm thatthe Ministry of Social Development will incur additionalcosts of $3 million to process the extra applications forstudent loans, and can he advise the House how much the newinformation technology system that the Inland RevenueDepartment requires for student loans will cost?
Hon DrMICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm the first figure. I do nothave the second figure in front of me, although I think itis fair to say that the Inland Revenue Department wasconsidering its information technology systems in any case.
Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that some wealthyparents who would normally have paid for their offsprings education at university will now, with interest-free loans,advise their children to borrow and put the money in thebank to earn significant interest; if the Minister is awareof that, how will he cope with that sort of scenario?
HonDr MICHAEL CULLEN: There have always been some wealthyparents who fail to meet their parental responsibilities inthose respects. All I can say in response to that is that onevidence so far, the number is less than what was forecastto be the case.
Dog ControlaMicrochipping, Farm Dogs
3.Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister of Agriculture:What action, if any, is he taking to further the cause toexempt farm dogs from microchipping?
Hon JIM ANDERTON(Minister of Agriculture): I made a commitment to the ruralcommunity that I would take the issue of the microchippingof farm dogs to Cabinet for the existing policy to bereconsidered. This I did over recent weeks, and I can informthe House that the matter was given full consideration by myCabinet colleagues. After careful consideration of theissues, Cabinet decided on balance that successfulenforcement of the policy required a consistent approach tomicrochipping across all communities throughout the whole ofNew Zealand.
Dave Hereora: What reports has the Ministerseen on the enforcement of the Dog Control Act?
Hon JIMANDERTON: I saw a report in Hansard of 13 November 2003 inwhich the National Party member for Port Waikato said: "Wemust clamp down on irresponsible owners, and achieveuniversal enforcement of the law around the country." I notethat only minutes after that statement was made the NationalParty voted 27 votes in favour of the Dog Control AmendmentBill and none against.
Nathan Guy: How can farmers beexpected to have any confidence in this Minister, when afterpromising to help farmers affected by the Gisborne flood hefailed to do so, and after promising to deliver solutions toexempt farm working dogs he has again failed?
Hon JIMANDERTON: If that member knows any farmers at all he willknow that the vast majority of farming opinion is againstsubsidies for weather events unless they are of the mostexceptional circumstance. Secondly, Federated Farmers andother farmers in the farming community know that they have aMinister who will not bypass their issues on the basis thatthey might get defeated. He will raise the issues and do hisbest to advance their cause. It is a long time since anyGovernment of the National variety had a Minister likethat.
R Doug Woolerton: Why does the Minister think thatFederated Farmers are so opposed to dog microchipping, whenit is not only the savaging of people that is trying to beprotected here but also the savaging of their ownstock?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: There are a wide range of viewson this matter throughout the country, as I am sure themember knows. Equally, there are a wide range of views onthat matter inside this Parliament and even inside Cabinet.However, I am bound by Cabinet collective responsibility onthis matter and I accept, unreservedly, the view thatCabinet has taken on this matter.
Gordon Copeland: Doesthe Minister intend to revisit this matter, utilising theopportunity provided by the introduction of the localgovernment law reform bill, and in particular, theopportunity to amend the Dog Control Act 1996 to exempt farmdogs from microchipping; if not, why not?
Hon JIMANDERTON: If the member has ever participated in a CabinetExecutive Government he would know that the opportunity fora member of Cabinet to take a matter to Cabinet andrelitigate an existing decision would be very rare, indeed.I had the privilege to do that and I accept the decisionCabinet has made after further consideration, which it didnot need to give, but in fact, did.
Craig Foss: How canapple growers have any confidence in the Minister s abilityto get New Zealand access to the Australian apple marketwhen he has failed so miserably to achieve an exemption forfarm working dogs?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a pointof order, Madam Speaker. Unless that member intends thatthere be a microchipping of apples, and to change theresponsibility from the Minister of Trade to the Minister ofAgriculture, that question is simply irrelevant and out oforder.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I think it is a very long bow.It is actually a different issue, but if the member wouldlike to reflect, and rephrase his question to bring itwithin the context of the primary question, whichspecifically relates to farm dogs, microchipping, andagriculture.
Craig Foss: Given the Minister s failure toachieve an exemption for working farm dogs, how on earth canNew Zealand apple growers have any confidence in himwhatsoever as we try to gain access to the Australianmarket?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: Within a day of requesting theHigh Commissioner for Australia to get a copy of the reportthat we had been denied for some years, that report wastabled in my office, and the Government I represent took theAustralian industry and Government to the World TradeOrganization to examine this issueasomething that Nationalnever did in all its years of office.
Hon Damien O'Connor:Can the Minister confirm that every single apple exportedfrom this country has to be identified by a sticker?
MadamSPEAKER: I think that falls into the category of anotherlong bow. Stickers and microchipping do not make it.
HonDavid Carter: Does the Minister still agree with thestatement he made after becoming the Minister ofAgriculture: "OK, if you think you weren t taken seriouslybefore, what is it about No. 3 in the Cabinet you don tunderstand?", and how come No. 3 got rolled by No. 18?
HonJIM ANDERTON: As the member may find out one day, there arepeople in Cabinet whom one accepts being rolled by, and hemay well find out one day who they are. However, thesituation with this Cabinet is that there is a consensusposition drawn by Cabinet after full debate and discussion.That was the situation this time. I think the member willfind that Federated Farmers know full well that they have aMinister who will take up issues for them, and who will dothe very best in their interests to see that they are takenseriously.
Hon David Carter: Does the Minister also standby his statement last November: "I got these portfoliosbecause of my ability to bring people together to work onsolutions.", and how successful was he in getting hisCabinet colleagues to accept his pragmatic solutions?
HonJIM ANDERTON: Innumerable numbers of pragmatic advancementshave been made by this Cabinet for all Cabinet Ministers inthe positions they take to Parliament. However, I have notedthat I am acknowledged by the member who has just asked thequestion to be Labour s No. 3 ranked Minister. I have totell him that it may come as a shock to him that I have notbeen a member of the Labour Party since May 1989.
Rt HonWinston Peters: Has the Minister any reports contrasting thepresent action in respect of the World Trade Organizationapplication concerning the access of Australian apples withthat of 1997-98 when the then National Government did itsbest to derail that industry and sell it off, lock, stock,and barrel, to Fay Richwhite?
Madam SPEAKER: I thank themember, but we are on farm dogs and microchipping, so couldwe please bring it back.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a pointof order, Madam Chairperson. I think that perhaps it isappropriate for the House to grant leave in this case, sincewe are on dogs, to get a question from the poodle.
MadamSPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point oforder.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order,Madam Speaker. If the initial question with respect to thelinkage of the apple industry was alloweda
Madam SPEAKER:It was not allowed.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no it wasallowed. I will check the Hansard. But I am just saying, ifthat is the precedent, then surely my question is inorder.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. Would the member beseated. He can check the Hansard. The question relating toapples was put directly but questions must relate to theprimary question. When the question was re-put it did relateto the primary question. Now I will offer the member thesame opportunity if he wishes to rephrase his question, butthe subject has to come back to the primary question, whichis about exempting farm dogs, microchipping, and actionstaken by the Minister of Agriculture.
Rt Hon WinstonPeters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Iunderstand your ruling. But this point of order is inrelation to the comment made by one Gerry Brownlee. If hethinks he is going to add that sort of comment to points oforder, then he will get it back with doses of interest. I amasking that he be asked to withdraw and apologise.
MadamSPEAKER: Since the member has taken offence I will ask themember to withdraw and apologise. But I will state thisfirst. The member is correct to this extent: if we havepoints of order that are not points of order, but do haveinferences in them, then the member is right, there will bea response and there will be disorder in this House. I askmembers to please refrain and to control their wit untilthey get outside, but to please keep their points of orderto points of order that relate to Standing Orders. Now Iinvite the member to please withdraw and apologise.
GerryBrownlee: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon David Carter: Inlight of the Minister s previous answer to my supplementaryquestion, is the Minister going to change his party swebsite and slogan: "What Jim says, Jim does.", in light ofbeing rolled in Cabinet yesterday?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: WhatI said and what Jim said was that he was going to take theissue that the farmers raised to Cabinet for consideration.I also saidaand the member can check with the president ofFederated Farmersathat there was no guarantee of theoutcome. I did exactly what I said, and I am sure the memberwill find that Federated Farmers has no problem about theissue of dealing with me, and the veracity of what I said tothem.
Question No. 6 to Minister, 23 MarchaAmendedAnswer
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister of Transport): Iwish to make a correction to an answer I gave in questionNo. 6 last sitting day, concerning public-privatepartnerships, and to apologise to you, Madam Speaker, forfailing to raise it ahead of question No. 1 today. In myanswer I referred to a paper authored by Mr Katz on theTreasury website. In fact, that paper will not be on thewebsite until this Friday, 31 March.
LiteracyaImprovedRates
4. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister ofEducation: What reports, if any, has he received aboutimprovements in literacy rates in schools?
Hon STEVEMAHAREY (Minister of Education): I have released today areport on the first stage of the Literacy ProfessionalDevelopment Project, which shows that it is possible to liftliteracy standards across all New Zealand students. Theproject recorded significant improvements in reading,comprehension, and writing across 85 schools over a 2-yearperiod. Notably, the highest improvement occurred amongststudents who were previously the lowest achievers. Thattells us we are now gaining the tools to make significantimprovements in literacy.
Maryan Street: Why is theLiteracy Professional Development Project succeeding?
HonSTEVE MAHAREY: There is much debate about what would improvereading and writing amongst students, but this project showsthat because teachers are creating programmes in reading andwriting that are tailored to the individual needs of thestudent, we are seeing rapid and good progress amongst thosestudents. That was reinforced for me today when I went tovisit Hutt Intermediate School, where both the teachers andthe students were overwhelmingly positive in their feedbackon the project. Feedback from the teachers included themsaying that every student in the class had improved, andthat the kids were empowered because they had been given thetools to improve their own learning.
Hon Bill English: Canthe Minister tell the House why it is that last year 30percent of year 11 students in New Zealand failed NationalCertificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) literacystandards?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The reasons for that, ofcourse, are complex, as the member knows. But one of thegood things is that, for the first time last year, NCEA gaveus the baseline for literacy and numeracy in the country,which I am sure he applauds. Later this year we will get theresults from this year, and then we will be able to begin tobuild the pattern of what we are achieving in literacy andnumeracy. It is another reason why the member should give upon trying to undermine the NCEA, because this has given usthe information that we need.
Maryan Street: What othersupport is available for teachers to further improve theliteracy of New Zealand students?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: TheGovernment currently invests around $32 million a year tolift literacy in schools. That includes the $3.8 million ayear for the project that I have just outlined. We haveliteracy teaching assessment tools such as asTTle that giveteachers good advice on how they can improve the practice ofstudents. We also support students through reading recoveryresource teachers, and we are involved in the professionaldevelopment of teachers. This is an area that is showingsome real gains.
Te Ururoa Flavell: What progress has beenmade in achieving the recommendations from the 2000Education Review Office report Literacy Education in KuraKaupapa Māori, particularly in the production of theMinistry of Education bilingual learning resources?
HonSTEVE MAHAREY: Some progress, I think, is the answer, butnot enough. It is one of the areas that we will be spendinga lot more time on this year.
Economic GrowthaSecond Halfof 2005
5. JOHN KEY (NationalaHelensville) to the Ministerof Finance: By how much did the New Zealand economy grow inthe second half of 2005?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Ministerof Finance): The latest figures indicate the economy took ashort breather of zero growth after 20 consecutive quartersof strong growth, which is the longest period of sustainedeconomic expansion since the mid-1970s.
John Key: Have therecent announcements of growth data caused him to change hismind from only a month ago when he said: " to talk, as somehave, of falling into recession is both naïve and a littledangerous,"; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, Ihave not changed my mind on that. Firstly, we are yet tohave the updated quarterly figure for the last quarter oflast year. Given the fact that there are some oddities inthose numbers, if one disaggregates them, they could well berevised upwards. Secondly, I notice a number of bankcommentators suggesting the first quarter of this year waslikely to be positive.
Shane Jones: Has the Ministerreceived any recent reports suggesting business confidenceis linked directly to economic growth?
Hon Dr MICHAELCULLEN: Noain part because those surveys go up and down somuch that we would have to have extraordinarily shorteconomic cycles to explain them. The most recent surveyshave started to show confidence picking up again. Forexample, the Auckland chamber of commerce survey suggestedthat the net proportion of businesses expecting animprovement in their position has doubled between Decemberand March.
John Key: Does the Minister agree with globalinvestment bank UBS s assessment of the New Zealand economy,that: "Despite some politicians and business leadersdecrying the suggestion, the risk of recession loomslarge.", and which politicians does he think UBS is musingabout?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I assume it is musing aboutthe intelligent ones. No, I do not agree with UBS in thatrespect. We still have a very tight labour market. Businessinvestment is running at much higher levels in those latestnumbers than was the case in 1998 and 1999aall of whichsuggests it is not likely to be a very deep downturn atall.
Craig Foss: Was the Minister surprised to find thatthe latest GDP figures show the Government administrationgrowing by a whopping 10.3 percent in 2005, which is farahead of the construction industry with only 4.2 percentgrowth, and does he think that, rather than experiencing abuilding boom in recent years, New Zealand has actuallyexperienced a massive bureaucracy boom?
Hon Dr MICHAELCULLEN: No, I do not. In fact, those numbers are notconsistent with the actual growth in Government spending. Inthe last quarter of last year there was a particular one-offfactor in terms of substantial census spending, which is a5-yearly occurrence.
John Key: Does the Minister agreewith Westpac that the economy is "in the cack" and that weare likely to see negative growth in the first quarter of2006, which means that New Zealand will be in recession, ordoes he intend to treat private sector economic advice withthe same arrogance and derision that he treats his ownTreasury officials when they tell him information he doesnot like hearing?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Treasury adviceis that it is expecting the economy to bottom out at about1.5 percent economic growth. Those numbers are likely to berevised before the Budget. Many of the same bank economistspredicted the dollar would fall very slowly this year, toabout 64c by the end of the year. I trust the member did notbet any of his substantial sums of money on that particularforecast.
John Key: If New Zealand was 20th in the percapita income tables of the OECD in 1999, and remains in thesame place today, and if we are to assume that growthremains as moribund in the years ahead as it is currently,will New Zealand, far from surging into the top half of theOECD, be falling much further behind; in which case does hethink he should take the same advice that his AssociateMinister of Finance has been meting out to the CommonwealthGames athletes and start delivering on his potential?
HonDr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thank the member for recognising thatin this stage of my career I still have greatpotential.
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm thatGDP over the last 6 years has increased at approximatelytwice the rate of GDP increase under the National Governmentthat preceded this Government, and, secondly, that profitsby private firms are approximately three times the level ofthose under the last National Government in its 6years?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly correct thatgrowth has been faster under Labour. One of the interestingfeatures of this growth is that a disproportionate amount ofit has been captured by the business sector in terms ofincreased profits. I still hear moans from the Oppositionabout increased profitability under Labour.
InformationTechnologyaCeBIT Exhibition
6. DIANNE YATES (Labour) tothe Minister of Trade: What reports, if any, has he receivedon New Zealand s presence at the CeBIT informationtechnology exhibition in Germany?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Ministerof Trade): I have seen two reports. The first, in theAustralian Financial Review, states that the Australianexhibition was "overshadowed by the imposing presence of NewZealand s Government-backed contingent". The second, in theDominion Post, reported the strongly positive views of theNew Zealand firms, which said they had "scored good leadsamong potential partners, customers, and distributors." Thiswas an excellent Government initiative, well-organised byNew Zealand Trade and Enterprise.
Dianne Yates: What isthe importance of New Zealand s presence at the fair, whydid the Government provide financial backing for it, andwhat are the benefits?
Hon PHIL GOFF: CeBIT is the world slargest information technology fair. It provided theopportunity for New Zealand, which has a reputation inGermany and Europe as being a very competitive and effectiveproducer of agriculture, to successfully raise its profilealso as a high-tech country that is innovative and hasworld-class capability. The Government assistancefacilitated the presence of our generally small informationand communications technology firms, which were able to getto know the international market, showcase their technology,network, and do businessaand some of those firms haveentered into multimillion dollar contracts.
Corrections,DepartmentaConfidence
7. SIMON POWER (NationalaRangitikei)to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence inhis department; if so, why?
Hon DAMIEN O CONNOR (Ministerof Corrections): Yes, although there is always room forimprovement.
Simon Power: How can the Minister continue tohave confidence in his department when in the last 7 monthsit has spent almost three times as much per head ontransferring prisoners as it did in the previous yearamuchof it on commercial airlinesawhich at the rate of $100,000 amonth will lead to a blowout of approximately $1.2 millionby the end of the financial year?
Hon DAMIEN O CONNOR: Iacknowledge that there has been pressure on the prisonsystem. We have a very large number of inmates, and fromtime to time we are required to transfer prisoners aroundthe country to suitable prisons. I reassure the public thatat no time has anyone been at risk. The record speaks foritself, and I can reassure the House that the prisoners donot get Airpoints.
Simon Power: Does the Minister agreewith the claim on National Radio by Beven Hanlon of theCorrections Association that the Minister s department isloading prisoners into vans and other transport facilitiesand moving them around the country because: "While they rebeing transported they re on nobody s muster, so they re notactually showing on a muster for a prison, so the prisonitself wasn t over muster until the van got in."; if not,why not?
Hon DAMIEN O CONNOR: No, I do not. I assume thatwhat that member is quoting is referring to one incident atMount Eden Prison about 6 months ago. We have since thattime addressed that problem. I do not accept the claims madeby Beven Hanlon or by the member opposite.
ChesterBorrows: Does the Minister agree with the claim in today sNew Zealand Herald by his travelling companion in Europe KimWorkman, of Prison Fellowship, that the massive increase inspending on prisoner transfers is further evidence that hisdepartment is in crisis, and that rehabilitation programmesare being disrupted by these constant movements; if not, whynot?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No, I do not accept that thedepartment is under crisis, but I do accept that New Zealandhas the second-highest incarceration rate in the WesternWorld, and it something that this Governmentaalong with KimWorkman and any other party or person who wants tocooperateais determined to reduce over time.
Simon Power:Why are some prisoners being transferred to otherprisonsasometimes as far as from Auckland to Wellingtonaonlyto find they have to be turned round and sent back again,when the Department of Corrections own policy states thatdestination muster levels are considered before a transfertakes place, and that the transfer of a prisoner is agreedto between the relevant prisons before the approval totransfer is given, at least 7 days in advance?
Hon DAMIENO'CONNOR: As I said, there are many reasons that we transferprisoners, the primary one being that we need to have themsecure in a prison cell. The reality is most New Zealandersdo not want a prison at their back door, and therefore thereoften is not a local prison to accommodate those offenderswho have been caught and convicted. We have a safe system.There has never been an incident relating to the safety ofany of the prisoners who have been transferred by air. Wewill continue to do that only when necessary.
Simon Power:Can the Minister give this House and the country an absoluteassurance that no prisoner has flown on a commercial airlineunaccompanied by a Department of Corrections official?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am advised that everyprisoner who travels on a commercial airliner is accompaniedby a corrections officer or a staff person.
Superannuationand Veterans PensionsaChanges
8. BARBARA STEWART (NZFirst) to the Minister for Social Development andEmployment: How many superannuitants and veterans willbenefit from changes to the rate of New Zealandsuperannuation and the veterans pensions from 1 April?
HonDAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development andEmployment): More than 485,000 New Zealand superannuitantsand over 9,000 veterans pensionersathat is, more than494,000 older New Zealandersawill benefit from changes tothe rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensionfrom 1 April 2006.
Barbara Stewart: By how much will theentitlements of recipients of New Zealand superannuation andthe veterans pension increase as of 1 April?
Hon DAVIDBENSON-POPE: The rate of superannuation is increasing by3.16 percent. That means an increase of $646.88 per year fora married couple, and an increase of $420.68 per year for asingle person living alone.
Georgina Beyer: Is this thefirst change made to superannuation wage relativity by theLabour-led Government?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No. The lastNational Government dropped the wage relationship for themarried couple rate of New Zealand superannuation in 1998from 65 percent of the net average wage to 60 percent. Thisaffected the superannuation rates in 1999. The Labour-ledGovernment restored the 65 percent floor from 1 April2000.
Elective SurgeryaCapacity
9. Hon TONY RYALL(NationalaBay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Is heconcerned about the Government s ability to meet NewZealanders need for elective surgery; if not, whynot?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Although I amdelighted that the number of elective surgery procedures hasincreased by 12.6 percent on a case-weighted basis underthis Governmentaand by more than that when out-patientprocedures are taken into accountathere is always more to bedone. This Government will never be complacent.
Hon TonyRyall: Why did the cardiac unit at Auckland City Hospitalcancel or unschedule 369 operations last year, which, in thestaff s own words, compromised patient care, grew waitinglists, and cut morale at that vital service?
Hon PETEHODGSON: When a question similar to that was put to me lastweek, the Auckland District Health Board released a pressstatement that gave a large number of reasons for thatsituation, and I refer the member to it.
Ann Hartley: Whatreports has he received on ways to reduce pressure on theelective surgery system?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I have seen onereport that states the only way to reduce the pressure onelective services is to start charging patients for theirsurgery, so that only wealthy New Zealanders will be able toaccess public surgery services. That proposal came from DrDon Brash, who firmly supports the Americanisation of healthcare in this country. This Government will never supportsuch measures, because they directly contradict mainstreamNew Zealand values.
Dr Don Brash: That s totalgarbage!
Hon PETE HODGSON: Total garbage? I will tableit.
Hon Tony Ryall: How can it be that the cardiac unitstaff in Auckland are saying, in these leaked minutes, thatbecause of cancellations many more operations could havebeen done, that patient care is compromised, and that thoselucky enough to be operated on are sicker and sicker; andwhy has this Minister not said a word to the AucklandDistrict Health Board about the bureaucratic messsurrounding cardiac surgery there, when it is increasinglyclear that there are quite serious systemic problems in thedelivery of cardiac care in Auckland City?
Hon PETEHODGSON: There have been serious problems with the deliveryof cardiac care in the Auckland District Health Board. TheAuckland District Health Board last week released a pressstatement explaining what the problems were or are, and whatit has been doing or is doing about them.
Dr JonathanColeman: Does the Minister believe that as a result of the369 cancelled heart cases at Auckland City Hospital, 133people are on a waiting list who exceed the points neededfor treatment, and another 140 people have been on a waitinglist for over 6 months; and what will he do about solvingthe problems at the Auckland heart surgery unit?
Hon PETEHODGSON: Yes, and the solution lies in an examination of thepress statement that the Auckland District Health Board putout last week, in which it indicated what had been done, andwhat still needed to be done in order to address a bunch ofproblems that it had faced. One of the problems the AucklandDistrict Health Board has faced is that it has shifted theentire services of Green Lane Hospital into Auckland CityHospital. That is the biggest health shift that I know of inNew Zealand s history. It has gone substantially without ahitch, except that there has been a temporary fall-off insurgery. If the member would like to know a little more, Iwill tell him; if the member does not, that is fine.
DrJonathan Coleman: Does the Minister stand by his answer inthe House last week that the decline in cardiac surgery atAuckland is due in large part to increased angioplasty atWaitematā District Health Board, given thatWaitematā District Health Board does not actuallyperform any angioplasty and never has done?
Hon PETEHODGSON: I refer the member to Hansard, where he will find Isaid to him that if he intended to hide behind a primaryquestion that gave no idea of the supplementary question,then I would be forced to try to guess at an answer. I didguess at an answer.
Dr Jonathan Coleman: Would theMinister recognise that receiving a written question onsomething as vital as heart surgery is a pretty good cluethat an oral one may follow, and is today s tabling of acorrection to an oral answer from the Minister somethingthat we can look forward to on an ongoing basis?
Hon PETEHODGSON: I do not know how many hundreds or thousands ofparliamentary written questions I receivea
Hon Dr MichaelCullen: Tens of thousands.
Hon PETE HODGSON: Tens ofthousands, for all of us. Most of them are what one may calluneventful.
MinistersaConfidence
10. Dr PITA SHARPLES(Co-LeaderaMāori Party) to the Prime Minister: Hewhakamanawatanga tō te Pirimia ki ōna Minitakatoa; ki te kore, he aha ai?
[Does she have confidence inall her Ministers; if not, why not?]
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN(Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister:Yes.
Dr Pita Sharples: He aha i kore ai i riro i a DoverSamuels, te Minita Tuarua o Ngā Whare rāua koMahara Okeroa, te Minita Tuarua mō te Papa Atawhai,ngā tūnga matua i te wā kei tāwāhia Chris Carter?
[An interpretation in English was given tothe House.]
[Why then have the Hon Dover Samuels,Associate Minister of Housing, and the Hon Mahara Okeroa,Associate Minister of Conservation, not been appointed asActing Ministers in these major roles while the Hon ChrisCarter is out of the country?]
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN:There is no standard rule that an Associate Minister is madeActing Minister when the Minister is absent, particularlywhen the Associate Minister is outside Cabinet; in fact, itis far more common for a Minister inside Cabinet to be madethe Acting Minister.
Tariana Turia: Given the evidencepresented in the House last week that the Hon Rick Barkerhad signed letters regarding Vietnam veterans that he hadnot even read, what confidence does the Prime Minister havein his ability to take up responsibility in two suchcritical portfolios?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member isincorrect. Mr Barker did not say he had not read the letter.She should not believe everything that Rodney Hide whispersin her ear.
Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order,Madam Speaker. It is very clear that the Minister signed outa letter that he had not read, because the letter wasincorrect.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order;it is a debating matter.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: GivenTariana Turia s desire to promote Dover Samuels and MaharaOkeroa, has the Prime Minister received any reports thatTariana Turia has attempted to convince ACT party members tojoin the Māori Party?
Madam SPEAKER: No, that isnota[Interruption] I am sorry, no; I am not being difficulthere, but I am struggling to see the connection.
Rt HonWinston Peters: Madam Speaker, with respect, when we see apolitical party holding a convention and inviting a leaderof another political party, I think we are entitled to drawcertain inferencesaand that is what I am doing.
MadamSPEAKER: OK, yesa
Rt Hon Winston Peters: People cannot besaved, in the case of ACT, from its stupid invitation list.
Madam SPEAKER: No; please be seated. Such reports mustalways relate to ministerial responsibility. It is not thePrime Minister s responsibility to comment on otherpolitical parties methods of organisation.
Dr PitaSharples: Are these Māori members, these AssociateMinisters, receiving special treatment; is it a matter ofprivilege that they are not being exposed to ministerialduties, or are they the last cab off the rank?
Hon DrMICHAEL CULLEN: No. They are both valued Associate Ministersoutside Cabinet. But I am sure, of course, that the memberwill be keen to know that in the Labour Party members act asa united group. We do not have individuals going off intheir own directionsaunlike those in the ACT and MāoriParties.
Climate ChangeaGreenhouse Gas Reductions
11.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NationalaNelson) to the Ministerresponsible for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by hisstatement in 2002 that "New Zealand should have madesignificant greenhouse gas reductions on business as usualand be set towards a permanent downward path for total grossemissions by 2012"; if not, why not?
Hon PETE HODGSON(Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): No,which is why that statement, which is the overall goal ofthe policy, is under review along with the rest of it. Mypersonal view is that we will not be set towards a permanentdownward path for gross emissions by 2012, but that by thenNew Zealand will have made significant greenhouse gasemission reductions on business as usualaindeed, we alreadyhave.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does all of his and the PrimeMinister s rhetoric on global warming, and their criticismof both George Bush and John Howard for not ratifying theKyoto Protocol, stack up, when during that member s time asMinister New Zealand s emissions have gone up by 10 percentcompared with, over the same period, Australia s going up by5 percent, and United States emissions going up by 2.5percent?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I suspect our emissions havegone up by higher than that, and certainly those of theother countries quoted have. However, if the member isreferring to gross emissionsawhich I presume he isathe factof the matter is that under this Government we have had themost extraordinary growth rates that have been seen for 30years, and have failed to fully de-link energy use and otheruse from that growth rate.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: There was aquestion from the Minister about the figures. I seek theleave of the House to table the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change and the official figures forAustralia, New Zealand, and the United States, which showthat emissions in New Zealand have gone up at four times therate of those of the United States under George Bush sGovernment.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table thatdocument. Is there any objection. There is noobjection.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point oforder, Madam Speaker. There is a convention in this Housethat if one wishes to table a document, one waits untilevery member has asked every supplementary question, onegives them the courtesy of hearing them out, and then oneseeks to table the documentanot jump in halfway in between,which is the penchant of that member to do.
MadamSPEAKER: I know that is the convention. It is certainlyhelpful if the leave is sought at the end, but members areperfectly entitled to seek leave to table documents wheneverthey like.
Russell Fairbrother: What greenhouse gasemission reductions have been achieved through theGovernment s Projects to Reduce Emissions programme?
HonPETE HODGSON: The Projects to Reduce Emissions programme hasdelivered emission reductions of nearly 12 million tonnes,and brought forward wind energy in this country by, I guess,about 5 years, including the development of the largest windfarm in the southern hemisphere. If it were not for thisGovernment s climate change policy, we would have seen a lotmore thermally generated electricity in this country.
Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that if theGovernment abandons the commitment to get greenhouse gasemissions on a downward trend, that would simply be a TrojanHorse for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol; and does henot agree that calling climate change science equivocal andpulling out of the Kyoto Protocolaboth National Partyproposalsais an irresponsible, fundamentalist, and, frankly,Luddite approach to this global crisis?
Hon Dr Nick Smith:I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to saythat Pete Hodgson is not responsible for National Partypolicy, so the member s question is clearly out of order andinaccurate.
Metiria Turei: It is not uncommon for membersto ask questions asking for responses to various policyproposals from other parties on issues. The Minister isperfectly capable of responding to that question.
MadamSPEAKER: But it must always be within the ministerialresponsibility. One can, of course, under the StandingOrders, ask for an opinion relating to a matter in theportfolio. That is how I heard the question. That isperfectly acceptable within the Standing Orders.
Hon PETEHODGSON: In respect of the first part of the question, I saythat, no, it is not a Trojan Horse for withdrawing from theKyoto Protocolanot under this Government. In respect of thesecond part of the question, I am saddened that National,which in the 1990s led the national and international debateso wisely and well, and was so effective, including atKyotoa
Hon Dr Nick Smith: You didn t say so then!
HonPETE HODGSON: awe did say so back thenahas not now decidedthat climate change is something that needs to be takenseriously. We find it difficult to find anything that ismuch more serious than climate change.
Hon Dr Nick Smith:Does the Minister agree with the statement in yesterday sNew Zealand Herald made by Dr Kevin Patterson, a seniorpublic official with the Ministry of Economic Development,who said he was so disillusioned with the Government spolicies on climate change that he was considering joiningthe brain drain overseas, and who said: "Pete Hodgsonstuffed it up ".
Hon PETE HODGSON: That apparently seniorofficial is a person whom to the best of my knowledge I havenot met. That same person said that the carbon tax would beresponsible for three-quarters of what we need to do onclimate change. I do not think the most ardent optimist Iknow would conclude that that was a remotely reasonableremark.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did the Minister, as claimedby the Ministry of Economic Development senior official onenergy policy, Dr Kevin Patterson, direct "staff to modelthe next target as if it had been accomplished."; did hegive that direction, as stated by that senior publicofficial?
Hon PETE HODGSON: No. What is more, I do noteven understand the allegation, and I do not think the ChiefExecutive of the Ministry of Economic Developmentunderstands it, either.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is it sodifficult for the Minister to understand that his Governmentgrossly got wrong the numbers on the Kyoto Protocolato thevalue of $1 billionaand that a senior official is now sayingthat that was because the Minister directed the ministry tomake particular assumptions, and that the Minister, when itall went wrong, then blamed the officials?
Hon PETEHODGSON: The member needs to hear very clearly that thesereports that come up to the Minister responsible for ClimateChange Issues every May come up unasked by the Governmentand unmolested by the Government, and that the only thing Iever did in respect of those reports in my time in theportfolio was to seek a review of the May 2005 data.
HonDr Nick Smith: What could possibly motivate a senior publicofficial and doctor, Kevin Patterson, to say in the NewZealand Herald: "Pete Hodgson stuffed it up he basicallydirected the staff to model the next target as if it hadbeen accomplished."; what would possibly motivate a publicofficial to say that, if it were not true?
Hon PETEHODGSON: I say again that to the best of my knowledge I havenot met this apparently senior public official. I have notmet that person, to the best of my knowledge. That sameperson, in the same interview, said that the carbon taxwould reduce the gap, or something, by about 75 percent. Heis not, apparently, well aware of Government policy, at all.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that the sameofficial said that the Government, with its project toreduce emissions and encourage more efficient energy use,was "dreaming", and that the Government s policies were agross failure; if senior officials are saying that, whatdoes that say about the state of his climate changepolicies?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I repeat that I have never metthis apparently senior official. He certainly is not asenior official todayacertainly not. The member quotes theguy as saying this, that, and the other thing; my best guessis that he does not understand the New Zealand climatechange policy very well, at all.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Doesthe Minister accept the premise in the statement made by DrKevin Patterson of the Ministry of Economic Development thatthis Government does not have a bolter s hope of meeting itsclimate change obligations that the Minister signed NewZealand up to, and that will now cost taxpayers hundreds ofmillions of dollars?
Hon PETE HODGSON: In my view, it isvery unlikely that we will meet our gross emissionstargetathat is to say, a reduction to 1990 levelsaby 2012.That is very unlikely.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: You got itwrong.
Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not know of a country thatwill, to be honest, except for those that have had theireconomies trashed, such as Russia and countries in EasternEurope. But I say to the member that this Government is veryserious indeed about making its contribution to what we seeas one of the biggest global problems facing humanity, andone that will disproportionately affect New Zealand. I wouldlike the member to start coming onside about that. I quoteback to him his own remarks in his state of the nationaddress, when he said that if he falls "into the trap ofbecoming a full-time whinger, I would appreciate one of yourescuing me with a gentle reminder." I remind the membernow.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House totable the statement made by Dr Kevin Patterson, whodescribes himself as a senior Government scientist in theMinistry of Economic Development.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave issought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes,there is objection.
Kyoto ProtocolaSolid EnergyMines
12. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the MinisterResponsible for Climate Change Issues: What quantity ofgreenhouse gases will be emitted into the atmosphere as aresult of Solid Energy s mines at Stockton and Happy Valleyin Westland, and what are the implications of this for NewZealand s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol?
Hon PETEHODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate ChangeIssues): If the two mines reach their production targets,and if all the coal is burnt, then the answer is about $6.5million tonnes per annum, most of which will come fromStockton and a little from Happy Valley. The implications ofthis for New Zealand s commitments under the Kyoto Protocoldepend on how much of the coal is exported before it iscombusted, and in the case of those two mines it issomewhere in excess of 90 percent.
Metiria Turei: Whatquantity of greenhouse gases will be emitted as a result ofthe use of coal in the Marsden B power station, if thatproceeds; and does the Minister agree that this is in directconflict with the Government s commitment to renewableenergy and to reducing emissions from the energysector?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The situation with coal andelectricity in this country is that coal provides our systemwith some resilience. We use rather little of it. Our totalthermal emissions in this country are around 9 percent ofour total emissions, and therefore, appropriately, theyshould receive about 9 percent of the attention. The pointof the New Zealand electricity system is that it was, andis, renewably based, and increasingly so.
Metiria Turei:What quantity of greenhouse gases will be emitted from theconversion of forestry to pasture, as in the central NorthIsland by Landcorp Farming Ltd and the Waikatea Station bythe Bayly Trust, and does he agree that there is an urgentneed for Government policy to incentivise maintaining forestcover, as proposed by the Greens paper Turn Down theHeat?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I congratulate the Greens on theirpaper, which I had the pleasure of reading over the weekend.I do not agree with all of it, I might say, but I do thinkthe vast majority of it is really refreshing. Some of it isthoroughly useful and the ideas are welcome. I am sorry thatother parties around Parliament do not seem to bother to dothat, especially National, given its activity in the 1990s.However, the answer to the member s question is that forevery hectare cleared and turned into farmland, the carbontonnage cost is something like 800 tonnes.
Metiria Turei:Does the Minister agree that the examples of Stockton, HappyValley, Marsden B, and forest clearance for pasture,demonstrate why it is so vital that climate change beconsidered under the Resource Management Act, and will hisGovernment be supporting Jeanette Fitzsimons ResourceManagement (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill tomorrow inthe House?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The easiest way to answerthat question is to answer the last part of it, and theanswer isyes.
ENDS
THIS ISSUE Lead NZ News NZ Politics World News FeaturesNew Zealand Politics
POLITICAL NEWSLETTERS: Transtasman Political Letter -- 23 March Digest The Letter -- Monday, 27 March 2006 Molesworth & Featherston (Weekend) -- March 25 2006
Hunting, Shooting and Fishing: Outdoor Recreation throws off United Future shakles - "The Board of Outdoor Recreation New Zealand has terminated its agreement of affiliation with United Future", said Acting Chairman Phil Hoare. "We have had a very warm and constructive personal working relationship with United Future Leader Peter Dunne, but have had some difficulty with the evangelism from the Future side. See... ORNZ and United Future divorce on religious grounds ALSO:ACT - Roy Invites Outdoor Recreation Members To ACT RDU Audio - : ORNZ Chat About Divorce From UFUnited Future -Dunne: ORNZ announcement no surprise
Corrections: Prisoners Get Moved About - National's Law and Order spokesman, Simon Power, says Corrections Minister Damien O'Connor must assure New Zealanders that his game of 'musical prisoners' does not pose a threat to public safety. He is commenting on the release today of figures showing the Corrections Department is spending more than $100,000 per month on commercial travel... See... Power queries 'musical prisoners' ALSO: Corrections - Prisoner transfers
Immigration: UN Declares NZ Deportee Refugee - "The secret smear campaign to shift public opinion against a 16-year-old Sri Lankan girl who was pleading for permission to stay in New Zealand has come back to haunt Labour," says National Party MP Judith Collins. She is commenting on news today that the young girl has been granted refugee status by the United Nations and now plans to live in Canada. See... Labour s secret smear campaign boomerangs ALSO:Greens - Govt must re-evaluate case of Sri Lankan woman
MORE POLITICAL HEADLINES:NZ Govt - UK "Lotto rapist" not coming to New Zealand NZ Govt - UK PM Tony Blair to visitNZ Govt - Interest free student loans: overseas charity work NZ Govt - NZ welcomes consensus on genetic technology NZ Govt - NZ to participate in proliferation security exercise National - Labour failure in prisoner rehab laid bare National - Chris Carter confirms $95,000 state house income National - Brownlee seeks clarification from RNZ National - Confidence rattled in scholarship - yet again National - Worrying claims by burglary victims United Future Dunne queries Govt response to Games medal tally United Future - Stress and burnout no way to teach a nation NZ First - Primary Production Still Fundamental Maori Party - Turia: Taiwanese in NZ Association Greens Greens launch climate change proposals Greens - Air NZ's new uniform "uniquely NZ", made in China GE Free NZ - NZ speaking with a forked tongue over Terminator
POLITICAL COLUMNSCelebrating Families (Judith Collins): 28 March 2006Newman Weekly: Lowering the BarMarc my Words: Tax - a state sponsored muggingwww.mccully.co.nz 24 March 2006 Heather Roy's Diary - 24 March 2006Gerry: In the House - 24 March 2006Plain English - 24 March 2006The Mapp Report 17 March 2006Newsworthy: Claims by prisoners soarThe Letter -- Monday, 27 March 2006
SCOOP WAS IN THE HOUSE:Questions And Answers - Thursday 23 March 2006Questions And Answers - Wednesday 22 March 2006Questions And Answers - Tuesday 21 March 2006
FOR MORE POLITICS NEWS HEADLINES > CLICK HERE
Source: scoop
All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.
Related Articles
|
