Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

There is a worldwide shortage of pathologists. Pathology is listed on the Department of Labour’s long-term skill shortage list, meaning that New Zealand employers can recruit, without the need for a specific labour-market test.

💬 Peter Brown: Is the Minister concerned about the prospect of a significant loss to New Zealand of competent, experienced staff resulting from the decision of the three Auckland district health boards to change the provider of community laboratory services, given that significant numbers of staff and pathologists have indicated publicly that they would rather move overseas than work for the new provider; if she is not concerned, why not?

I share the member’s obvious concern about the loss of any skilled New Zealand workers, and particularly about those who would leave permanently. Could I refer the member to an answer given by the Minister of Health, who reported to the House that the evidence that he was presented with was that our pathology workforce was growing. He further invited the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia to present him with any evidence to the contrary, which he would then consider. I invite the member to do the same.

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What reports has she received about the growth of the health workforce in the last 7 years?

New Zealand has a hard-working, world-class, and growing health workforce. There are 4,000 more nurses and 1,000 more doctors working in our public hospitals than there were in 2000.

💬 Peter Brown: Does the Minister consider a cut from 645 fulltime-equivalent skilled jobs in an established laboratory, to around 450 in a phantom laboratory—a laboratory that does not yet exist—to be more of a reduction in profit, or of a blatant cut in the skilled workforce of this country?

The comparison the member has made is not between apples and apples. My understanding is that the total number in the workforce, regardless of who held the contract, would have been reduced because of the requirement in the contract for a significant reduction in collection points.

💬 Peter Brown: Does she believe that the method of awarding a tender to a phantom tenderer and the impact of that on the staff are good ways to treat skilled, professional people?

I will make two points, if I may, in regard to that question. The first is that this is an existing Australian-based company, and, secondly, the tendering process is now a matter of judicial review, so it would be preferable for me to make no further comment.

Government Revenue—Comparison

2. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: What was the amount of tax revenue raised by the Government in 1999-2000 and in 2005-06?

Excluding the accounting effect of the provisional tax change—the one-off effect in the last year—tax revenue has increased over the period from 28.8 percent of GDP to 32 percent. At the same time the economy grew by 24 percent, making it one of the fastest growing in the OECD.

💬 John Key: Why has he allowed tax revenues to rise by 62 percent over the period of time that he has been Minister of Finance, when the economy as a whole has grown at 41 percent, and what justifies him taking a bigger and bigger slice of the cake?

The year 1999-2000, of course, represented the bottom end of an economic cycle and therefore of the revenue cycle. Since that period we have had very, very strong economic growth and obviously, therefore, that has been a factor. There was, of course, a change to the top tax rate that has affected revenue as well.

💬 Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister aware that personal taxation increased by $8.5 billion between 1999-2000 and 2005-06, and that approximately $1.85 billion of that was solely due to inflation, and will he now commit to adjusting the thresholds so that, at least in real terms and at a minimum, New Zealand taxpayers are put back to where they were as at 1 April 2000, in line with United Future’s advocacy to him over the last 3 years?

My advice is that those figures somewhat overstate the case, but it is interesting that on the member’s own figures the so-called fiscal drag effect was only about 20 percent of the total movement in income tax returns. I acknowledge the continuing interest in the issues around tax thresholds, and of course they will be considered in the light of final decisions around the business taxation review in the context of next year’s Budget, for implementation on 1 April 2008.

💬 John Key: Does he think people who are fed up with increases in local body rates realise that taxes have gone up faster than rates in recent years—growing 62 percent since 1999-2000, compared with a 45 percent increase in rates—and does he think that when people cotton on to the fact that central government taxes have been rising at a faster rate than rates, there will be not just a rates revolt but a tax revolt as well?

The member makes a very interesting point, that rates have risen by only 45 percent compared with nominal GDP growth of 41 percent. In other words, they have scarcely shifted as a proportion of GDP, contrary to what National Party members often claim.

💬 John Key: Does he think the enormity of tax increases will become even more stark when people realise that over the last 6 years the take from rates has increased, in nominal terms, from $2 billion to $3 billion—a $1 billion increase—while total taxes have risen, in nominal terms, from $32 billion to over $52 billion, which is a $20 billion increase?

Nearly $2 billion of that is simply an accounting change that will not be repeated, as the member well knows. Of course, one of the things that has also driven Government spending in that period is that we have now increased the subsidisation of local government to some 13 percent of its total revenue—an all-time record.

💬 John Key: If his Government is supporting an independent inquiry into rates, can he now tell us whether his Government will also be supporting an independent inquiry into taxes?

The Government has a business taxation review document out for public consultation. We are making decisions on that, in the context of next year’s Budget, and those will come into implementation on 1 April 2008. I am sure that if there are any tax cuts, and if they are big enough, the member will try to claim full credit for them, from his position as Leader of the Opposition at the time. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I note that the member just interjected on my statement that he would probably be Leader of the Opposition at the time. I do not know whether he meant to do that, but it is interesting.

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

💬 John Key: That is not even amusing. Can the Minister confirm that, according to the latest statistics, only nine OECD countries had a lower tax to GDP ratio than New Zealand in 1999 but that by 2004 a total of 15 countries were ahead of us, putting us in the bottom half of the OECD—a further sign that under his financial management our country is becoming less competitive, on a relative basis, than other countries?

I can confirm that a clear majority of OECD countries saw tax increase as a proportion of GDP over the period, including the United States. I can confirm that New Zealand had one of the best fiscal performances over that period—unlike, say, the United States, which was running massive deficits throughout that period. I can confirm that we are in a far better fiscal position, for the long term, than almost any other OECD country, along with Australia.

💬 John Key: I seek leave to table three of the latest OECD revenue statistics, which clearly show that New Zealand’s position has slipped from 10th to 16th.

Document not tabled.

Primary Health Care—Affordability

3. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What initiatives has the Government implemented to ensure all New Zealanders have access to affordable primary health care?

In addition to our work to lower the cost of seeing a doctor for all families, the Labour-led Government’s extra investment in general practices that charge very low fees has proven to be more successful than originally expected. Two hundred and twelve practices have taken up the new funding. That is a higher number than the 166 projected to do so. Most of those practices serve high-need communities, and I am delighted that the Government has been able to assist in ensuring their financial stability.

💬 Darien Fenton: What will the impact of the very low fees initiative be for patients?

The initiative is being implemented primarily to support general practices that charge low fees, not to lower fees for patients. However, the Government’s investment does mean that over 7,600 New Zealanders will have secure access to doctors’ visits at a cost of no more than $15 for adults, $10 for those aged under 18, and nothing at all for those aged under 6. From 1 July next year all New Zealanders will have access to low-cost primary health care. That is what a Government can achieve when it puts the health of families before reckless tax cuts.

💬 Barbara Stewart: What work, if any, has the Ministry of Health done towards ensuring that the mean amount charged for general practitioner visits for children under 6 is zero, given that some parents face charges of up to $45 for a service that is supposed to be free?

It is true that National, with help from New Zealand First as I recall it, long ago introduced zero fees for under-6-year-olds. Regrettably, it managed to get the contracting wrong, and as a result of that a number of doctors—not too many—charge more than zero. The median level is zero, but the mean level is more than zero, and this funding will reduce it a little.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Variation

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement, in relation to the 2005 NCEA results, that: “Standards are set each year, and the standards this year were set in a way that people regard is fine, and the variation is fine.”?

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you have noticed, but there is a sign over on an Opposition desk that I do not think is within the Standing Orders or is acceptable.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw the sign.

on behalf of the Minister of Education: I meant to say that achievement standards are set. They are publicly available through the New Zealand Qualifications Authority website. Although some standards are reviewed periodically, they are not changed every year. To ensure we keep variability within acceptable levels, the qualifications authority has developed profiles of expected performance. That has allowed it to address problems of variability that occurred in the 2004 exam season and were highlighted by Bill English, and we have no reason to expect that this will be any different in 2006. Variability does occur for good reasons—for example, changes in the cohort of students sitting the standards, or improvements in teaching—and that variation is perfectly acceptable.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that despite his reassurances to the House that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) in 2005 was “fine”, he has since then taken advice from a range of assessment experts, and is now in the process of changing, fundamentally, the design of NCEA assessment; if so, what problem is he trying to solve now that he hid last year?

No.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: What is the Minister doing about the demotivating elements of NCEA uncovered by the Ministry of Education’s research into that issue?

As I am acting for the Minister, I am not briefed on that supplementary question.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that after the 2004 Scholarship debacle, the basis of assessment for Scholarship was changed, and that since then he is now using the same group of people to make extensive and fundamental changes to NCEA; and why did he give assurances to the House that the NCEA was “fine” in 2005, when he was already in the process of making fundamental changes to fix it?

No.

💬 Hon Bill English: Well, if the Minister says “No”, why did he answer a parliamentary question by saying “Yes”?

Because that is not the question in the written question.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that he is taking advice from the technical overview group, comprising Professors Gary Hawke, Terry Crooks, John Hattie, Cedric Hall, and Jeff Smith, to investigate the use of exemplification of standards, written scoring rubrics, and item analysis for external assessment; and can he also confirm that this is a fundamental shift in the way that external assessment is done, and that he said that this is a similar approach to that used for Scholarship 2005?

Yes, no, and yes.

💬 Hon Bill English: What are New Zealand students, teachers, and parents to make of all the assurances given by the Government over the last 2 or 3 years about the validity of NCEA assessment, when it has now become apparent that the Government is secretly changing, fundamentally, the way it runs external assessment in the NCEA?

It is not.

💬 Hon Bill English: Well, if the Government is making no changes, why is it using a collection of New Zealand’s only assessment experts to change the way the standards are communicated to teachers, to change the way the exams are written, to change the way the marking schedules are written, and to bring in pre-testing—which every other country has used for years and years—yet the Minister does not think that that changes the basis of NCEA assessment?

Minor improvements are not fundamental changes.

Sedition—Law Commission

5. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with Law Commission prsident, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, that in a free society like New Zealand, which respects the democratic value of free speech, people should not be able to be punished for defaming the Government; if so, will he act to implement the recommendation of the Law Commission “that the seditious offences set out in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961 be abolished.”?

The Law Commission’s work on this matter is in response to the Government’s request for it to review seditious offences and to make any necessary recommendations for reform. The Law Commission released its consultation document 3 days ago, which includes this proposition. The Government will carefully consider and respond to the Law Commission’s final report, which will, no doubt, be written following this period of consultation.

💬 Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the Government is considering the report, but the first part of my question asked about whether the Government agreed with Sir Geoffrey about the question of being charged for defaming the Government. Could I have a response to that part of the question.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question, but if he wants to add anything more—

No.

💬 Keith Locke: Has the Minister any fears that Labour politicians could be in danger of sedition charges under a future National-led Government, given that three former leaders of the Labour Party were convicted of sedition under anti-Labour Governments—namely, Harry Holland, Peter Fraser, and Walter Nash?

I have no fears in the foreseeable future. I do not anticipate there being a National Government for some time. Given the member’s question, I do think it is timely that the Government’s initiated sedition review takes place—as it is doing.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Why would New Zealand move to abolish seditious offences when, in just the last year, the Australian Government is moving in the opposite direction with its recent tightening of anti-terrorist laws as part of its war on terror?

The Australian Government has reviewed—and, I think, quite significantly changed—the proposition and definition of seditious offences in that update. More to the point, the Government has not taken a position—only that it is timely to have a review, and, indeed, that is what we are doing. It is an opportunity for wide consultation with members of the public, and people will have their say.

💬 Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with Sir Geoffrey that if sedition offences were proposed today, they would attract an adverse report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; if not, why not?

As I said in answer to the primary question, 3 days ago a discussion document was released. It would be inappropriate for either me or the Government to offer an opinion on the discussion document rather than respond to what I am sure will be a final report.

💬 Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree, in response to Richard Worth’s question, that the anti-terrorism legislation we have now is fully adequate to deal with any terrorist activity, that the sedition laws are a relic of a bygone era, and that those charged with sedition in the past now look like a roll-call of our heroes, from Te Whiti of Parihaka to the Tūhoe leader Rua Kēnana, to Catholic bishop James Liston, to conscientious objectors Ormond Burton and Bob Semple?

The Government and I certainly agree that it is timely to have a look at the sedition laws, which is why we have asked the Law Commission to have the current review and to engage in public consultation, which is what is going on, and I await its report with interest.

Question time interrupted.