Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

The 2005 figures are not yet available. I am advised that the cumulative figure for the previous 3 years for Kiwi Ora is $45.74 million, for Mahi Ora it is $94.68 million, and for LifeWorks it is $37.33 million. I am further advised that these courses are good, that they do have value, and that they do reach a lot of people. That advice was from Bill English.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that over the last 3 years, excluding 2005, the Government has spent $176 million on these three courses, that they are low-level courses equivalent to level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, and that he has had advice that the measure of student retention in those courses has turned out to be wrong, and that in fact a large proportion of students is unlikely to have completed these courses, and is that a good use of taxpayers’ money?

I do not think it is a good use of taxpayers’ money and that is why the changes, which were announced last Monday, did happen, but I must say that they happened with some opposition. One person has advised me: “What he needs to do now is to stop trying to run the wānanga, apply the same kinds of criteria as he is meant to apply to all the other tertiary education institutions, and let them get on with the job.” That advice on the wānanga was from Bill English.

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What further reports has he received on the wānanga?

I have seen a further report, which says: “I’m right on side with anyone who can help people connect to education, get on the step, get on the escalator, and go up as far as the opportunity allows them and their capabilities allow them to go, and the wānanga has helped draw a lot of people to that start.” That comment was from Bill English, speaking to Willie Jackson on Radio Waatea, but then again, that is one of the things he says when he is speaking to brown people, as opposed to what he says in the House.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that the wānanga funding first commenced in 1993, under the National Party Government of Jim Bolger, and, according to Nick Smith, National members are proud of it, and is that just another example of the two tired old parties screwing up yet again?

I think it is fair to say that it did start then, and there was a significant change in 1999 when the funding was uncapped. I do accept that it has taken this Government too long to stop it.

💬 Hon Bill English: Why did this Minister agree, in 2003, to the enrolment of 12,000 full-time students in these courses and, in 2004, agree to 15,500 full-time enrolments—larger than the total enrolments of either Victoria University or Waikato University—when he had doubts about the value of the courses and had advice that the statistics used to justify them were cooked?

This Minister has never decided how many people go into these courses. That would be absolutely inappropriate. The idea that a Minister should decide how many enrolments go into a particular tertiary course is one that is novel, and I would be interested in the Minister and the member discussing that with the universities. What I did tend to do was to take the advice consistent from Bill English that the courses are good, they do have value, and they reach a lot of people, but of course I was listening to a radio station that mainly brown people listen to, not to his approach in this House.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Is he satisfied with the integrity of the enrolment for the 27,000 students just referred to, with that total cost for those three courses of $176 million of taxpayers’ money, particularly in view of the fact that the terms of reference for the Auditor-General specifically excluded examination of enrolment integrity; if not, what will he do about it?

No, and there are investigations that I am sure will result in repayments continuing.

Student Loans—Possible Changes

2. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on possible changes to the student loan scheme?

I have seen a proposal to scrap interest charges on student loans for all 436,000 people living in New Zealand who have a student loan, and to provide an amnesty on penalties for nearly 10,000 student loan borrowers overseas who have an overdue repayment obligation. This will encourage overseas Kiwis to come home. It will save those with an average-sized loan balance around $7,000, and those with higher loans much, much more—up to $80,000 in some cases. I am told there is considerable interest in this proposal. The website of the organisation had 133,000 hits yesterday, and this morning it had 78,000. The place to go is www.labour.org.

💬 Lynne Pillay: What further benefits are there in abolishing interest on student loans for those who stay in New Zealand?

This proposal will benefit all New Zealanders who have a loan, and their families too. It is particularly good for stay-at-home parents who do not earn any income. Interest will no longer accumulate on their loans while they are not in a position to pay them back.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It doesn’t now. Tell the truth.

It is clear that the former Minister of Education does not understand that those inflation adjustments went on and the amount went up. The member for Nelson, despite being a member in Cabinet for at least 4 or 5 years, did not understand even that.

💬 Hon Bill English: Why should taxi-drivers and construction workers pay all the interest on the loans of students, who can expect high incomes because of the qualifications they have invested in?

Unlike members opposite, this Government thinks the children of taxi-drivers and construction workers should be allowed to get a tertiary education.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: When will the Government, given that it has said it will abolish interest charges on 1 April 2006, ensure that half of all full-time students become eligible for an allowance—will it be shortly after the election, or shortly after hell freezes over?

There has been an undertaking to do that during the next term of this Government, and in the term after that we will do something else.

💬 Rodney Hide: How come the Government this year had no money for tax cuts, yet, within days of the National Party making its election bribe to students, Labour found an extra $300 million in operating expenses to cover the wiping of the interest charge, and an extra $800 million a year in capital to cover the extra borrowing that will occur as a result of this policy?

It is a very small proportion of the $5.7 billion that ACT has promised in tax cuts.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That does not, in any way, address the question I put—that Trevor Mallard and his mates were going around saying they—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I agree with the member. Maybe the Minister would like to give a fuller answer.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is not—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: A new point of order?

💬 Rodney Hide: Yes. It is not for a Minister to intercede on a point of order and say to the Speaker that he will answer the question.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I have accepted the member’s point of order. I was looking at the Minister to ask him to please address the question a little more fully than he did before.

The source of the funding is the same source as the member is using for part of his $5.7 billion tax-cuts promise—that is, the $1.9 billion that was clearly shown in this year’s Budget as out-year extra expenditure.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister recall in March disparaging as unaffordable my proposal for a reduction in the interest rate to 3.7 percent, and pointing out at that time that even the existing rate of 7 percent was barely sufficient to cover the costs; if he does recall his disparaging of that then, can he please advise the House and the country what has changed in the meantime so that he can now afford to abolish the interest rate altogether?

We have, of course, since that time, been through a Budget round, and we have the ability to understand the strong state of the economy. It is also fair to say that the member stimulated a train of thought that has proved to be quite useful.

💬 Hon Bill English: Given the length of time the Minister has supposedly had to investigate that proposal, will he give an undertaking to the House and to the public now that he will issue detailed costings of his proposal setting out the fully calculated long-term cost, including allowance for the significance increase in student debt that will result?

The answer to that is I will discuss that with my colleagues. But I also say that that is rich coming from the party that promised to provide its full tax-cuts policy 3 days after the election announcement. Where is it?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Notwithstanding the fact that the last part of that answer was clearly out of order and discredited the Minister more than it did anybody else, the first part was a complete circuit around the answer. Does the Minister seriously expect the House to believe that the Government can offer a $300 million package yesterday and not know the out-year costs?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question—I presume that the point of order was about his not answering the question. It may not have been a satisfactory answer, but the question was addressed.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that the operating expense of some $300 million for this policy is only about one-quarter of what the Opposition has already announced in proposed tax cuts, before it gets to the main menu of moving personal rates, and is less than half the cost of removing parole?

I am advised that that is the case. If one adds the $3 billion to $5 billion cost of a $30 to $50 tax cut for the average worker, one sees that it is small change.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a very interesting response from the Minister. Would he be prepared to table the advice he claims he has had?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; it is a debating point.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: Why does the Government not simply adopt the Green proposal of introducing year-for-year student debt write-off, given how many other excellent Green ideas the Government has adopted?

I think there are two points. The first is the difference between $300 million and $7 billion—the latter being the cost of the Green policy. The second point is that the Green policy would much more heavily favour people on higher incomes, compared with this approach.

Question No. 3 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I note the Minister Chris Carter is not in the House, and I seek leave for the question to be deferred till tomorrow when the Minister will be present.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—Staff Function

3. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for Building Issues: Did the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service have a function for staff on Friday, 17 June at the Stamford Plaza Hotel; if so, what did the event involve?

, on behalf of the Minister for Building Issues: Yes, the claimed purpose was to improve staff communication with Pacific Island staff members and with Pacific Island people they interact with during their working-day.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was the cost for having the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service office in Auckland closed for 4 hours; for having staff from Wellington fly to Auckland; paying for the dancing Pacific Island girls who were contracted to provide services; for the kava drinking; for food and for the hotel venue; and how would that expenditure help those who have leaky, rotting homes?

I think I have the right one here. The 17 June function cost $6,679. Looking at the programme, it is not clear how it would have contributed to the resolution of leaky homes. The Minister has already written to the chief executive seeking an explanation for this event.

💬 Moana Mackey: Were staff from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service flown at the taxpayer’s expense, specifically to attend themed social functions?

No. Claims made in the House yesterday that the staff were flown and accommodated to attend themed functions are simply not true. Staff travel and accommodation were so they could participate in normal management meetings and at the end of the working-day be able to attend social functions. Perhaps the member who made the claim might care to apologise, as he had to grovel in front of Basil Morrison and Gwen Bull for his behaviour at the local government conference.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The last comment was gratuitous and did not address the question. Please withdraw it.

I withdraw.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister deny that staff air fares were not part of the cost of the function when, at the time the function was organised, staff from Auckland were told that the meeting was just a front so they could all have a party; and why has the excuse changed, now the matter is in the public arena?

I am advised that those functions followed on from other seminars and exercises that were engaged in by staff. Incidentally, in terms of the theme elements of, I think it was, “Cowboys and Indians”, and various other strange activities, staff hired their own costumes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What does it say about the culture of extravagance within the public service that $6,679 can be spent on a daytime party for staff of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service, and that a spokesperson for the service has said that that was completely within Government guidelines; does the Minister now accept that those guidelines, which have been set by this Government, simply involve gross extravagance at taxpayers’ expense?

No, I do not accept the latter, any more than that when National Party members go off to a party conference in some resort area, a party caucus meeting is necessarily a culture of extravagance.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it roughly correct that the complained-of expenditure is $12,000 over four separate events, which compares rather favourably with the $52,000 of expenditure on a TVNZ night-time shindig on one occasion; and that that begs the question of why the media in this country are engaged in a protection racket, are not referring to their fellows, and are just hammering the bureaucracy?

The Minister for Building Issues bears no responsibility for TVNZ, but I think it is well established that TVNZ sometimes engages in more expenditure than the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service does. In terms of the $12,000, although I personally think that the seminar that was carried out on Pacific Island affairs did not meet the needs outlined, to translate that into some kind of tax cut would involve a very tiny fraction of 1c in 1 year for each taxpayer.

Diabetes—Prevention and Education

4. TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: At what point will she put in place a fully funded public health strategy focusing on diabetes prevention and education?

When Labour came into Government it launched the New Zealand Health Strategy, with diabetes as a key priority. Last year the ministry launched the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action strategy, and then the implementation plan, with diabetes as one of its main targets. Healthy Eating - Healthy Action aims to improve nutrition, increase physical activity, and reduce obesity, and thus reduce the incidence of diabetes. In the past year Healthy Eating - Healthy Action implementation has received $12 million of Ministry of Health funding, in addition to district health board initiatives such as Let’s Beat Diabetes, for which the Counties Manukau District Health Board has allocated $10 million over 5 years.

💬 Tariana Turia: How does the Minister intend to respond to the report from Associate Professor Robert Scragg, entitled “Preventing diabetes—time is running out”, or does she also suffer from the same degree of apathy and indifference to the diabetes epidemic that Professor Scragg describes as occurring amongst influential circles in the Ministry of Health and district health boards?

I absolutely refute those ridiculous claims. This Government has made diabetes one of its main priority areas in all areas of health focus. We are spending millions of dollars, and we will gain some momentum when that member helps to advocate for Healthy Eating - Healthy Action and for better eating habits throughout this country.

💬 Steve Chadwick: What priority does the Government place on diabetes prevention and education?

Work is currently being done with both Diabetes New Zealand and the National Heart Foundation on a coordinated approach, but we are not waiting for that. Initiatives are in place, as I said before, such as the free “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme for all New Zealanders, and the Counties Manukau District Health Board’s Let’s Beat Diabetes campaign. Although we accept that diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions, so too is the meningococcal B epidemic. How does that member reconcile her position of calling for diabetes prevention but not supporting preventive vaccinations for meningococcal B, when both diseases are devastating for Māori health?

💬 Tariana Turia: How has the Minister responded to the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ economic report Type 2 Diabetes: Managing for Better Health Outcomes and, in particular, its projections that the total cost of diabetes can be reduced over 20 years if existing services are increased as soon as possible?

If the member would listen, she would know that that is exactly what we are doing. We are spending millions of dollars to increase services to promote healthy eating and healthy action. We, too, accept the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that says that with that expenditure we will reduce the cost of diabetes over time.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the various charts from the Ministry of Health with regard to meningococcal disease to point out categorically that the Minister’s claim of there being an epidemic is absurd and not true.

Document not tabled.

Health Services—Free Provision for Under-sixes

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Health: What commitment does she have to providing free health services for under-6-year-olds given that parents identified this in a recent Plunket study as the policy measure most likely to be of assistance to families and parents?

This Government’s approach has been to work with private practitioners to reduce the costs of primary health care for all New Zealanders. In particular, we have ensured that the subsidies for children under 6 and, in more recent times, the primary health organisation capitation rate, have been reviewed and increased regularly. The Consumers Institute surveyed general practices in February this year, with a 75 percent response rate, and found that 79 percent of respondents provided services free to children under 6. The average charge throughout the country was $1.60.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that New Zealand First’s policy initiative of free doctors’ visits for children under 6 was designed to keep pace with rising costs and inflation, and when will she take leadership on this issue and ensure that doctors receive an adequate subsidy to enable them to provide free health care for children under 6, which is, in many cases, much more than $1.25?

In 1997, when that member was in Government and introduced that policy, doctors were paid $32.50 for each visit. In July 2002 we increased that to $35, and we are now paying $37.40 for each visit to the doctor for any child under 6. We maintain we have kept pace with inflation. We have increased the fees to doctors, and we would expect them to charge nothing for those under 6.

💬 Lesley Soper: Could the Minister advise whether she has seen any other recommendations in the Plunket study?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I just note that that microphone is not working, either, so I ask that to be attended to.

The Plunket survey, which I understand has been delivered to all MPs today, and from which the member asked his original question, recommended a number of things: extending paid parental leave from 13 weeks per year, introducing a universal tax credit system for families, accessing affordable quality day care, and using methods of guiding children to behave well. We are undertaking a number of initiatives in those areas. I also understand that today’s report to Plunket showed that 71 percent of parents said that smacking when children do things wrong was the least effective way to guide them to behave well. I would therefore encourage New Zealand First and that member to support Sue Bradford’s member’s bill being referred to a select committee.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What on earth was the last part of that answer about? He was asked about the full subsidisation of doctors’ visits for children under 6, which should be free, and now he is talking about anti-smacking laws. I do not know whether he is a soothsayer or whatever else he may be, but we have not had the vote on that bill yet. So perhaps he could be brought back to the point.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Why has the Minister failed to deliver on the Government’s pledge, which stated: “Labour will maintain access to free doctors’ visits for children under 6 years of age.”, when today I telephoned four medical centres around the country and found that prices for such visits varied from $3 in south Auckland to $15 in Auckland and $10 in Christchurch, and when in a primary health organisation practice in Miramar, the Minister’s own electorate, I was quoted the cost of a visit for a child under 6 as being $18—but if cash is paid on the day it is only $15? Why has the Minister failed and broken her pledge?

As I stated, we are dealing with general practitioners, who are private operators in the health system. We have increased, by hundreds of millions of dollars, the money for primary health care in this country. Dr Hutchison would do well to speak to some of his colleagues, who are receiving quite an additional amount of money for each visit to the general practitioner for each child under 6. We hope that general practitioners will see well to charge nothing for those children under 6.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister accept that when we brought in free doctors’ visits for children under 6 in 1987, it was agreed with the medical fraternity that it would be a fair cost and therefore it would be free; and will she and her colleague, namely Mr O’Connor himself, spend their last few weeks as Ministers in keeping at least one promise that they so boldly made?

We seem to be in some discussion with practitioners as to what is a fair cost and a fair charge. We continue to work on that, and trust that they will accept our policy and our general direction of providing access for all children under 6 to have free-of-charge general practitioner visits.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table a fees chart, dated 1 July 2005, which states that for children under 6 the fees are $15—and they are $18 in Miramar.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Unemployment Benefit—Debt Repayment

6. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: As the highest debt owed by a recipient of the unemployment benefit at the end of May was $201,058.21 and this debt is being repaid at $10 a week, does he accept that at this rate the debt will be paid off in around 386 years in the year 2391?

No.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: Does the Minister believe it is satisfactory that under the Labour Government there is also a sickness beneficiary who defrauded the taxpayer of $159,000, a domestic purposes beneficiary who defrauded the taxpayer of $183,000, and an invalids beneficiary who defrauded the taxpayer of $222,000; and with each fraudster repaying his or her debt at only a few dollars a week, is the Minister happy that the signal his Government is sending out is that crime does pay and that welfare beneficiaries need not be concerned about engaging in wholesale welfare fraud?

The signal that this Government sends out is that it has a zero tolerance approach to fraud by staff or by clients. In answer to the member’s question, I say that in the first case she raised all but $1,000 of that debt was gained through fraud when the client was a domestic purposes beneficiary in 1988. Following an investigation, that client was prosecuted and went to prison. The current level of debt repayment is $20 a week, which is based upon the person’s ability to pay. How long that person will take to pay the debt will depend, of course, on future earnings, because repayment is always based on that.

💬 Georgina Beyer: Can the Minister enlighten the primary questioner and the House as to what policies this Government has in place to address benefit fraud and debt?

All cases of deliberate fraud are prosecuted. It is a disappointing fact that, despite best efforts, some people do manage to defraud the system. To ensure that all debts are recovered, weekly repayments are calculated as appropriate to each client’s present financial circumstances, at a level at which the client can afford to repay without incurring family hardship. Case managers work individually with clients to continually review the repayments as the clients’ circumstances change. The focus on moving people into sustainable employment ensures that if they are in employment and earning a higher wage, they pay back faster. This approach has meant that the proportion of beneficiary debtors repaying their debts has increased significantly, with 96 percent of debtors on a benefit now repaying their debts. That did not happen under the Government that the ACT party supported.

💬 Judith Collins: Why does the Minister continue to refuse to acknowledge the real abuse of the welfare system and what a serious problem it is, by letting these sorts of fraudulent debts rack up and by ignoring his own ministry’s indication that the recent growth in sickness and invalids benefits is coming, in fact, from transfers from within the benefit system, indicating even more fraud?

I repeat that this Government has taken a very strong approach to fraud. We now have a significant increase from the level under the previous Government in the number of debtors who are repaying their debt. The statement that people are transferring to the sickness benefit and invalids benefit is utterly stupid and wrong.

💬 Georgina Beyer: What reports has the Minister seen on alternative approaches to debt recovery?

I have seen a report that claims to have “a penalty system that ensures benefit crime … is treated with the seriousness it deserves”. Despite that claim in a media release, however, there is no mention whatsoever of this penalty system in ACT’s social welfare policy. In other words, ACT offers lots of complaints but, as usual, no solutions.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: When the Government was considering its “soft on welfare fraud” policy, did it give any consideration to the fact that ordinary taxpayers who have never been on welfare now feel like suckers, taxed to the hilt to let fraudsters steal enough for a house, when if ordinary taxpayers are a day late in paying their GST or child support they get hit hard with penal rates; or does the Minister’s Government not care?

I would say to taxpayers that under this Government we now have 96 percent of these debtors paying back money. That was not the case when the Government that that member supported was in power. I also say to taxpayers that under this Government we have returned $3.3 billion of welfare spending to Treasury so that it can be spent elsewhere on their needs.

Question time interrupted.