Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yesterday the Government announced the Fresh Start packages. These programmes will work with young offenders and give opportunities to those in disadvantaged, high-need communities. There will be a total of 2,957 Fresh Start package places, and 30,600 for Break Away school holiday programmes. This is in addition to the Government’s Youth Opportunities package, which will give 16,900 young New Zealanders education, training, and employment options.

💬 Chester Borrows: What response has the Minister seen to these announcements?

The responses have been very positive from those people who are involved in working with young people. The Chief Judge of the Youth Court, Judge Becroft, said it was a clear signal that the Government means business in working with at-risk young people across the board. There were a number of other comments that have been very positive as well, and I would have thought that the whole of Parliament could get behind programmes that will provide opportunities for young people who need them.

💬 Sue Bradford: What evidence does the Minister have that sending young offenders to military-style boot camps does any good at all from any point of view, especially given that virtually every single submitter to the Social Services Committee on this topic advised strongly against going down this route?

It is striking that some of our social policy establishment have apparently analysed boot camps for their effectiveness very closely, but have never analysed whether any other programme works. The evidence is pretty clear that it is the follow-up from those military-style programmes that makes the difference, and the Government’s announcement follows the evidence.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Will the Minister amend any part of her boot camp proposals based on feedback from the public via the select committee, given that yesterday she announced the pilot and committed funding before the committee had had the chance to report back?

The Government will analyse the feedback from the young people who go on these courses, because it is what happens to them that matters, not some theoretical debate from people who are not involved with the programmes.

💬 Chester Borrows: What are the details of the Prime Minister’s Youth Programme?

The Prime Minister’s Youth Programme will reward 100 young people who have made positive life changes. We will be asking communities to nominate young people who have made the effort to turn their lives around. If they stay out of trouble, they will be eligible for this inspirational programme at the end of next January. These young people will get to spend time with and work with well-known New Zealanders, such as All Blacks, members of the Warriors, netball players, and hip-hop artists.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Did the Minister ask the select committee to delay the report back of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill, which included many of the announcements she made just yesterday; if so, why?

No.

Health Care—Policy

3. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?

Despite the fact that the previous Government left the current Government with $160 million of unfunded health services and stripped $150 million out of the health budget pre-election, yes.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: How come the Minister thinks that small primary health organisations like the one in Ōtaki cannot deliver better, sooner, more convenient health care, when it has managed to get main services for local people under one roof; enrolled almost the entire population, including 100 percent of Māori residents; and won awards for its innovative services; and has managed to do all that for meeting fees of $1,300 per year—not the $1,800 per meeting that he has been claiming small primary health organisations get, just in order to undermine them?

First of all, the premise on which that member asks his question is incorrect.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: No, it’s not.

If members read the question, they will find out that it is. This Government is very keen to achieve the full vision of the Primary Health Care Strategy. As the Hon Pete Hodgson said in 2006, other than cheaper doctors’ visits and the formation of 82 primary health organisations, very little was achieved by the previous Government with the Primary Health Care Strategy.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What recent reports has the Minister had in relation to progressing his goal of more convenient health care?

I have received a number of reports on people’s views on progressing sooner, more convenient health care. In fact, one of the reports that focus on better health care is the release of the Surgical Safety Checklist at Parliament this morning. I am advised that last year 19 New Zealand patients were either operated on on the wrong side, or got the wrong operation. That is unacceptable. So this morning I joined clinicians in New Zealand to launch the Surgical Safety Checklist, developed by the World Health Organization, and including New Zealand clinicians. It is a set of questions surgical teams ask before and after an operation, much like a pre-flight aeroplane check, and it is already saving lives.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: If the Minister believes in better, sooner, more convenient health care, why is he allowing youth health centres like 198 Youth Health Centre in Christchurch, which sees 3,700 young people per year, to face closure due to a lack of funding?

We have been in touch with the Canterbury District Health Board about that issue. It advised us that it has been funding those young people involved twice. The youth centre will no longer receive a lump sum of funding per annum; it will now operate, I am advised, like a normal primary health organisation with a capitation basis. The funding change is expected to free up resources for the front line.

💬 Moana Mackey: How will Tairāwhiti District Health Board’s cutting of eight services, including transport assistance for rural patients, result in better, sooner, and more convenient health care for the people of Tai Rāwhiti?

Those facts would have to be checked, because in the House on Tuesday that member’s colleague got up and said that when one compares December with May, one sees that 12 percent of people were waiting longer for a first specialist assessment. If the member had compared it with June, she would have found that people were waiting for less time.

💬 Su’a William Sio: How will nurses and doctors find time to do the photocopying, answer the phone, and file papers when the staff doing that work at Middlemore Hospital, one of the busiest hospitals in the country, lose their jobs?

It is quite clear that the Government is determined that we should have less administrative overhead in the New Zealand public health system. Under the previous Labour Government, the number of managers and administrators in the public health system grew from 8,000 to 10,500. This Government would rather move the resources to support doctors and nurses on the front line, and improve services for patients.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What is more convenient for the people of Timaru who have been told that all their general practitioners have closed their books to new patients, at the same time as Timaru Hospital has cut 5,000 visits per year to its accident and emergency department?

It is my understanding that South Canterbury general practitioners closed their books to new patients under the previous Government. We have inherited a situation whereby in many ways there are no more general practitioners practising in New Zealand today than there were in 2000. It is quite clear that Timaru Hospital cannot turn away 5,000 patients. The hospital wants to work more constructively with primary care, so that many of those people can receive care better, sooner, and more convenient, closer to home.

💬 Moana Mackey: For the Minister’s benefit, I seek leave to table an article from the Gisborne Herald outlining the services that are to be cut.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Of what date?

💬 Moana Mackey: It is dated 22 August 2009.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an article from a newspaper dated 22 August of this year. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

Māori Training Providers—Cuts to Training Opportunities Programmes

4. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What support is being offered to Māori training providers to remain viable, following cuts to the Training Opportunities Programmes?

on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education: Funding for the Training Opportunities Programme was reduced by the previous Labour Government in Budget 2008 from around $86 million to around $78 million. This has reduced the overall number of places available in 2010. All providers, including Māori training providers, have only recently been given their indicative funding allocation for 2010, so questions of viability support are premature. Their indicative allocations are based on an assessment of provider performance in 2008 against labour market outcomes and student attendance. If providers do not agree with their indicative funding allocation, they are able to seek a review of their allocation.

💬 Rahui Katene: What support can be provided to Dunedin’s Arai Te Uru Kōkiri Training Centre, the only registered Māori training provider left between Christchurch and Invercargill, which has run a very successful chef training level 3 programme for the last 11 years with Skill Enhancement funding, which is not eligible for Youth Guarantee funding, and which is likely to lose up to 20 percent of its funded places?

In respect of training opportunities, I am advised that overall allocations are made in a way that ensures good coverage across the country. With regard to an individual provider, the Minister for Tertiary Education is barred by section 159J of the Education Act 1989 from interfering with funding allocations for individual providers. The Tertiary Education Commission makes these decisions on the basis of past performance.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: How does the Minister expect not only the kōkiri centre referred to by my colleague in the previous supplementary question but also the Pathfinders programme in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, which is also known for the successful provision of training to young Māori, to continue, when not only the Skill Enhancement programme—which upholds the kōkiri centre—but also the Pathfinders scholarships funding has been axed?

As I said in answer to the previous supplementary question, section 159J of the Education Act bars the Minister from getting involved in funding decisions regarding individual providers. If providers are not happy with their indicative funding allocation, there are established procedures to seek a review. That is as far as the Minister can go.

💬 Rahui Katene: When they have taken these steps what support can be provided to, for example, Te Atatu Tu Tangata Academy, which was founded by June Māriu in 1982, and which has had to close its Training Opportunities Programme course after its 33 places were cut to six, leaving only one remaining Māori provider in central Auckland?

With regard to training opportunities in Auckland, I am advised there are still 677 places available in central Auckland next year. With regard to the individual provider, I am advised that the Minister for Tertiary Education is barred by section 159J of the Education Act from interfering with funding allocations for individual providers. The Tertiary Education Commission makes these decisions on the basis of past performance.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a compendium of statements from Wairoa College, Ōpōtiki College, Kawerau College, and others, lamenting the loss of the Pathfinders scholarships, and the risk that that poses to young Māori.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Land Transport—Investment

5. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What investments have been announced today in New Zealand’s land transport network?

I am very pleased to inform the House that today the Government announced an $8.7 billion programme of investment in the New Zealand land transport network by the New Zealand Transport Agency that will be managed through the National Land Transport Programme for 2009 to 2012. It is the largest land transport investment in New Zealand’s history. It also represents a 17 percent increase, or $1.4 billion increase, on the previous 3-year period, and is a crucial milestone in securing New Zealand’s future growth and productivity.

💬 David Bennett: What are some of the highlights of the 2009 to 2012 National Land Transport Programme?

This excellent document records a number of highlights. Over the next 3 years $4.6 billion will be invested in building and maintaining the State highway network; that is a nearly 20 percent increase. There will be a $1.9 Crown investment in local roads, which is a 14 percent increase, and a $900 million investment in key urban public transport networks, which is a 21 percent increase and is in addition to the $1.85 billion capital investment the Government is supporting into the Auckland and Wellington rail networks. The Government believes land transport plays a pivotal role in underpinning the economic performance of this country. This investment will help drive long-term economic growth through improvements to key freight and tourism routes, access to markets, journey times, and easing severe congestion.

💬 David Bennett: What progress will the National Land Transport Programme see on the roads of national significance?

Within the National Land Transport Programme, priority has been given to advancing the Government’s seven roads of national significance. It will improve access and safety within and through New Zealand’s largest cities. Around $1.36 billion will be invested in those vital routes over the next 3 years. Priorities include completing the Victoria Park project; advancing the western ring route with construction on the first stage of the Waterview Connection; the Waikato Expressway; getting work on the Te Rauparaha bypass under way this year; construction of the Rangiriri and Ngāruawāhia sections; construction on the Tauranga Eastern Motorway, subject to tolling approval; and construction of the Christchurch southern motorway extensions.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: If the Minister plans to spend an increased amount on building roads, knows that there is a projected rapid growth in freight movement, and is floating ideas to allow heavier, longer, and wider trucks on our roads, how does freezing the spending on the maintenance of roads in years 2 and 3 of this plan make any sense at all?

The New Zealand Transport Agency has taken a view to not allow cost pressures to be passed on automatically in years 2 and 3 of the programme. The economic environment has changed, there is a lowering of cost pressures in most categories of the programme, and the agency is quite entitled to expect continuing improvements in efficiency. The other side of the House will not be familiar with the concept, but it is called value for money.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: What percentage in ticket price increases for public transport passengers does the Minister expect given the plan announced today is funded for patronage at current levels and does not allow for cost escalations, meaning that all the cost of public passenger growth—and in Auckland alone it is the highest in 20 years—will be falling on the travelling public?

I do not accept the member’s proposition on public transport revenue growth, but I can tell him that, unlike the previous Government, we will expect a fair box policy to be developed in the process of applying for public transport funds. That seems only reasonable and appropriate.

Question No. 2 to Minister—Amended Answer

I seek leave to correct an answer I gave earlier. I am advised that the Hon Paula Bennett did write to the select committee chair in June or July, asking for the report back to be delayed.

Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill—Consultation

6. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What consultation did she undertake in preparation for the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill?

on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education: The Minister met with representatives of Institutes of Technology and Polytechs of New Zealand, and representatives of the Metropolitan Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics group. The Minister has also had discussions with individual polytechnic chief executives, chairs, and councils.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Did the Minister consider approaching the Eastern Institute of Technology, as a well-run polytech that has never been in difficulty, for advice on how a well-run institution manages and whether a cut in council numbers was desirable; if not, why not?

The Minister has consulted widely on this matter and made determinations that are reflected in the current Government position.

💬 Allan Peachey: What reports has the Minister received of members of Parliament seeking to interfere with the decisions of tertiary education institutions?

The Minister has seen a report about the intended building upgrade at Aoraki Polytechnic in Timaru. The report says that one member of Parliament has stated “she would visit Aoraki Polytech next month and would then decide if the upgrade was necessary.” That member of Parliament is Maryan Street. It is not currently possible for the Minister for Tertiary Education to intervene in this way. It is clearly Labour policy that Maryan Street should be able to intervene in this way.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Would the Minister, even now, consider consulting model polytechnics about their recipe for success; and if the presence of more representative groups on councils is desirable, in their experience, would she consider amending her legislation accordingly?

The bill is currently before a select committee. The Minister will, of course, be interested in submissions to that select committee.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Is the Minister saying by that answer, which was a bit indeterminate, that it does not matter what submitters to the Education and Science Committee say about representation on polytechnic councils because she will not be listening to any views that differ from her own?

No.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a letter from Robert Anderson of Hastings, who is a member of the Eastern Institute of Technology council, published in the Dominion Post this morning, saying that the Minister does not want to talk to successful councils.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a letter that has been published in the newspaper. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

Crimes Act, Section 59—Operational Tolerances

7. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Who decides what the operational tolerances are when deciding whether to investigate or prosecute people for smacking children?

I am advised that the attending and/or investigating officer decides whether to prosecute people for smacking children. Operational tolerances are outlined in the Police Practice Guide for New Section 59, in relation to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007, and the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines.

💬 John Boscawen: What advice would the Minister give to members of the New Zealand Police who are confused by a law that forbids a smack for the purposes of correction and by a Prime Minister who has expressly told the police to ignore that law?

That would be an operational matter, but I have to say that good advice would be to follow the police guidelines that I outlined in my answer to the primary question.

💬 John Boscawen: How can we expect the public to take the law seriously when the Prime Minister tells the police to disregard it?

I do not believe that the Prime Minister made any such statement. I believe that the Prime Minister takes this issue extremely seriously, and I think that any reflection on police practice and Child, Youth and Family practice will show that the law has been working.

Questions for Oral Answer—Answers on Behalf of Minister of Labour

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by all answers to supplementary questions given on her behalf in the House yesterday; if not, which were not accurate?

Yes.

💬 Carol Beaumont: How does the Minister reconcile her statement to the Auckland District Law Society that her reason for not attending a National Distribution Union executive meeting was diary clashes, with a message to the union secretary, left by the Minister’s staff member, saying that the Minister would not attend, because the risks of attending were too high given that another union had been involved in strike action against Telecom?

There was obviously some confusion in my office. I will take responsibility for that, because I actually believe in good employment relationships and I believe in backing my employers. But, at the end of the day, it was a diary clash.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member made a mistake. I am not trying to be disruptive. I think she meant “employees”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the member cannot do that!

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Where was the Minister between 10 o’clock and 11 o’clock yesterday morning?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister is happy to answer the question, she can, but I am not sure about its direct relationship to the primary question.

I was in Auckland. I was at a meeting that involved one of my other ministerial portfolios.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who decides whether the Minister cancels meetings—her or her staff?

The decision to reprioritise my diary was mine.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did the person who left the message on the Minister’s behalf tell the National Distribution Union that the risks of her attending the meeting were too high?

Unfortunately the department did advise that there were some risks, but, as I said, there was confusion in my office. I find it really disappointing that a union that stands for protecting employees and employees’ rights is prepared to drag one of my staff through the media just as a political ploy for the Labour Party.

Question time interrupted.