Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Yes; because Barry Matthews is a respected chief executive.

💬 Ron Mark: Has the Minister read Judge Coral Shaw’s judgment in the Employment Court case involving the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and Rākai Tāwhiwhirangi, in which she condemns the investigative processes and the level of bias in the investigation conducted under the direction of Dave East, the then Wellington regional manager, who has since left the service amid allegations of corruption and inappropriate management practices; and whom would he prefer to have serving in the prison service: an officer who resists bribery and corruption, or people like Mr East who have left under a cloud of allegations?

Yes, I have read the Employment Court decision, but, as the judge has ruled, the question of what remedies are appropriate from that judgment will be deferred until a further hearing on reinstatement has been held. Employment issues are the responsibility of the chief executive. It is not appropriate for me to make any further comment.

💬 Ron Mark: Can the Minister confirm to the House whether representations were made on behalf of Mr Tāwhiwhirangi to him and to the chief executive, Mr Matthews, and whether those representations pointed out that Mr Tāwhiwhirangi was a straight shooter and an honest prison officer with long and creditable service, and that the allegations against him were laughable and would fail at the Employment Court if the matter ever got that far?

I can confirm that I facilitated a meeting where that member, Mr Mark, was able to meet directly with myself and Mr Matthews. He was able to express his views and concerns at that time. I am confident that Mr Matthews took on board all of those things and made decisions accordingly.

💬 Ron Mark: Why, at a time when the public is demanding that corruption be rooted out of our prison service, has the Department of Corrections seen fit to prosecute and pursue—inappropriately, we now know—the one officer who we know is not corrupt, who did refuse bribes, and who did refuse to perform a corrupt action; why did the chief executive and the department not listen to the employment authority’s decision, and why did they seek to pursue this matter further in the Employment Court, consequently losing again?

As the Minister of Corrections, I have been determined to ensure that the Department of Corrections does everything possible to identify and prosecute anyone in the department for unethical or illegal behaviour. I am informed that there are still matters to be investigated in relation to this case. I am not prepared to make any further comment.

💬 Simon Power: How many prison staff are currently suspended on full pay while they are being investigated, and when will the Patten inquiry into corruption at Rimutaka Prison be completed?

Currently 14 prison service staff are suspended nationally—that is, across the country. I understand that the Patten inquiry is coming to the point where it is reaching a conclusion. I look forward to that outcome.

💬 Ron Mark: Is the Minister aware that for some time now, going back as far as 2006 and even specifically in February 2007, many allegations have been made against a senior manager in the Department of Corrections—namely David East—who it is alleged inappropriately employed his wife and son in the department, and allegations made also against the general manager of prisons, Harry Hawthorn, who it is alleged created a specific appointment so that his partner could be brought to Wellington and given a job; why have those allegations not been pursued, yet the one officer who we know specifically refused a bribe and refused to act corruptly has been pursued and hounded and subsequently found to be free and innocent of all the allegations brought against him?

I am not prepared to comment on the case the member refers to, because there are further proceedings. I will say that allegations are made on a daily basis in the corrections system. It is part and parcel of the difficult environment in which corrections officers and managers work. All I can say is that we now have a crime prevention intelligence unit in each prison and a new investigation unit reporting directly to the chief executive. We are doing everything possible to check out any allegations in any part of the corrections system and deal with them as quickly as we can.

Electoral Finance Bill—Definitions

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her reported statement, in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill, that “some definitions might need changing but Mr Key is exaggerating the impact of the Bill.”?

Yes.

💬 John Key: Does the Prime Minister consider that the Human Rights Commission’s non-partisan comment on the bill is also exaggerating when it states: “The bill in its current form represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the electoral process,”; if so, why?

Yes, because the Government’s legal advice is that this is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

💬 John Key: Why does the Electoral Finance Bill restrict everyone else’s freedom of speech in an election year while allowing the Government to spend literally millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on advertising campaigns, and can the Prime Minister outline what big advertising campaigns the Government is proposing for election year 2008?

The member would be well aware that under existing law the Government cannot be political in advertising campaigns. Further, if the member wants campaigns against drunk driving to stop in an election year, would he let me know.

💬 John Key: Does the Prime Minister want to reflect on the statement she just made to the House that the Government cannot be political in advertising in an election year, because although she is probably aware that on 13 September 2007 the Ministry of Health released a media release stating that an advertising campaign would start around primary health care, which would include, amongst other things, an 0800 call line, she is probably not aware that I have in my hand something that was not publicly released—the instructions for those manning the 0800 call line, which state that operators should push the Government’s message whenever they think there is a good opportunity to do so?

That is a bit desperate. I assume the member does not want people to know that their doctor’s fees have virtually halved under current policy.

💬 John Key: Why, in this document, are call centre staff being told: “Here are some achievements and milestones in health over the past 6 years. It may help to tell callers about some of these.”—and then it lists every strategy, policy, or guideline that Labour has rolled out since 2001; and how does that help someone who is ringing the 0800 line?

It is actually a duty of a Government to make sure that policies that are being pursued, and the taxpayer is paying for, are actually known about.

💬 John Key: What message does it send to the many thousands of New Zealanders who are sick, who will know they will have to use Government money, and access Government-provided health care, for them to know that a top priority of this Government is to pour that money into an election advertising campaign in election year, for no other purpose than to see Labour get re-elected?

It is a great comfort to the general public to know how committed Labour is to a public health system, and how the National Party’s plans are around privatisation and cutting public spending on health.

💬 John Key: Why does the Prime Minister not just tell New Zealanders what they probably already know: that the purpose of the Electoral Finance Bill is to limit the amount of money her political opponents can spend in election year, while at exactly the same time the Government spends as much taxpayer dollars as it can seeking re-election; and in some countries of the world they have a name for that sort of stuff?

The purpose of the bill is to stop people like John Key working with people like the Exclusive Brethren to rort election spending law.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what she was referring to when she said in the quote that is in the original question: “some definitions might need changing”; what definitions are they, and what changes is she considering?

A number of issues are coming through in the submissions. One is about the definition of election advertising. There are other issues being raised about thresholds for funding and donations, and another about time periods. Those are all legitimate areas for discussion that the select committee is looking at.

💬 Heather Roy: What is the time frame for the Government to announce the changes to the Electoral Finance Bill, and will there be an opportunity for the public to make submissions on these changes?

A select committee process is under way. The normal course of events is for the Government officials to work with the select committee, and, at some point, for Ministers to discuss what proposals might be worth considering, and work with other parties on that. That is how a select committee process works.

💬 John Key: Why did the Prime Minister not just not answer the question I asked her before, but say something that was blatantly not true: that the Government would not be using taxpayer funds to push political messages—when this document does exactly that; and is it not the priority of the Government to spend money on health services, not on a propaganda campaign?

At the end of today I am going to be launching a new campaign to promote women taking up cervical screening. That is what public health promotion is about.

💬 John Key: I seek leave to table questions and answers to support the Ministry of Health’s public information campaign, where it quite clearly says that one of the things operators should do is push Government—

Document not tabled.

Question No. 1 to Minister

I seek the leave of the House to table the judgment of Judge Coral Shaw in the case of the Department of Corrections and Rākai Tāwhiwhirangi.

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

I seek the leave of the House to table an email dated 28 February outlining some allegations against Mr East and Mr Harry Hawthorn from the Department of Corrections.

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

Government Debt—Prudent Levels

3. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any reports on prudent levels of Government debt?

Yes, I have seen a report from Standard and Poor’s that says that this Government’s fiscal management has made New Zealand one of the best prepared nations for facing the challenge of an ageing population. I have also seen reports from bank economists highlighting the importance of our strong fiscal position in counterbalancing the large current account deficit, a symptom of our poor savings record that KiwiSaver is designed to address—and the number of people signed up has now passed 150,000.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister received any reports suggesting an alternative strategy?

Yes, contrary to this kind of strategy I have seen a report suggesting that we should be borrowing to spend more on roads, although no doubt the borrowing will be used for a wide range of other purposes. Not only does this ignore the massive increases in spending on road-building under this Government but also it is inflationary and it will reduce our capacity to deal with upcoming fiscal challenges. And, of course, although it is espoused by Mr John Key, it contradicts the constant calls for fiscal tightening by Bill English.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister received any reports on how to best structure borrowing?

As I think Mr Key might be wont to say: “That depends on how you define borrowing.” I have seen a report suggesting that we do not have to call it borrowing if we get the money from overseas. Given that this report comes from the same National MP who has recently lobbied for the prohibition of water, I hope that Mr Key has not been paying her too much attention.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that his Budget documents, as released today, show that he had planned a billion dollars in personal tax cuts but had to abandon them because he could not contain ministerial bids for spending and, as a result, we had the biggest spending Budget ever?

I can confirm that the issue was raised in the early discussion of the Budget. Of course, rather than cut back on social services and rather than stimulate inflation, the Government did not proceed, which shows that the reason for not proceeding had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with good economic management. Mr English is now saying that the Government should have run a looser fiscal policy.

Electoral Finance Bill—Parliamentary Democracy

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement that the Electoral Finance Bill “will help promote participation in parliamentary democracy”?

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes.

💬 Hon Bill English: How does the Minister reconcile the statement that the bill will help promote participation in parliamentary democracy with the statement made by the Human Rights Commission—hardly an extremist organisation—that the regulation of third parties in the bill “makes a mockery of [the] clause … which refers to promoting participation by the public in parliamentary democracy.”?

I justify that because it is the aim of the bill to ensure that people are able to participate in a good, fair, and open election campaign, which is the aim of a democracy. I am looking forward, of course, to the Human Rights Commission getting a chance to talk through its submission with the select committee.

R Doug Woolerton: Is the Minister concerned that some submitters to the Electoral Finance Bill believe that their rights of free speech will be inhibited simply because they cannot spend vast amounts of money on advertising, or is he more concerned with protecting the one person, one vote concept of democracy that is dear to most New Zealanders’ hearts?

I could not have put it better myself. Of course this bill is about ensuring that people cannot buy policies and cannot buy election campaigns. It guarantees that all New Zealanders will feel they are being heard, being listened to, and having a fair vote.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that under the Minister of Justice’s bill the Labour Government will try to buy the election, because the bill will allow the Government to run a campaign on low-cost health care, using political messages that would be outlawed if they were financed privately?

No.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister elaborate on the last answer, given that the messages included in the Ministry of Health’s instructions to telephone answerers would count as electoral advertising if they were coming from an organisation that was privately financed and not using taxpayers’ money?

I would say that it is entirely appropriate for someone on the end of a phone to alert a caller to the range of policies that may help him or her. That is what that taxpayer’s money is for, and that is why those messages should be promoted to the caller.

💬 Hon Bill English: Does the Minister not understand that someone answering a taxpayer-funded telephone service outlining the record of the Labour Government on health would be making statements that are currently defined in law as election advertising, and are therefore outside the law—so there will be one law for Government-funded advertising campaigns, and another law for everyone else?

What I understand—if I can take a concrete example—is that if someone rings the helpline for the family violence programme, and if that person is referred to a publicly funded non-governmental organisation, then that is a good use of taxpayers’ money.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that if someone rings the 0800 number described in the Government-funded advertising campaign for election year, and if the person who answers that phone call points out four or five of the things the Labour Government claims to have achieved in health, then that amounts to taking a position on a proposition associated with a political party, and therefore it would be illegal if anyone else financed it?

The member’s examples are getting more and more bizarre.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister give a definitive answer to Caritas and the example it has provided in its submission, in which it says that the Catholic bishops’ campaign on poverty, scheduled for election year, will be caught as election advertising and therefore will effectively be banned, and in which it also states: “We cannot easily see how the bill will distinguish between organisations such as the Exclusive Brethren and Caritas.”?

The member knows that the problem with the Exclusive Brethren is that they delivered a vast amount of material without identifying who they were. If anyone tried to track them down, they could not be found. The amount of money they spent was always a matter of subterfuge as they tried to support the election of a National Government. That is the problem. If people are out in the open, saying who they are, and going about their normal business, there obviously is no problem.

💬 Hon Bill English: Will the Catholic bishops’ campaign on poverty, scheduled for election year 2008, be caught as an election advertisement and therefore make the Catholic Church subject to all the requirements of the third party regulations in this bill?

I think the Minister of Justice has made it clear a number of times that the intention of this legislation is to capture people like the Exclusive Brethren, not the Catholic Church as in the example the member has pointed out—that is, the Catholic Church going about its normal process of issue-based discussion, and not supporting a particular party but simply explaining an issue. The member wishes he could find an example like this to make it stick but, I am sorry, he cannot.

💬 Hon Bill English: If the Minister says that I am making it up—

💬 Hon Member: 21 percent.

💬 Hon Bill English: I tell the member to stop forecasting his own election result.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: If members have finished, we will have the question.

💬 Hon Bill English: If the Minister says that I am making it all up and the example is bizarre, what basis does he think Caritas and the Catholic Bishops Conference would possibly have for the statements that they have made in their submission—that it will catch their campaign on poverty, and that the bill does not distinguish between groups like the Catholic Church or Caritas and the Exclusive Brethren—or were they just making it all up?

If I were the Catholic Church and if I were receiving a mail-out from the National Party, I might start to worry, as well.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With all due respect, the Minister is the Minister responsible for this question, and surely should address the question put to him rather than just making some flippant comment indicating to the House whom he is not.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to expand on his answer, please.

The substance of the question from Mr English was why the Catholic Church would worry. My answer was that it would worry if it was being communicated to by people on the National benches about this issue in a distorted way, as it has been. That is the source of the problem.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Will the Minister ensure that the bill is amended so that the Catholic Church’s campaign can proceed, given the facts that thanks to Working for Families this Government has cut child poverty by two-thirds and the National Party opposed the Working for Families package?

I will ensure that that takes place, because of course this is the kind of good news that the National Party does not like but that ought to be told right across New Zealand.

Police—Recruits’ Responsiveness to Māori

5. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Police: He aha ngā āhuatanga kua whakaritea mō tētahi tohunga nō waho ki te uru mai ki te whakawā, ki te whakamātautau tāngata e tono ana hei Pirihimana, kia tino mōhiotia ai tō rātou kaha aro mai ki te āhua o ngā Māori?

[What provision has been made for independent expert advice on the testing and assessment of people who apply to join the police, to ensure that responsiveness to Māori is actively taken into account?]

Independent expert advice is being provided by Dr Dave George. That advice is focused on the processes and procedures used by the New Zealand Police to determine minimum standards, assessment methods, and the consistent application of methods. Dr George is reviewing all relevant information, and is due to report at the end of the month.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: What recourse does a young Māori applicant from Rotorua have, a man who graduated from a bridging course for entry to the police force in 2005, and passed all the requirements to enter the Police College, yet was refused entry on the grounds that the police have information about a drug allegation involving him, which is an allegation the whānau rejects absolutely, an allegation that he has never been charged with or convicted of, and an allegation that the police have refused to supply evidence about, on the grounds that it would “amount to an unwarranted disclosure of the other individual’s affairs”?

I understand that the member has been spoken to about this issue by Superintendent Wally Haumaha, and knows that the police are looking at it. The issues are being worked through, and the police say they will soon be at the end of that process.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Is it acceptable that Megan Welch, a recruitment manager in the office of the Commissioner of Police, has confirmed that she “contacted the officer who had made the noting regarding drugs. He couldn’t remember him and didn’t know of him. I then spoke to other officers who knew the applicant, and they advised that he is not the type to be involved with drugs. The applicant advised that he knew nothing about the noting and was not, and never had been, involved with drugs. I accepted his statement.”; and how can the Minister provide any reassurance that Māori applicants receive a just and fair hearing when they apply to enter the Police College?

The New Zealand Police takes seriously all applications but also checks out all applications. That member would be quick to his feet to question our allowing a person who was not up to standard to join the New Zealand Police. However, I am also aware the member has been spoken to by Superintendent Wally Haumaha about this issue. The process is working its way through, and the member will be informed of the outcome. I can say no more than that about it, at this stage. In fact, I know that the member has more information about it than he is letting on in the House today.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: What is the Minister’s reaction to the finding in Police Perceptions of Maori that one in seven officers who were questioned specifically disagreed with the proposal to recruit more Māori, and over one in five disagreed with the proposal to promote more Māori; and how does she suggest such attitudes can be addressed?

The recruitment of men and women for the New Zealand Police is carried out by people qualified and trained to undertake that recruitment. Although neither the member nor I can be held responsible for the individual attitudes of some members of the police, or the public, I do know there is an active campaign to recruit Māori, Pacific people, and Asian people, so that the New Zealand Police more reflects the face of the public that it wishes to police.

💬 Ron Mark: Is it not a fact that a very senior Māori police officer currently is not being employed by the New Zealand Police, and is waiting to hear—in fact, the entire nation is waiting to hear—whether he will be reinstated; and can the Minister tell the House why the department has not done any work at all in advancing settlement of the position of Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards in terms of whether he will return to work or be released from the service? Why has it not done anything?

First of all, the member knows that the Minister of Police has no responsibility for the employment of individual officers. Secondly, the member is incorrect in saying that absolutely nothing has happened in the case of Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards. The department is working through the process, and it is near completion. But the department does have to work through the process. There is a process in place. It is many years old. The member also knows that I announced in this House changes to regulations around the New Zealand Police, so that the way we employ police and discipline them will change from the position that has existed for many decades.

Forestry—Deforestation

6. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Forestry: What estimates has he received on the level of deforestation this year, noting that the National Exotic Forest Description records net reforestation for every year from 1951 until 2003, but net losses of forests of 5,000, 11,000 and 11,000 hectares in 2004, 2005, and 2006?

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is currently surveying forestry owners regarding their harvesting, replanting, and new planting for the year ended March 2007. Those results are expected to be published in early 2008. The most recent estimate of deforestation based on survey results is 12,900 hectares in the year ended March 2006.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that of New Zealand’s 40 million tonnes of projected Kyoto carbon liability, 34,000 tonnes—or 85 percent of that—is from deforestation; and does he agree with John Key that the No. 1 priority of any climate change policy should be reversing that deforestation?

I certainly recognise the issue of deforestation and the Kyoto regime, and its impact there. As to whether I agree with Mr Key, it depends which statement I am asked to agree with: the one where he said that climate change was a hoax, or the one where he said that climate change was the most important problem that faces mankind. If the member would like to tell me which one I am to believe, then I could answer him properly.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: What is forestry’s contribution to New Zealand’s economy and environment; and does the Government make a positive contribution to the development of forestry?

Forestry is our third-largest export earner and directly employs more than 22,000 people, so it plays an important role in New Zealand’s economy. The forest industry has told me, as recently as this week, that the New Zealand Wood campaign to promote and support the use of wood has more support across the sector than any initiative in living memory. I noticed it does not have Mr Nick Smith’s support. The Government is proud to be a major partner in that campaign. New Zealand Wood heralds a new collaborative way of working for the sector, and the best is yet to come—that is the bad news for Mr Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister tell the House that the best is yet to come when after 50 years of records, he has admitted in the House today that we are to lose 12,000 hectares of forest this year—a year in which the Prime Minister says the issue is all about carbon neutrality; how can the Government possibly talk about carbon neutrality when we are to lose more forest this year than in any other year in New Zealand’s recent history?

If the National Party has a new policy that will prohibit the agricultural sector from making the best economic use of land in New Zealand, would he please announce it and make our day?

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: What percentage of the total plantation forest has been deforested in the last 6 years?

Those figures make interesting reading, because of the total plantation forest estate, which is actually more relevant to this issue than any of the figures Mr Smith quotes. In 2001, 0.1 percent was deforested; in 2002, 0.06 percent was deforested; in 2003, 0.1 percent; in 2004, 0.1 percent; in 2005, 0.4 percent; and in this disastrous year that Mr Smith goes on about, 0.7 percent of the total forest estate in the country was deforested.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: To the—

💬 Hon Member: He’s like a block of wood!

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You can tell they are desperate! [Interruption] When those members settle down, I might give them my question. Does the Minister accept that the decision—

💬 Hon Annette King: He’s the biggest interjector in Parliament!

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I know those members over there have just lost another 12,000 hectares of forest, and they are a bit sensitive.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Now, when members start to chip across the Chamber, one to the other, disorder is created. Would the member please get on and ask his supplementary question in silence.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister of Forestry accept that the decision in 2002 by his Government to deny foresters carbon credits for their forests, after the billion-dollar bungle the Government made on New Zealand’s Kyoto carbon balance and despite assurances by both National and Labour previously that those foresters would get the credits, has adversely affected confidence in the forestry sector, contributing to the chainsaw massacre that we witness all over New Zealand? [Interruption] The Independent referred to it as a chainsaw massacre, and I think most New Zealanders would be appalled to know that under this Labour Government we have lost 22 million trees.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Is this a question?

Madam Speaker—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: We will be having the rest of this in silence, because I cannot hear whether the asking of the question has finished and whether we want the Minister to address it.

The only information I have about promises made of the kind the member just suggested is about promises made by the National Party. This Government has never made any such promise—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it did!

💬 Madam SPEAKER: In silence, Dr Smith.

We have to believe Mr Smith! The fact is that the chainsaw massacre is represented by these facts: the total forest area that has been deforested in the last 6 years was 26,000 hectares. The total forests replanted over the same period in this chainsaw massacre were 122,000 hectares. So we have planted 122,000 hectares, we have had 26,000 hectares deforested, and Mr Smith calls that a chainsaw massacre. Well, I would want to know what a real chainsaw massacre might look like, if that is one.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry document signed by Pete Hodgson, telling foresters they would get the carbon credits—

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

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seeks leave of the House to table the official Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry figures that show that for the first time in 50 years, tens of thousands—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that chart. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Transport—Future Challenges

7. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What changes has the Government made to transport policy over the past 18 months to meet the transport challenges of the future?

Many, but to name just a few: the hypothecation of all petrol tax, providing a revenue guarantee to the National Land Transport Programme and a cost guarantee to the 5-year State highway construction plan, which we are extending to a 6-year commitment; developing a long-term inter-modal transport strategy covering roading, shipping, rail, public transport, walking, and cycling; and implementing a new funding and planning structure for the transport sector to provide more strategic guidance, simplify the planning cycle, and reduce planning churn.

💬 Sue Moroney: What reports has she seen supporting these Labour policies?

I have seen John Key’s first transport speech, which he delivered last weekend. I was flattered at Mr Key’s endorsement of all the initiatives I have just mentioned. National has come to the Labour Party on roading. I have to say it is a pretty sorry state of affairs when a political party has to copy other parties’ policies, and it is no wonder that Mr Key has become known as “Mr Me Too”.

💬 Sue Moroney: What investment has the Government made into roading? [Interruption]

Oh, there is a lot of interest up here, Madam Speaker. If you can get them quiet I will be able to give them the answer. [Interruption] Come on, Gerry, cheer up—you had a bad caucus. Cheer up, Gerry.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. As I said, this chipping across the Chamber does not help question time in terms of all members being able to hear each other speak. Would the Minister please respond.

I was asked what investment the Government has made into roading. Central government investment in roading has doubled from $850 million in 1999 to an allocation of $1.7 billion in 2007-08. Just over half this money is spent on new roads, like Harbour Link, Dowse to Petone, the northern busway, the Mt Roskill extension, and the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2, yet Mr Key says there has been an artificial cap on building new roads and we need to move out of maintenance mode. Well, I have to say that it was the National Party that was in maintenance mode, and it was a pretty sorry maintenance mode at that. I feel that someone is feeding Mr Key a load of manure. He obviously cannot see what is happening around him when he drives from the airport to his home in Paratai Drive.

Public Health—Survey Results

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Has he been advised of the finding of the Business Council For Sustainable Development survey which says that 78 percent of New Zealanders believe the public health service has worsened or stayed the same over the past 5 years; if so, what is his reaction?

Yes, I have. But given that the same survey showed that 78 percent of respondents also thought that doctors’ fees had stayed the same, or increased, in the past 5 years—when it is known that they have gone down—some of these emailing respondents may not be as well informed as we would like. Indeed, if the Ministry of Health ever needed a reason to run a campaign to let people know that doctors’ fees are now lower and that it is now cheaper to get a regular preventive health check, this survey is it.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Does this survey not show that despite spending an extra $5 billion a year on health, New Zealanders have noticed no improvement in the health system, and New Zealanders are saying they are waiting longer and longer for health care across the board?

The member has not noticed that about a year ago we finally got to a situation where folk who were going to be promised elective surgery got that surgery reliably within 6 months. That policy was put in place by the National Government in the late 1990s; it now works. It may be that some of these emailing respondents have not recently had a hip replacement.

💬 Lesley Soper: Were views expressed in the survey about taxation and public health services and the quality of patient care?

The survey showed that 62 percent of respondents prefer to pay taxes into a health fund ahead of personal tax cuts—62 percent. Also, far from services getting worse, 67 percent of New Zealanders thought that the quality of patient care had stayed the same or improved over the past 5 years.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: How can the Minister say that New Zealanders are more satisfied with the health system, when despite spending an extra $5 billion a year, it is clear that the survey he has just quoted from shows that more and more New Zealanders are waiting longer and longer for elective surgery, longer and longer for emergency and after-hours care, and longer and longer for chemo and radiation therapy; and is that not the reason why the Prime Minister should give him his marching orders in 2 weeks’ time?

I say sorry to Mr Ryall for letting the facts get in the way of a good story, but here is a fact: there are more elective surgical services done in New Zealand public hospitals now than there have ever been. That is a fact. Here is another fact: 67 percent of New Zealanders thought that the quality of patient care in this country had stayed the same or improved over the past 5 years. I do not know why New Zealanders think that, but that figure is from the survey the member has asked me about—that is what the survey says.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Is it not another fact that despite doubling the health budget in 7 years, the number of New Zealanders getting elective surgery on a per head of population basis has gone up only 5 percent in 7 years?

We have a concession from Mr Ryall. After 2 years as Opposition spokesperson on health, and for the first time in my time as Minister of Health, my opposite number has said that the number of elective surgical services has gone up. What will he do with all his press statements that have been saying for month after month, year after year, that the number of elective surgical services has been going down? What will he do with those press statements? Will he now issue a repudiating press statement? What will he do?

Housing—Initiatives

9. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Housing: What initiatives has the Government taken to improve access to quality, affordable housing for low-income New Zealanders?

Quality, affordable housing is a fundamental commitment of Labour Governments. This morning in Miramar the Prime Minister, the local MP Annette King, and I visited the first State house built by the first Labour Government 70 years ago. Since 1999 this Labour-led Government has reintroduced income-related rents, helping over 106,000 households with affordable rents so far; acquired 7,372 new State houses, helping to make up for the more than 13,000 houses National sold in the 1990s; retrofitted 14,000 State houses; tackled 4,500 overcrowded homes; and halved the rate of turnover in State house tenancies, building stronger and more stable communities. That is, no doubt, progress that the first Labour Prime Minister, Michael Joseph Savage, would have been very proud of.

H V Ross Robertson: What reports, if any, has the Minister seen about alternative approaches to social housing policy?

I have seen a report advocating a back-to-the-1990s policy of selling State houses, allegedly to their current tenants. This was supposedly the policy of the last National Government, but in fact the reality was that 10,000 of the 13,000 houses were sold to speculators. John Key needs to explain how National’s supposedly new policy is any different, as it is clear from income data held by Housing New Zealand Corporation that for the majority of State house tenants, buying the State house they live in is completely out of reach—that is why they are State house tenants.

💬 Sue Bradford: On this anniversary of the building of the first State house in New Zealand, is the Minister intending to pick up the recommendations for action—such as establishing a homeownership programme to provide at least 2,000 first home buyers each year with a chance to buy their own home—put forward just the other week by the Salvation Army in its report Rebuilding the Kiwi Dream; if not, why not?

Last night, together with the Prime Minister and other Ministers, I met church leaders, including leaders of the Salvation Army, and we discussed this very issue. We explored a variety of options for how we can improve housing availability on the supply side. We will work with church leaders and other interested groups to meet the very real issue that we have in this country, which others—Australia, Canada, and the US—are also facing.

💬 Sue Bradford: Why does the Government continue to provide such a relatively low amount of money from the Housing Innovation Fund towards community-sector affordable housing initiatives, especially when so much hope has been given to this sector over the last 5 or 6 years in terms of policy promises and so little has actually been delivered on the ground?

The fund the member refers to—the Housing Innovation Fund—is one that the Government has committed over $99 million to. That is quite a considerable sum. We have done some fantastic partnership deals. In addition to that $99 million - plus, we have also had one-off grants, like the $220 million that has gone to Wellington City; plus, of course, buying out Auckland City’s social housing. This Government has shown a real commitment to providing social housing for New Zealanders.

💬 Phil Heatley: With that answer in mind, could the Minister please explain why, after 8 years of his Government, the relative cost of buying a house, by every single measure, in every single region, is the highest in New Zealand’s history?

What I can explain to the member is that we have had record falls in unemployment, and we have had strong growth for 8 years. We have a very prosperous country. As that member is the representative of the people of Whangarei, I would like him to explain to those on the waiting list in Whangarei why, when National was in power, 229 State houses were sold in Whangarei, 180 of them to speculators.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was a very long answer to the question that was asked, but it was hardly addressing the question. If members think about the way the Minister started and then continued, they will realise that the question that was asked was completely ignored.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The part of the Minister’s answer I heard was addressing the question; the rest I could not hear. If members wish to hear the answers to questions I would ask them to desist from their barracking.

💬 Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In my question I asked the Minister to explain why housing affordability is the lowest ever in this country. His answer was to ask me to explain why. How can the Minister ask me to explain when I am the questioner? I would like an answer to my question about affordability.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I have addressed the question of whether the Minister—

💬 Phil Heatley: He didn’t.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please leave the Chamber. I am in the middle of giving my ruling. As I indicated before, in the first part of the answer the Minister did address the question. He then went on to add some irrelevancies, but in the first part he did address the question.

Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was about housing affordability, but we had an answer from the Minister about unemployment figures. He then posed a question back to the member about Whangarei. How can that possibly be within the Standing Orders that require a Minister to address the question?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: It is not for the Speaker to address the quality of the answer, but the first part was certainly addressing some of those factors. The second part was irrelevant—I accept that—but the first part was not.

Accident Compensation—Employers’ Liability

10. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Minister for ACC: Does she agree with the principle that employers should be responsible for work-related accidents?

Yes, I do, as expressed and defined consistently in accident compensation legislation since 1992. I also agree with the principle that accredited employers should continue to have the right to determine themselves whether an injury is work related or non - work related, and to revoke that decision if, after reconsidering the facts, they change their view.

💬 Anne Tolley: How does the Minister justify the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) billing the AFFCO works in Wairoa $1 million for the ongoing medical care of a young man shot by Black Power during a work break, outside the factory, in 2003; is this not bureaucracy gone mad?

AFFCO made the decision to accept that claim as a work-related injury. Because AFFCO is an accredited employer, it made the decision, as per the legislation. AFFCO, as an accredited employer under section 65 of the same legislation, could have revoked its decision if, when it reconsidered it, it changed its mind. It made the decision. It was handed over to ACC a year later, because it was a complex case. ACC is required to bill AFFCO for its responsibility, which is $1 million, under AFFCO’s stop-loss cover decision, which it signed up to. It signed the contract. It made the decision. It is liable for the responsibility. It made the cover decision, not ACC.

💬 Anne Tolley: Is it Government policy that employers rather than ACC should pay the ongoing medical costs of employees who fall victim to vicious crimes committed outside employers’ businesses?

The definition of work-related injury has been consistent in the legislation since 1992. In the case the member has referred to in her primary and supplementary questions, the worker concerned was inside a security fence, on AFFCO property, in a car-park, which has a sign next to it saying “Employee-only Car-park”. Under AFFCO’s own determination, the worker was in its workplace, and therefore it was liable for the decision and was responsible for cover. Actually, that is what private insurance companies would have decided, as well.

💬 Anne Tolley: Can the Minister explain what is work-related about someone being shot in an ongoing gang war, whilst on a work break, and whilst sitting in a car in a car-park that provides car-parks for AFFCO workers but also for people using the next-door public park grounds and a retail butchery—totally out of the secure control of the employer?

If the member considers those are the facts, then I suggest she goes back to the AFFCO board of directors and asks them why they made the decision to give that injured employee work-related cover. It was their decision. They made it in April 2003. They had every opportunity, under section 65, to revoke it. They never revoked it.

💬 Darien Fenton: Could the Minister please tell us how the Accredited Employers Programme works?

Yes, I can. Under the Accredited Employers Programme, the accredited employer can determine, first of all, whether there is an injury, and, secondly, whether it is work-related. If it is work-related, the accredited employer is responsible for paying entitlements to the injured worker up to the agreed level. Accredited employers also have the right under the legislation to revoke their own decision; if they think they have made an error, they can revoke the decision.

💬 Anne Tolley: Can the Minister confirm that AFFCO has made direct representations to her over this ridiculous case, and that she has refused to intervene; if so, can she justify why employers in New Zealand should have to pick up a tab of as much as $1 million for gang violence, which this Government has allowed to run rampant?

I am unable to confirm that the first-ever incidents of gang violence occurred after the election of a Labour-led Government; I am not sure that that is a fact. I can confirm that an intermediary—with utmost confidentiality, according to his request— presented the AFFCO position to me via email. I passed it on to ACC and asked for its consideration. I was told that it was 2 days before the final decision was made on an agreed settlement, and that ACC thought a settlement might be reached. I decided—appropriately, in my view—that it was not right for the Minister for ACC to intervene in what was clearly, and according to the legislation, AFFCO’s decision, which it decided to change its mind on when it realised how much the claim would cost.

💬 Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member is on a point of order. We will hear it in silence.

💬 Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from ACC to AFFCO, dated 15 October, outlining that—

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

💬 Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table a letter from ACC to AFFCO, dated 9 June, stating that ACC would continue to—

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

💬 Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table a letter from ACC to AFFCO, outlining that the injury does fall within—

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

💬 Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table an article from the Gisborne Herald that quotes the Mayor of Wairoa pleading for an end—

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

💬 Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table an article from the Gisborne Herald, dated 11 April, detailing that the—

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

💬 Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table an article from a Dominion Post of November 2003, outlining the three—

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

Immigration Bill—Classified Information

11. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: Will he reconsider the provisions around the use of classified information in the Immigration Bill, in light of the recent outcome of Ahmed Zaoui’s case; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: The new Immigration Bill sets out a clear process for making decisions when classified information is used. This will allow the Government to manage those non-citizens who are a risk or a threat. The better processes proposed in the bill should ensure such cases are dealt with quickly. The classified information system under the bill incorporates all the advantages of Part 4A of the current Act and seeks to overcome its disadvantages, through providing clearer and more closely prescribed systems.

💬 Keith Locke: Will the Minister attempt to change the Immigration Bill, so that in all future immigration appeals that involve secret information the appellant will have, as of right, a summary of each and every secret allegation, or will the Government continue down the path of overturning the High Court decision in which Mr Zaoui won the right to a summary of the secret allegations against him?

I am sure the member is aware that under the bill the Minister of Immigration will decide whether classified information should be used if publicly available information cannot be found and New Zealand’s reputation or security is at stake. This will ensure that decisions can be made using all available information. In the Zaoui case the Refugee Status Appeals Authority could not access the classified information on Mr Zaoui when making the decision.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister agree that in the case mentioned we have witnessed the worst kind of premeditated queue-jumping, with New Zealand’s legal system being manipulated at a cost of over $3 million to the taxpayer; and, given the experience of this case, is it not time for our laws to be tightened to ensure that that can never occur again?

Part 4A of the Act was enacted on 1 April 1999, as an amendment to the 1987 Act, by a National Government. I am advised that the Zaoui case is the only time that Part 4A has been tested since it was enacted, and that is why the Government has a bill before the House to change the legislation.

💬 Keith Locke: Does the Minister not accept, following on from his previous answer, that although, as he rightly said, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority did not get access to all the classified information, it was only when a summary of that classified information was made available to Mr Zaoui and his defence that Mr Zaoui could prove his innocence, and in that respect does he not think that the Immigration Bill makes things worse, by widening the use of secret information against appellants and even allowing the Immigration and Protection Tribunal set up under the bill to withhold that secret information from the appellant, contrary to the decision in the High Court case that Mr Zaoui took?

What I do accept is that this Government has a responsibility to ensure that our borders are secure from threats from non-citizens. I believe that the legislation this Government has proposed will do just that.

Police—Assistant Commissioner’s Employment Status

12. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Police: What progress, if any, has been made in resolving the employment status of Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards since his suspension in 2004?

I have no responsibility, as the Minister of Police, for the employment of individual police officers; this is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. However, I am advised that good progress is being made in resolving the employment status of Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards within the current police employment relations framework. As the member knows, the current framework, which is many decades old, has its failings. These are being—[Interruption] Can the member hear?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Well, he would like an answer instead of the patter he is getting.

They have a very sour member over there today. He is very sour.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Again, we will be hearing questions and answers in silence unless members restrain themselves.

As the member knows, the current framework, which is many decades old, has its failings. These are being addressed by the introduction of revised regulations and a code of conduct that I announced recently, and that will be in place by the beginning of next year.

💬 Chester Borrows: Are cars issued to high-ranking officers used primarily for police business; if so, why would a new car be issued once the officer’s primary purpose had been extinguished and he would not travel a single kilometre on police business?

My understanding is that senior officers, within their standard contract, have the provision of a car. It makes up part of their total remuneration. I happen to have a copy of the contract. This contract for senior officers has been in place for a long period of time. In fact, members will be interested to know that this particular contract has been in place since the early 1990s and has been based on a standard State sector senior management contract of arrangements that were prevalent at the time.

💬 Chester Borrows: Can the Minister confirm that senior officers who are issued with cars are able to use taxpayers’ dollars to pay for the petrol in these cars, for personal use?

No, I cannot confirm that. It would depend on the contractual arrangements that officers have. All I can say to the member is that Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards has a contract that enables him to have a car. He receives it in exchange for a proportion of his salary. It is part of a standard contractual arrangement, the basis of which has been in place since the early 1990s.

💬 Chester Borrows: Will any future employment settlement reached with Mr Rickards require Cabinet or ministerial sign-off?

I cannot speculate on what will happen to Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards. I agree with the president of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, who said last night—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am interrupting because I think this is relevant. The Minister clearly did not hear the question. The question was whether there would be any sign-off from either the Minister or Cabinet, which is nothing to do with an agreement and nothing to do with a settlement or anything else. The question was whether the amount would be signed off by the Minister or Cabinet; it is pretty simple.

The answer is equally simple. I cannot speculate on the outcome of a tribunal hearing that is yet to be had on Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards. I do not know the outcome—[Interruption]

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Members wanted an answer; please have the courtesy of hearing it in silence!

—and regardless of what members of this House might think, that member of the police is still a member of the police and he is entitled to have the full processes followed. I would imagine that members opposite would be the first to complain if it was one of their mates and the processes were not followed.

💬 Ron Mark: Can the Minister tell the House why, after such a long period of time, no dates have been set for an internal tribunal hearing, and why no charges have been proffered against Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards?

It is my understanding that a tribunal date, if not already set, is about to be set. I do not know where the member is getting his information from, but I can only go on what I am advised. I have advised the House today that a conclusion of this issue is close.

💬 Chester Borrows: Does the Minister stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the decision by the police administration to promote Mr Rickards four times after it became aware of allegations against him, and that it was a case of the police “looking after their own”?

I can confirm for the member that it was the Prime Minister who said that she had doubts when Mr Rickards’ name was brought to her as a potential Deputy Police Commissioner, because allegations were swirling around him at that time.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Swirling?

Swirling around him. Letters and comments had been made publicly around this particular police officer. It was the Prime Minister, in fact, who said she did not believe that Mr Rickards was a person suitable to be a Deputy Police Commissioner. He was subsequently appointed Assistant Police Commissioner by a process that is not the responsibility of the Minister of Police or the Prime Minister.

💬 Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the Minister’s answer she referred to a copy of the contract. I wonder whether she would table that before the House.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. If the member wished that issue raised he should have done so at the time. [Interruption] I do not make the Standing Orders; the members make the Standing Orders.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Let me read you the Standing Order. It is Standing Order 368, which states: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may, on a point of order, require the Minister to lay the document on the Table. The Minister must then lay the document on the Table unless it is of a confidential nature.” I do not see any mention of a time exclusion on when the point of order should be taken.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think there is. There is a small word “whenever” at the start of that particular sentence. So the point of order must be taken whenever it happens, not some moments later.

In my answer to the member I did not quote directly from the contract.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: That is the point, really. Listen very carefully: the Minister did not quote from the document. She certainly made reference to the document, that is true, but she did not quote from the document. That is what the Standing Order relates to.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am concerned by the way in which you have dealt with this matter, because the document, whether it was read from or quoted from, was referred to on a number of occasions throughout the exchange. You have insisted that when people table documents or have other things to say, they do so at the end of a question period. I think that Mr Borrows acted appropriately, and I ask you to reconsider whether we have to go down the road of the tight definition of Dr Cullen’s view that the moment a Minister quotes from a document—or appears to—the House should break into a point of order to test whether a document has in fact been quoted from.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member but I will follow the Standing Orders. They are quite clear on this matter. If members wish to change them it is up to them to do so. I have noticed that on other occasions whenever the matter was raised, members were only too happy to leap to their feet to raise points of order. On this occasion the Standing Orders were not followed; I have to follow the Standing Orders.

I seek leave to table the pro forma individual contract document that I have with me, which is pursuant to section 76 of the Police Act.

Document not tabled.