Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

The Government would certainly like to see New Zealand’s GDP per capita ranking back in the top half of the OECD. As I told the member several months ago, to achieve that requires clear, deliberate policy programmes sustained over time.

💬 John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1999 only nine countries in the OECD had a lower tax burden than New Zealand but that by 2005 it was 17 countries, and that under her leadership she certainly has got New Zealand into the top half of the OECD—the half that pays a lot more tax?

I am advised that taking into account a one-off change, our tax revenue as a proportion of GDP sits at around the OECD average and puts us in the same bracket as the United Kingdom.

💬 John Key: Is the Prime Minister concerned that for the last 5 years the Australian Federal Government has embarked on a programme of lowering personal taxes, and that we have now seen both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in Australia promising large future personal tax cuts; and does it not worry her that that gap between New Zealand and Australia for after-tax income continues to widen because of those tax cuts, and for how long can New Zealand ignore this problem?

As has been said many times, this matter will be addressed in next year’s Budget.

💬 John Key: Why is the Prime Minister telling New Zealanders that for 8 years the Government has been roughly running large surpluses, that the inflation environment in many of those years has been low, but that, miraculously, the only time a Labour Government in New Zealand will ever talk about tax cuts is election year, and does she not think that looks a little bit desperate?

Of course, the Government has enabled families to have substantial tax cuts, it has cut taxes on savings, and it has made substantial tax cuts on business to encourage economic growth.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Given the Leader of the Opposition’s enthusiasm for the Australian tax scales and rates, will the Prime Minister be expecting from him support for lifting the top tax rate, introducing a capital gains tax, and introducing stamp duty, which are all part of the Australian tax system?

My experience is that the National Party borrows very selectively from Australian figures. For example, it does not want to face the fact that under a Labour Government unemployment is consistently lower than in Australia. It does not want to face the fact that under a Labour Government in New Zealand economic growth rates have outpaced those of Australia as well as the whole OECD.

💬 John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware that in 2000 the average wage in New Zealand was roughly $34,000 and it has risen to about $44,000—that is, a $10,000 increase—but that, in fact, if one takes into account the increase in inflation and the bracket creep, the average New Zealander is only $500 better off after that $10,000 increase, and is that not a bit of a insult to the average New Zealander?

I would not take any of that member’s figures at face value. What I know is that for the average single-earner couple with two children in the family, the tax wedge is at the second-lowest in the OECD at 2.6 percent, compared with 13.6 percent when National left office. The National Party did nothing to reduce the tax burden on the average family.

💬 John Key: If tax cuts have not made sense for the last 8 years, why will they miraculously make sense next year, in election year?

The member should listen more carefully. There have been huge tax cuts for families under Labour, and there have been big tax cuts for business under Labour. Both those areas of tax cuts have been consistently voted against by the National Party.

💬 John Key: Why should any New Zealander trust whatever miraculous tax cut programme Labour comes up with in election year when all of those New Zealanders will know that they are the same people who were promised tax cuts in 2005 only to have them taken off them by the same Labour-led Government?

I wonder why any New Zealander would believe anything those National members said about tax cuts when they have consistently voted against every Government bill bringing in tax cuts in the House.

💬 Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister accept that no OECD country has achieved 4 percent growth on a sustainable basis—which was her Minister of Finance’s goal on assuming office—with total spending above 40 percent of GDP, and if she does not accept that the tax take has an impact on growth, why not?

I understand that there have indeed been countries in the OECD that have seen growth rates like that. They might perhaps be better described as emerging economies that have come more recently into a market economy system. But the last time I looked, the average amount of economic growth since this Labour-led Government took office was close to 3.4 percent a year. That was higher than Australia, higher than the US, Japan, the United Kingdom, the OECD, and the European Union average rates for that period. That is economic success, Labour style.

KiwiSaver—Uptake

2. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any recent reports on the take-up of KiwiSaver?

The last formal report was on 9 October, when nearly 213,000 Kiwis were enrolled in KiwiSaver. Of those, nearly 102,000 actively chose a provider and went directly to a scheme to enrol, 67,000 actively chose to join KiwiSaver and enrol via their employer, and 44,000 new employees were automatically enrolled.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any recent international reports on the benefits of superannuation schemes such as KiwiSaver?

Yes. Last week the Boston Consulting Group found that the growth in personal wealth in Australia was largely due to Australia’s superannuation system. I have also seen a report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research trying to claim that New Zealand does not have a savings problem, due to a booming but unquantified informal economy. That is at odds with the rise in household debt, decline in savings rates as measured by public indicators, current account deficit, and net international investment position. But an unmeasurable, hidden economy somehow explains our savings problem completely away!

💬 Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us how much money actually went into KiwiSaver accounts on 1 October, what proportion of it was the Government start-up payments or subsidies, and what proportion of it was actually contributions from new members?

I am sorry; I do not have those numbers in front of me. There would be quite limited Government start-up payments as of 1 October.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that the KiwiSaver scheme should be changed significantly?

Yes, I have seen various and usually conflicting reports that suggest scrapping all or parts of KiwiSaver and suggest that the provision for retirement savings in New Zealand is too generous. Those reports nearly all come from Bill English and John Key.

Taxation—Australia - New Zealand Comparisons

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the NZIER’s analysis that, at the same income, wages are generally taxed more highly and levels of tax credits provided are lower in New Zealand than in Australia; if not, why not?

Even given the parlous ideological state of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, it would not take much analysis to show that that has been the case since the mid-1980s, when the National Government’s top tax rate of 66 percent was progressively lowered—first to 48 percent, then to 33 percent—by a Labour-led Government. However, I welcome the fact that the member now accepts that tax credits are part of the taxation system. It makes it even more baffling that he voted against the last tax credit increases for working families.

💬 Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree with the decision by the Australian Labor Party to support significant long-term tax cuts, given his statement last week that the tax cuts promised in Australia were not the sorts of tax cuts one would expect from a Labour party?

Although I have no responsibility for the Australian Labor Party—and indeed seek no responsibility for the Australian Labor Party—the fact is that it is my understanding that Mr Rudd was promising a rather different variety of tax cuts from those promised by Mr Howard. No doubt our great Australian friends will decide between the two menus on offer.

💬 Darren Hughes: Has the Minister seen any reports on the drivers of income and wage growth in Australia?

Despite the Work Choices programme, the stronger bargaining position of employees in Australia due to a more centralised industrial relations system has seen labour capturing a high share of the dividends of economic growth. The fact is that under this Government the rate of growth in profits has exceeded the rate of growth in labourers’ incomes.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister believe that the benefits of targeted taxation outweigh the perceived gains of a general cut in taxation, which often benefits only the wealthy to any meaningful degree?

I agree that there has to be a balance in these matters. We inherited a situation whereby one-third of New Zealand children were being raised in poverty. That situation was therefore the priority for the Labour-led Government. Bill English voted against reducing the number of children living in poverty.

💬 Hon Bill English: In light of the situation in the Australian election campaign, which means that significant tax reductions are now certain, does the Minister still stand by his statements that Kiwi workers who go to Australia are “functionally innumerate” and that New Zealand was “better off without them”?

Although a large number of New Zealanders will be voting in the Australian election, I will not be one of them, and I will leave those people in Australia to decide what kind of Government they want.

💬 Hon Bill English: Does the Minister believe that the certainty of significant income tax reductions in Australia makes any difference at all to his own Government’s strategy for making New Zealand an attractive place to live and work?

I have already laid out the conditions under which we will consider reductions in personal taxation. They include, first of all, not borrowing for tax cuts. Mr English’s first condition for tax cuts is to borrow for them. Secondly, there will be no reduction in services in order to fund tax cuts. Mr English, when he was a Minister of Finance, cut taxes, then cut New Zealand superannuation—the elderly paid for the tax cuts for those in the working-age groups. Thirdly, the tax cuts must be able to be sustained. Fourthly, they must be fair; that is, the benefits must not all go to those on higher incomes but must be spread more fairly across the entire population. What is it about that that Mr English does not find to be reasonable economic policy?

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Minister confirm that any tax cuts introduced in New Zealand will not follow the Australian path of including capital gains taxes, mortgage duties, stamp duties, land taxes, and all of the other things that the average Australian pays at a state level, both in New South Wales and Victoria, and in other parts of the country?

It needs to be remembered that the Australian Government collects a large amount of revenue from sources that are untaxed in New Zealand. It needs also to be remembered that the Australian Government levies a very severe income and assets test on its public pension scheme, which reduces very substantially the expenditure going to elderly Australians compared with that going to elderly New Zealanders as a proportion of Government expenditure. Those things, of course, have to be made up for out of other forms of revenue.

💬 Hon Bill English: Can we take it from the Minister’s answer previous to that one that the facts that Australia has had 5 years of lower taxes already and that it plans to have another 5 years of lower taxes do not make any difference to him at all; and why is he alone in New Zealand in not being concerned about the growing income gap between Australia and New Zealand?

That income gap grew most between 1984 and 1993, during the period of the largest economic change and reform. The income gap since that time has not grown as greatly as that, at all. It would be very nice in this country if we had an enormous amount of minerals that could be exported in such a way as Australia is doing. The Australian Treasury has increased its forecast revenue for the next few years by NZ$70 billion.

💬 Hon Bill English: Why has the Labour Government continued to tax people on $39,000 a year at 33c in every extra dollar that they earn, when 3 years ago in the 2005 Budget the Government indicated that it thought it should change those tax rates, but did not?

No, we did not indicate that there would be a change to the marginal tax rate; there was an indication of some threshold change. The member, of course, rejected that as a “chewing gum tax cut”; now he wants to swallow it.

Operation Ark Programme—Results

4. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What reports has he received about the success of the Operation Ark programme?

I have received the 3-year progress report for Operation Ark, which started in June 2004 to protect populations of whio, or blue duck; orange-fronted parakeet; yellowheads; and bats in South Island beech forests from possible extinction. I am pleased to advise the House that this report reveals spectacular results from the work done by the Department of Conservation. The risk of extinction of these populations has been reversed, with all populations surviving major outbreaks of predators. For example, there has been an increase of over 200 percent in blue duck numbers.

💬 Jill Pettis: What other measures has the Labour-led Government taken to protect New Zealand’s unique biodiversity?

In February 2000 the Prime Minister released the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, and in 2002 the Government provided a package of funds to implement the highest priority projects in the strategy. The funding, which was $184 million over the first 5 years, provides protected-species management in mainland islands, kiwi sanctuaries, weed and pest control, and biosecurity measures. At the end of the 5 years the Department of Conservation base-lined the biodiversity funding, and this was increased by a further $33.5 million per annum.

State Houses—Non - New Zealand Citizens

5. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Minister of Housing: How many primary applicants who were not New Zealand citizens at the time of application were housed in Housing New Zealand Corporation properties in the 2006/07 financial year and how does this number compare with the number housed in the 2001/02 financial year?

In 2001 and 2002, 1,197 applicants housed by the corporation were not New Zealand citizens at the time of application. In 2006 and 2007, 1,466 applicants were not New Zealand citizens at the time of application but were lawfully resident in New Zealand. Many people who hold New Zealand residency, particularly from the UK and Australia, have been in New Zealand for a very long time.

💬 Pita Paraone: How does the Minister think that ordinary New Zealanders who have been New Zealanders their whole lives feel, as they linger on Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting-lists for years, when they find out that this Government has overseen a 22.5 percent increase in houses—or as many as 7,000—granted to people who were not New Zealand citizens, in the past 6 years?

I remind the member and the House that anyone housed in a Housing New Zealand Corporation unit or house has to be lawfully resident in New Zealand. New Zealand residents have full rights of citizenship in our country, and are encouraged to apply for citizenship. Many people choose not to.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: How are Housing New Zealand Corporation properties allocated?

Applicants for State housing must be lawfully, and ordinarily, resident in New Zealand to be eligible for a home. Housing New Zealand Corporation gives priority to people with the highest need. That is quite unlike the previous National Government’s approach, which merely focused on the ability of people to pay the Government’s exorbitant rents.

💬 Pita Paraone: Can the Minister confirm that immigrants, other than refugees, are able to apply for, and receive, a State house after holding permanent residency for just 2 years; and can the Minister not see the irony in the fact that immigrants, who are supposed to come to New Zealand with jobs and a degree of financial support, even need to apply for State housing?

I can confirm that a resident, having been resident in New Zealand, can apply for a Housing New Zealand Corporation house, but I remind the House again that we have a priority system of allocation, based on the greatest need.

💬 Pita Paraone: Can the Minister confirm that under the guise of providing “security of tenure” Housing New Zealand Corporation does not check to see whether the circumstances that led to people being granted a State house have changed at some time, a situation that means that an immigrant not only can receive a State house after being in New Zealand for just 2 years but also can live in it for life, no questions asked; and does the Minister agree that such a situation is grossly unfair for the thousands of Kiwis currently on the waiting list?

I can confirm that the waiting list for Housing New Zealand Corporation has gone down. I can confirm that tenants have security of tenure in their houses. That has been a feature of Labour’s policy for State-house tenants. I can confirm also that one in five New Zealanders was born outside our country. We are a nation of immigrants.

Housing New Zealand—Confidence

6. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so, why?

Yes, I do have confidence; because under the Labour-led Government, Housing New Zealand Corporation provides affordable homes for almost 200,000 people. We have turned Housing New Zealand from the real estate agency it was under National to a vital social service, working across the country to securely house needy families, repair substandard rural houses, help Kiwi families in their first home ownership, support local authority and community organisations to develop social housing—the list goes on and on.

💬 Phil Heatley: What action did he take following revelations last year via his answers to parliamentary questions that damage by tenants and their guests to State houses had risen by a staggering 30 percent, from $16.5 million to $21 million in only 12 months; and was the action that he took successful?

Statistics have to be looked at in their context. We house almost 200,000 people living in New Zealand. The average tenant debt is just $370, and we take all reasonable steps to recover that debt. But it needs to be pointed out that it is rare among our tenants. Only 9 percent of properties have any damage to them.

💬 Phil Heatley: If he is so successful at managing the housing stock, why has tenant damage and vandalism, and the damage caused by tenants’ guests, risen again this year, to $23.3 million—now a 40 percent increase over the last 2 years?

A very active reaction to damages is one of the reasons why the statistics have gone up. But I remind the House again that the most common form of damage is actually broken windows, which can be caused by the most minor thing.

💬 Phil Heatley: How is allowing a current tenant in Henderson to run up a damage bill of $11,762, and another in Waitakere to run up a damage bill of $10,439, addressing this problem; what does he say to those 10,000 people languishing on the waiting list who would value the State homes that these vandals still live in?

What I would say to people listening to this question time today is that the average tenant debt is $370. What I would also say is that the 13,000 houses that were sold under National could easily have addressed our 10,000-person waiting list.

💬 Sue Moroney: What has Housing New Zealand Corporation achieved in this past year?

Housing New Zealand Corporation has continued to expand its range of services, reflecting the Labour-led Government’s strong commitment to ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to affordable, sustainable, good-quality housing. In the past year alone we have increased our social housing stock by 1,923 homes, housed nearly 3,000 more tenants, retrofitted 2,000 homes, helped more than 1,000 people to buy their first home, and supported the development of 384 social housing units by local government and community providers. There is more to do, and this Government can be relied upon to continue investing in social housing—unlike National, which, true to form, wants to start selling State houses again.

💬 Phil Heatley: What was the point of recording the vandalism debt of $11,762, or the Waitakere vandalism debt of $10,000, when Housing New Zealand Corporation, according to answers this Minister has given, has written off $2,478,000 worth of damage debt owed by tenants, just in the last year?

I remind the House again that the average size of debt for damage is $370. The two cases the member has plucked out, to try to demonstrate his argument, actually show, in the context of Housing New Zealand Corporation’s 200,000 tenants, how incredibly small this issue is.

💬 Phil Heatley: If the Minister is saying that it is just a few individuals who are involved, and the corporation clearly knows who they are, why does he let them run up huge damage debts, then write off the debts, all the while allowing them to remain in their State houses, while thousands of genuinely needy families languish on the waiting list?

Yes, it is a great pity they are on the waiting list. If his party when in Government had not sold off those 13,000 houses, we would not have a waiting list. Much of the debt the member is alluding to is of a very trivial nature. Often it would be more expensive for the corporation to pursue the cost of repairing a couple of broken windows than it would be to wipe off the debt.

💬 Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Minister’s own figures on the extent of the damage and vandalism costs.

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

💬 Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table some photos of State house vandalism that is not broken windows.

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

Land Transport Management Amendment Bill—Recreational Boating

7. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Transport: How will the recently introduced Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be of benefit to recreational boaties?

The bill allows the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance to allocate fuel excise revenue received from pleasure boat users to activities such as maritime search and rescue, boating safety education, and maritime safety services. For too long, organisations like the Royal New Zealand Coastguard Federation have had to rely heavily on donations to do their work. This move is good news for recreational boaties and the organisations that provide a safety service to them.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: Why is this of benefit to recreational boaties?

Pleasure boat users have not received a refund on excise duty since the days of Sir Robert Muldoon, when he discontinued it in the 1970s. Now a source of funding is available specifically to meet the cost of well-founded boating safety measures. The recreational boating community will see a benefit from the excise duty it pays, and I think this addresses what has been an inequitable situation.

💬 Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that her answer has a familiar ring about it, and will she therefore confirm that what is being proposed in the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is, in fact, New Zealand First policy?

Yes, it does have a familiar ring to that member and to New Zealand First because it is in their transport policy, and I know that that is one of the reasons why this bill has strong support from New Zealand First.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

8. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Yes; but there is always room for improvement.

💬 Simon Power: How can the Government get its prison forecasting so wrong that exactly 2 months ago it held an extensive decommissioning ceremony for the 111-year-old Dunedin Prison, involving blessings, a tapu lifting, and flute playing, only now to reconsider reopening it as a working prison?

The Government is not considering reopening the prison. However, I have asked for a number of options to be put before me before we consider selling the prison site back to Ngāi Tahu. It is sensible for me to do that.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that, in fact, there is far more scope for housing offenders in prisons today than there was in 1999, when the then Minister of Corrections for the National Government confirmed that most of New Zealand’s prisons were within a few inmates of exceeding their capacity?

I can confirm that this Government has built over 2,100 additional prison cells in its time, contrary to the inaction of the previous National Government. We are looking at all options as we move forward, but we have in place an Effective Interventions programme that is putting in the investment at the front end in order to reduce over time, hopefully, the number of people in this country who have to be locked up.

💬 Keith Locke: Can the Minister confirm what I was told at the new Wiri women’s prison on Saturday, which is that its policy is to provide incoming prisoners with three pieces of paper a week but no pen to write with, and does that typify the department’s approach to confronting the huge literacy problem in our prisons?

What I can say is that there is a huge, increased emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills in every prison. I am not aware of the shortage of pens in Auckland, but I will certainly commit to that member to make some inquiries and ensure that we do have some pens.

💬 Simon Power: Did he read a March Budget paper that states that the Effective Interventions initiatives have allowed Ministers to avoid decisions on 800 additional beds over the 5-year period to 2011, and since the current prison population is now at the level it is forecast to be at in 2011, will the sixth corrections Minister under this administration, Clayton Cosgrove, be advising New Zealand next year that we will be building a new prison?

It is very hard for me to prejudge the future. A number of decisions will be made. But I can say that there has been a huge amount of effort from this Government to both build the necessary prison cells and try to prevent an increase in the rising prison population, which in my view is an embarrassment to this country. The Government has many very good social programmes and has invested in families around this country, in the hope that that will prevent over time more people from being locked up in prison.

💬 Simon Power: Which were the six prisons that a March Budget paper identified as being “obsolete”, meaning that they are unusable and it would cost more to bring them up to standard than to replace them; and when half of all prisons are currently below standard, how many of those obsolete prisons will not be decommissioned in the near future because of the latest muster crisis?

I wish that member would make up his mind. When we build state-of-the-art prisons he criticises us for doing that, and then, when we have to continue with prisons that I accept are inadequate, he criticises us for that. I would like the member to put his policy on the table, so we can finally see what the National Party would do in this area. The only thing we have heard from National members is that they will privatise the prison system in this country; that is their solution.

💬 Simon Power: Can he confirm that 165 employees were investigated in the last year—an increase of 43 percent on the previous year—with 15 being sacked and eight resigning as a result of that; and is that what his chief executive meant when he said it was just “a few bad apples” and “probably five in the whole organisation”?

That figure represents about 2.5 percent of the 3,800 employees we have. I have said publicly in this House time and time again that we will investigate any allegations, be they by prisoners, by staff, or by the public. We will continue to do that. I am pleased to say that the vast majority of those allegations have proven to be untrue, thankfully.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: How does the strict approach to staffing matters today compare with the approach in the 1990s under the National Government, when escapes were running at up to 166 a year compared with just 20 a year now, and when in one prison, Rangipō prison, of the inmates who were tested, 61 percent tested positive for drug use?

Those figures speak for themselves. In relation to drug testing and escapes, every indicator on an international basis says that this Government and our Ministers have done a very good job in those areas. The previous Government completely neglected the Department of Corrections and ran the whole system down.

💬 Simon Power: Why did his department spend $8,000 to hire actors to role play scenarios for guards seeking promotion?

I am informed that that figure is for over 3 years. It is far better to train staff right across the corrections system to deal with difficult situations, rather than to front up with completely inexperienced and untrained staff and to try to resolve the situation at the time.

💬 Simon Power: What does it say about the leadership within his department when 91 staff members in management positions are only acting managers?

We have been going through a review of the public prison system and a review of its head office, to make the improvements that that member keeps demanding. That is why we have held those managers in temporary positions. I am pleased to say that the results of the Public Prisons Service review have now been completed and the staff informed of them, and that the vast majority of those people will be employed full-time.

💬 Ron Mark: Has the Minister seen the rather conflicting reports and criticisms of the Department of Corrections in the media; and specifically, can he confirm that when New Zealand First has said it has no confidence in the senior management, it means it, that when New Zealand First has said it wants corrupt staff to be rooted out and fired, it means it, and that when New Zealand First says officers who are in inappropriate relationships with inmates need to be investigated and, where found guilty, fired, it means it—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: It is not within the Minister’s responsibility to confirm other parties’ positions.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I started my question by asking the Minister whether he had seen reports, and I was concluding by making the comparison with some political commentators who demand things and, when those things occur, then complain—unlike other political parties that do not. I was asking him to confirm that.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When we ask questions each day, we have to take some evidence down to the Clerk to show the veracity of the questions. I wonder whether Mr Mark would consider tabling those reports, in order for him to verify his question and not simply be a patsy for the Government.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: As I am sure the member knows, that verification order does not apply to supplementary questions. However, would the Minister please just respond to the part of the question with ministerial responsibility.

Yes, I have seen reports and had claims made by New Zealand First, and a huge number of those have proven to be correct. That member raises them genuinely, unlike Simon Power, who raises them for cheap, political point-scoring, which undermines the morale of the vast majority of corrections staff, who do an excellent job day in, day out. It is about time that Mr Power supported them and supported corrections.

Organic Farming—Sustainable Inputs

9. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he agree with the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s recent statement to the House that “Organic farming uses a range of unnatural inputs that happen to be 19th century in their technology and that are not necessarily sustainable.”?

Yes, I do. As with any land-based agricultural system, organics requires a range of inputs to ensure production and to provide disease and pest control. Currently, some of the technologies available to organic growers are potentially toxic and unsustainable if not managed well and applied with care—reliance on copper sprays for disease control is a particular example. The Government is working with the organic sector to develop new tools and technologies to deliver the growth potential of organics, and to remove the risks associated with these technologies—for example, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s Sustainable Farming Fund project is investigating the vapour biocontrol system as a replacement for copper sprays, to control black spot in apples.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister familiar with the United Nations report Organic Agriculture and Food Security, which states that conventional agriculture together with deforestation and rangeland burning are responsible for 30 percent of carbon dioxide and 90 percent of nitrous oxide emissions worldwide, and that a worldwide shift to organic agriculture could fight world hunger; improve environmental quality, economic efficiency, and social equity; and, at the same time, tackle climate change?

I am sure every sphere of these arguments can take some consolation from reports like that. But I have to say to the member that there is clear evidence that a management approach, rather than a specific production system, is the key influence on sediment and nutrient runoff—for example, into waterways. That is demonstrated in work completed by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology and the Sustainable Farming Fund in the funded project that compared sediment and nutrient runoff from hill-country sheep and beef from both organic and conventional farms. What this research effectively shows is that organic farming systems do not necessarily improve the quality of water runoff.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister aware of growing evidence from the United States and New Zealand that soils may be as important as forests in storing carbon, and that organic systems generally trap more carbon in soil than conventional systems because of their explicit focus on building healthy soils; if so, how is the Government building this into its plans for carbon neutrality?

Yes, the Government and its agencies are aware of that research. But I am advised that soil carbon can increase or decrease in organic agriculture, depending on the management techniques used in the farming system. Soil carbon can increase under pasture in both organic and conventional systems—for example, soil carbon in arable agriculture accumulates under zero or minimum tillage. However, soil carbon is rapidly depleted, once the land is cultivated, in either organic or conventional agriculture.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: What is the Government doing to ensure that Landcorp, which is New Zealand’s biggest farmer, contributes to the Government’s vision of sustainability and carbon neutrality by at least piloting organic forms of production on some of its farms—and I note that it has no farms currently using organic production methods—particularly in the areas of sheep and beef farming, where returns for conventional produce have been low over recent years and the price premium for organic produce particularly high, which are trends likely to continue?

Yes, the Government expects its agencies to operate on a sustainable basis. However, the decision as to whether to farm organically is an operational decision under the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 and, therefore, it rests with the Landcorp board and management. However, I am advised by Landcorp that it has considered commercial proposals that would use organic methods, and it would assess any future such proposals based on their commercial and sustainability merits.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In view of the reference to copper-based products, can the Minister confirm that copper mining is often one of the most environmentally damaging forms of mining in the world, and are any studies being done on the concept of “peak copper”?

I am not aware of any such studies, but if the Minister of Finance would like to advise me of them I would be interested in reading them.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: I seek leave to table the Bio-Gro certification standards, which indicate that the use of copper is restricted.

Document not tabled.

Immigration, Minister—Developments

10. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: What does he consider to be the three most important developments he has progressed as Minister of Immigration?

Immigration is essential to New Zealand’s economic transformation and contributes significantly to our evolving national identity. To support this, the Government has been progressing a major change programme across immigration operations, policy, and legislation. This will help us to deliver enhanced skills, security, and settlement outcomes.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Which of those developments does he consider to be his greatest achievement, and why?

We will leave that for the public to judge while we get on and do the work.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What challenges remain to be solved by him as the Minister of Immigration, if any?

The department is always seeking to self-improve. No organisation that deals with the volume of work that immigration does—nearly half a million decisions each year for over two million border crossings—will get it right all the time. My focus has been on improving the underlying systems that will generate increased performance over time.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How much, as Minister, did he personally contribute to those claimed achievements?

As I said earlier, I am happy to let the public judge that, as I am sure the member was when he was the Associate Minister of Immigration in 1999.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What reports has the Minister seen about how his achievements as a Minister compare with those of, say, the Hon David Parker as the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues?

All I can say is that the member does not get out enough.

💬 Darren Hughes: In explaining Government policy around the country, has the Minister been forced to leave any public events via a lavatory window?

I have no recollection of that.

💬 Peter Brown: Does the Minister share our view that removing the Immigration Service from under the auspices of the Department of Labour and setting up a separate immigration service would be a very significant development indeed?

While undoubtedly being significant, it may not assist good labour market outcomes.

Health Services—Quality of Advice

11. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the quality of advice available from the New Zealand health system?

Yes; in general, I am. However, last week National’s Tony Ryall claimed that the MidCentral District Health Board was not offering patients treatment in Australia when, in fact, it is. He seems unable to keep up. Also, last week Katrina Shanks stated that 600 midwives had left the sector in the past 12 months when, in fact, the number of midwives has risen slightly. She cannot keep up either, and she cannot count. Then we had National’s Wayne Mapp saying that too many people are going to the emergency department, whereas National’s Tony Ryall says that a National Government will remove the cap on general practitioner’s fees, which would lead to more people going to the emergency department. So National members cannot keep up, they cannot count, and they cannot agree amongst themselves.

💬 Maryan Street: What other misleading statements and poor conclusions on New Zealand’s health system seem to be coming out of the National Party camp?

Many statements, all issued regionally, all from National’s Tony Ryall—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Surely at least the wording of that question was wrong. I think the intent was quite inappropriate for parliamentary question time, but if that is not to be ruled, I think the wording was inappropriate.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: It is a matter of debate, but maybe the member would like to rephrase the question for the Minister.

💬 Maryan Street: What other reports has the Minister seen recently on the conclusions arising out of the New Zealand health system?

I have seen a number of reports. For example, I have seen reports responding to the many statements issued from the National Party’s Tony Ryall, saying that first specialist assessments for elective surgical—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday you asked me to leave the Chamber in respect of a question to the Minister of Justice about New Zealand First and what reports had been received. I simply ask for a little bit of consistency. You ruled on that occasion that it was not appropriate to ask the Minister of Justice a question on what reports he had received about New Zealand First in respect of the electoral law before the House. Why is there a change of rules today—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. I thank the member. I recall the matter clearly; it was a matter of ministerial responsibility. The Minister had no ministerial responsibility, another Minister did, and I ruled accordingly. Would the Minster please address the question.

Yes. I have had many reports in response to regionally issued statements from National’s Tony Ryall. All of these reports said that first specialist assessments for elective surgical services had dropped drastically. The feedback from district health boards has been very interesting. A few pointed out that Mr Ryall had his facts wrong; one was able to point out that Mr Ryall had his facts wrong again. But of all the rebuttals heaped on National’s head, my favourite comes from the Canterbury District Health Board, which said that rather than counting the number of first specialist assessments, it measures efficiency and quality of service. It went on to say that the 100 percent increase in the number of hips and knees replaced in Canterbury since 2004 has been achieved with a reduced number of first specialist assessments being required. We can see that more surgery means less assessment. Mr Ryall continues to find fault at a time when elective surgical services are at an all-time high since reliable reporting began.

Te Puni Kōkiri—Confidence

12. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he have confidence in Te Puni Kōkiri; if so, why?

Yes, I have confidence in Te Puni Kōkiri because the employees are hard-working and conscientious.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Has Te Puni Kōkiri received the final report from its internal investigation into its underspend from the last financial year; if so, will the Minister release that report to the public?

The variance reported in the Te Puni Kōkiri annual report in respect of the Māori Potential Fund, the non-departmental expenditure, is not an underspend. This funding was reprioritised during Budget 2007 for initiatives to be undertaken during 2007-08, and expense transfers of $3.6 million into 2007-08 were approved to fund Māori wardens’ development and the extension to the Treaty 2U touring exhibition.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what forward-looking work Te Puni Kōkiri has undertaken to help realise Māori potential?

Along with Te Puni Kōkiri, I recently launched a publication—Ngā Kaihanga Hou—for Māori future makers. This publication presents research that explores the key drivers of future change in the global economy, the current position of Māori in the economy, and what needs to be done now to position Māori for optimal success in the future. Those key things are encouraging Māori into growth and strategic industries, increasing export growth and participation, improving the qualification base for Māori, promoting higher levels of entrepreneurship, and nurturing innovation.

💬 Dr Pita Sharples: What advice did Te Puni Kōkiri give the Minister to announce on TV3 last Thursday that Tame Iti is not a terrorist, and does he stand by his comment: “I have known Tame Iti for a long time as a friend and whatever else, and I think he’s an aging rocker.”?

My ministry gave me no advice. That comment was a true comment on my affiliation with Tame Iti.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Can the Minister confirm that Te Puni Kōkiri has put all future funding of community organisations on hold and is directing those organisations it would normally fund to other Government ministries, all because after 2 years of not bidding for an increase, it underspent on last year’s budget?

In addition, an in-principle expense transfer in 2007-08 of up to $4 million was approved to fund cross-agency partnered interventions. Those interventions are certainly in relation to strengthening issues around young people and those who are socially disadvantaged. Certainly, at the moment, if one looks at Gisborne one sees that in 1999 there were 2,007 unemployed youths in the age band of 18 to 20-year-olds and that now there is one unemployed youth. That is the sort of advance that people are making. Across the board, the unemployment rate has dropped. Of those people on unemployment benefits, 80.6 percent have removed themselves. That is the sort of work that Te Puni Kōkiri encourages.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What advice does the Minister have for those community organisations that have applied for assistance but been told to go somewhere else to find help, because there is no money at Te Puni Kōkiri?

If that member dares to come over and sit down with me I will show him that there is finance that is prudently managed. Audit New Zealand said: “We found the systems put in place to administer and distribute NDOE appropriations to be robust. The basis for our assessing the new systems as robust is as follows: … we consider that the introduction of contract advisers in the regional offices adds an extra level of quality assurance in the contract awarding and monitoring processes employed by TPK.”

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I seek leave to table a letter from a community organisation that states that there is not any money to be had.

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

💬 Dr Pita Sharples: What advice has the Minister received from Te Puni Kōkiri to respond to yesterday’s media statement from the Montreal Maori Solidarity Committee: “We strongly oppose New Zealand’s bid for a place on the UN Human Rights Council for its clear suppression of the legitimate rights to dissent, and for the ongoing violent repression of Māori people. We demand that New Zealand government release those arrested and apologize to the Tuhoe.”?

I would like to remind the member that this country has one of the best sets of race relationships. There is tension in that, certainly, but it is not new; it has come through. If we are serious about nationhood, then we should not be putting us asunder to test that, just for the sake of it. A whole lot of rubbish is being talked about on this issue at the moment.