Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Yes.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, which said last week that his statement that “National will have policies that reflect the fact that living on a diet of carbon will be increasingly bad—bad for the world and bad for our economy.” has not been followed through by his action in Government, and that his promises are ringing hollow; if not, why not?

No. The reason is that the Government is hopeful that by the time of the Copenhagen conference at the end of the year we will have on the books probably the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme of any developed country—a medium-term target and a long-term target. And we will be addressing the rise in greenhouse gas emissions—something the Labour Government in its 9 years did a lot of talking about but did absolutely nothing towards addressing.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that he would “turbocharge” the work of community groups such as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society; if so, why is the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society saying that opportunities for talks on environmental concerns have been rare, they have found his door firmly closed since the election, and even now, nearly a year later, no date has been confirmed for a meeting with him?

Yes, I stand by my statement. I am more than happy to meet with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. In fact, from time to time I have seen its representatives. When the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society does come to see me, as I am sure it will, in the latter part of the year, it will say that it was a disgrace that Labour let emissions rise by 24 percent over the time it was in Government.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “Government policy decisions over the next few years will have consequences … not just for the next 10 or 20 years but for the next 50 and beyond. So it’s vital we get them right.”; if so, is that why, under his emissions trading scheme, the big emitters will still be receiving about a third of their taxpayer subsidy to pollute at the end of the century?

Yes, I stand by the statement. The design of the emissions trading scheme is such that it addresses, I think, that finely balanced position between economic growth and environmental responsibility. I point out to the member that if the result of an emissions trading scheme is simply to send large polluters offshore where their polluting is much more damaging for the environment, that is not helping anybody.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that “New Zealanders are sick of worrying about the surging levels of violent crime in New Zealand. We are not going to put up with it”; if so, how does he account for the 7 percent increase in violent crime in the previous financial year, the majority of which occurred under a National Government and on his watch?

Yes, I do. When the Government announced last year the most comprehensive response to the P problem in this country, I was somewhat surprised that we did not get the support of the Labour Party. Well, I am not actually surprised, because in 9 years Labour did absolutely nothing about that problem. When it comes to talking tough, Clayton Cosgrove talked tough about boy racers, but when legislation is before the House to do something about it, he runs for the hills faster than the boy racers drive.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “the Pike River underground coalmine near Greymouth was an example of modern mining practices that had minimal impact on the landscape”; if so, is he proud of the fact that the Pike River Coal mine has received not one but two fines for environmental pollution in the last few months and it has not even started producing coal yet?

Yes, I do stand by that statement. If Pike River Coal has caused problems, then it needs to rectify those. I point out that the concession it got on the Department of Conservation estate was granted by Labour, the party that Sue Bradford wanted to be in coalition with, even if others in the Greens did not.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “protection of the public should be the most important consideration”; if so, does he think that fewer police cars, fewer police in parts of New Zealand, budget reprioritisation, and a reduction in police training could account for the decrease in the protection of the community evidenced by the police taking longer to answer priority one calls—the most serious of all calls—since his Government was elected; if not, why not?

If a Government has ever tried to address the issue of violent crime, the rise in crime, and the protection of New Zealanders, it is this Government. It is this Government that is adding 600 extra police—300 of them going to South Auckland. It is this Government that is putting more funding into the police service then ever before in the history of New Zealand. It is this Government that has had a busy legislative programme across a number of areas, from Tasers to DNA, right through to changes in parole.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: More crime!

If the Labour Opposition wants to do something about protecting New Zealanders, rather than just twittering on about it in Parliament, it should support the Government’s moves to rid out streets of methamphetamine—something Labour did nothing about when it was in Government, and does not want to do much about when it is in Opposition.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “Modern mining is quite different from what we have seen in the past. Old-fashioned mining techniques did leave a scar on the landscape, modern mining techniques are quite different”; if so, is he proud of the fact that Oceana Gold’s new goldmine on Department of Conservation land regularly receives fines for environmental pollution, but finds it cheaper to pay them and keep on polluting?

Yes, I stand by the statement. The fact that that company is fined or gets caught shows the system is actually working.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that “My style is to be open and transparent and take people with me.”; if so, why did he not disclose the fact that NZ On Air had carried out a second investigation into his member of Parliament Melissa Lee, that she needed to pay back $80,000 of taxpayers’ money, and that his Minister of Broadcasting had known about the seriousness of the situation and had concealed the information since August; and why did it take the media to disclose that matter, if his style is so open and transparent?

I certainly would describe my style as open and transparent. Anybody who read the statement put out by NZ On Air when it was looking at the spurious allegation made by Labour would have seen that NZ On Air made it quite clear that it was looking at some other, technical issues. Although it is true that 2 weeks ago my office was made aware that there were some other issues, I was not personally made aware of that until I saw it on the news last night. Maybe that reflects badly on NZ On Air, which thinks that the way that it should respond to these things is by leaking them to the Labour Party, without having the courtesy of sending the letter in the first place to Melissa Lee.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau. Ki te Pirimia, ko taku pātai e pēnei ana: kei te whakaae ia ki tōnā ake kōrero “It is important that Mr English is focused on the critical decisions he needs to make for New Zealanders …”, mēnā āe, ki tōna nei whakaaro, he take tukituki tā Mr English nā runga i tāna noho hai Minitā Tiaki mō Pouaka Whakaata Māori engari, kua tuku moni ki tono kē ahakoa ko ia te Minita mō te Pūtea, ahakoa anō hoki, he hōhonu ake ōnā mōhiotanga e pā ana ki te tono o Whakaata Māori?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us all. To the Prime Minister, my question is as follows: does he stand by his statement that “It is important that Mr English is focused on the critical decisions he needs to make for New Zealanders …”; if so, does he believe that there is a conflict of interest for Mr English, who is a shareholding Minister for Māori Television yet, as Minister of Finance, has given money to another bid to broadcast the Rugby World Cup while at the same time knowing the details of the Māori Television bid?]

 Hon JOHN KEY: There a number of things. Yes, I do think it is important that the Minister of Finance is focused on the critical issues. The second point is that the Minister of Finance has not given money to an alternative bid; that is an important point. The third thing is that I think we could all acknowledge that the process of bidding for, and deciding on, Rugby World Cup free-to-air broadcasting has been less than perfect, and National accepts its responsibility as part of that.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Kei te whakaae ia ki tōna ake kōrero “It is important that Mr English is focused on the critical decisions he needs to make for New Zealanders …”; mēnā āe, e tika ana kia whakarahi ake a Mr English i te pūtea tono a Television New Zealand kia reka ake ai ki tērā o Te Pouaka Whakaata Māori ki te pāho i te Kapu o te Ao, ā, nā tērā kua noho ngoikore tā Pouaka Whakaata Māori tono?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Does he agree with the statement “It is important that Mr English is focused on the critical decisions he needs to make for New Zealanders …”; if so, is it appropriate for Mr English to increase Television New Zealand’s funding bid to broadcast the Rugby World Cup so that it is more appealing than the bid by Māori Television and makes it inadequate?] 

Yes, it is important that Mr English is focused on the big issues. I restate the point I made earlier that at this stage the Government has not put extra money into a bid by Television New Zealand. I think it has been the genuine desire of the Minister of Finance to see Māori Television and Television New Zealand work together to achieve a successful outcome, so that all New Zealanders can view those 16 games on a free-to-air basis.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave of the House to table two documents that are representative of a series of documents that are about infringement notices. The first is from the West Coast Regional Council, and it is an infringement notice to Pike River Coal for discharging coal fines into Big River on 16 June 2009.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

💬 Dr Russel Norman: The second document is another infringement notice from the West Coast Regional Council, dated 15 March 2007, to Oceana Gold Ltd for its discharging a contaminant into fresh water.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Economy—Performance

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s economic performance?

In recent weeks a number of reports have confirmed early signs of a pick-up in business and consumer confidence. For instance, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s October survey of business opinion, and the National Bank’s National Business Outlook, confirm that most companies expect better times ahead. We have yet to see whether this upsurge in confidence will translate into more investment and more jobs.

💬 Craig Foss: How will this pick-up in economic and business confidence flow through to jobs and growth?

In the first place, it could well take some time. These are indications that the economy has stopped contracting, and promising signs that it may start growing. However, unemployment is likely to increase for a number of months yet. In fact, most economists forecast that it will increase well into next year. All of these businesses will need a Government that is creating the best possible environment so that they are willing to invest and create new jobs, because 60,000 people are on the dole.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister therefore agree with statements that there is an opportunity for a once-in-a-generation reorientation of the tax system and that substantial economic reform is required, supported by fiscal consolidation far greater than outlined in the Budget—the proposal for a flat-tax system that was included in papers that he signed and delivered to Cabinet?

I think there has been a misreading of those papers. In fact, there is nothing in them about flat tax. There is advice in them about aligning tax rates. Treasury has been telling Ministers of Finance for years that there is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and they have to take it.

💬 Craig Foss: What feedback has the Minister received on the New Zealand economy from overseas investors?

The Government is working with overseas investors because over the next 4 years we have to borrow about $40 billion. The indications are that those investors are positive about the New Zealand economy. Although we think that we are not performing that well, compared with many other developed countries our economy is coming out of this recession stronger than many others.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister favour the flat-tax proposal he took to Cabinet, which was rejected by the Prime Minister this morning; if not, why did he not rule it out last night when asked about it by reporters?

There was no flat-tax proposal. I never took it to Cabinet, and I have ruled it out.

💬 Craig Foss: What other comments has the Minister seen about the Government’s role in supporting the economy?

I saw a comment that reads: “We cannot simply wish away the implications of reduced taxes or rising debt. We must insist on value for money from the public sector. The state must play its part in stewarding limited budgets and targeting resources to those who need them most.” I agree with those comments, which came from David Cunliffe just before Budget 2009.

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 facts that the previous Labour Government left the new Government with $160 million of unfunded services to pay for, around $600 million of capital projects with little money set aside for, and also quietly stripped $150 million out of Vote Health before the election, yes.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How is the Minister’s health regime more convenient for 83-year-old Jim Chalmers, who gave over 30 years’ service to his community as a volunteer fireman, and who is now having his 2 hours a week of home help cut, forcing him to clean his shower with his foot? How is that more convenient?

I think the member is referring to changes within the Canterbury District Health Board. I spoke with the chairman of that board, Mr Alister James, and he assured me that no money has been cut from home help by the Canterbury District Health Board. In fact, more money will be spent this year as part of the district health board’s efforts to support more older people to stay independently in their homes for longer. Mr James also assured me that no one will be unsafe or unable to stay in his or her own home as a result of the current review.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: If maintaining elderly New Zealanders in their own homes instead of rest homes is part of the National Government’s home-care strategy, how does it help for the Canterbury District Health Board to halve from 2 hours to 1 hour the home help for a 90-year-old in my electorate, with the advice given to her to buy a carpet sweeper to clean one room in her home each day if she is not able to use the vacuum cleaner?

As I said, the chairman of the district health board assured me that it will be spending more money this year on home help. The Canterbury District Health Board is reviewing the amount of long-term home care that many of its people get. So far, 800 people have been assessed, of whom 60 are receiving more home help hours as a result of that. On the other hand, as part of the review it has been found that there are cases of people who have been receiving support that they are not entitled to. Mr James told me of one case of a person being paid for home help for looking after elderly parents at home, despite the fact that the last of those two parents had passed away 2 years earlier.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How is the Minister’s health regime more convenient for the 5,019 injured people who have had their accident compensation scheme surgery cut and who are now joining the health-funded surgery waiting list at their local hospital, at the same time as the accident compensation scheme has cut $60 million from the health surgical budget?

I am not responsible for the accident compensation budget, but I can tell the member that it has, I think, funded an additional 7 percent of elective surgery this year.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: What recent reports has the Minister received in relation to the delivery of health services to communities in need?

I have received a report today that New Zealand’s health response to the tsunami in Samoa is now moving to the recovery phase. Plans are in place to determine the ongoing support that will be required to strengthen the health system in Samoa as people there gradually return to business as usual. The public health service is continuing to rotate staff up to Samoa, and this will continue for some weeks. Although the demand for acute and emergency surgery has decreased, public health staff report that around 100 to 130 people in Samoa are still being seen each day by health teams working in field clinics. Ongoing wound care and plastic surgery continue to keep hospital staff very busy, and we are very grateful to the many volunteers in the public health service who are helping out there.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How is the Minister’s health regime better for the 25,000 people in Whangarei who will now be denied affordable doctors’ fees because of his changes in the rules for subsidies?

The Government has actually increased the budget for the very low-cost access and under-sixes subsidy by $10.9 million this year, bringing it to a total of $49 million. The very low-cost access component of capitation was increased by 14 percent last month and that was backdated to 1 July. That certainly will improve access for many New Zealanders, in addition to the extra $30 million of general practitioner subsidies that are being funded this year.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the editorial from the Press yesterday, describing the home help cuts for the elderly as “pain and worry”?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an editorial from the Press yesterday. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table an article from the Northern Advocate that confirms a doctor’s view that cheap visits to general practitioners will now end for—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an article from the Northern Advocate. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Contaminated Sites—Support for Liability Regime

4. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he support a liability regime for the assessment and clean-up of toxic sites that is both fair and clearly defined?

The current law is clear that the responsibility lies with landowners, and generally that is fair. For old sites, there may be a need for reform, and this is one of the issues the Government is considering as part of the second phase of the Resource Management Act reforms.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Will the Minister implement an amendment to the Resource Management Act, proposed in 1999 by the Minister for the Environment, Simon Upton, that included an innocent-landowner defence for owners of toxic sites who were not responsible for, or aware of, that pollution?

There was quite a lot of policy work, in which I was also involved, in the 1990s as to whether the contaminated-site liability regime could be improved. That work came to an end and no work has been done over the last 9 or 10 years. I am open to revisiting that work. If the Green Party would like to work with the Government on revisiting the issue of some of those old sites and the liability laws, I would be very open to that.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Will the Minister also support the addition of identifiable polluters to the list of liable parties for the cost of assessment and clean-up of contaminated sites, as proposed by the Ministry for the Environment and Simon Upton 10 years ago?

Yes, that could have some merit. One of the difficulties is that many of the companies that were involved at the time were actually obeying the laws of the time. A further issue is that few of the companies that then existed and that might have been responsible for the pollution actually exist now. So one of the tests when we look at the reforms is whether we are going to find some pockets that can contribute to these clean-ups. I would need to be convinced that it will be practical to justify the law change, and that is one of the issues the officials are looking at.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister agree that coherent national standards for soil contamination clean-up are essential; if so, when will his ministry provide these?

Primary responsibility for managing contaminated sites rests with regional councils. As I have said previously to the member, the Government does not intend to change that. There are some very large sites, and over the adjournment I went to the Tui Mine clean-up, where some sites are of the scale the Government should supply support to through the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. It is really for only those very large and significantly contaminated sites that central government needs to get in and give regional councils a help.

Crime, Violent—Government Actions

5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement that “the government has taken prompt action to crack down on violent crime.”?

Yes. Since entering Government less than a year ago, we have provided almost $200 million for extra police, and we have introduced, progressed, or passed 10 bills aimed at making New Zealand safer: the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill, plus eight others.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Is the Minister satisfied that her Government’s so-called prompt action to crack down on violent crime is working, given that the latest crime statistics show a 7 percent increase in recorded violent crime for the last financial year, including a 4.9 percent increase in the first 6 months alone of this year?

In fact, any increase in recorded violent crime is not acceptable. However, a 7 percent increase is significantly less than the 11.1 percent increase recorded the year before that. I ask that member to remember that half of that 7 percent increase was recorded under his Government.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister agree with her colleague Simon Power, who claimed that 54 murders in the 2007-08 financial year was an example of violence running wild under a Labour Government; if so, are the more than 62 murders in the first 9 months alone of this calendar year an example of violence out of control under the John Key - led National Government?

I think that is somewhat foolish, particularly given that half of those figures were actually recorded under the previous Labour Government. But I, like Mr Power, was appalled when Annette King, as Minister of Police, felt that violent crime had gone up under her watch all because of the sun and the moon. This Government blames criminals for crime; we do not blame the sun and the moon.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given the increase in the crime rate and the news that police are taking longer to respond to top-priority emergency calls, does the Minister now accept that the last thing the Police needs is a $21 million cut to its budget, the loss of 340 police vehicles, and the rationing of firearms training?

If only that were true. The Police has told that member time and time again that there was not a $21 million cut to its budget; I am sorry that he continues to try to undermine senior police in their statements. As for the firearms training, that is a fortuitous question because the firearms training review was started back in May 2007 when Mrs King was the Minister of Police.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Has the Minister seen any other reports commenting on the Government’s efforts to combat violent crime?

Yes, I have seen Mr Cosgrove’s press release commenting on the crime statistics for the year ended 30 June 2009, in which he appears to have forgotten yet again that his party was in Government for half of that year. He has also forgotten the 10 legislative steps taken, the $200 million extra provided in Budget 2009, and that he does not support this Government’s stand against P.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table the transcript of the testimony before the Law and Order Committee of the Commissioner of Police, in which he notes that cuts in the Police budget will indeed create greater risk than—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is the member seeking leave to table a transcript of a document received by a select committee?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yes, indeed. It is a public document that has been released.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thought that Parliament would eventually have access to such a document.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: With respect, I know your rulings on tabling documents almost off by heart, Mr Speaker. It is my right to table a document; I am seeking to table it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a transcript of evidence given to a select committee. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

Accident Compensation—Increase in Claims Costs

6. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for ACC: What has contributed to ACC’s reported financial result of a $4.8 billion loss for the 2008-09 year on top of the $2.4 billion loss for the 2007-08 year?

Total claims costs over the last 5 years have increased 57 percent—five times the inflation rate—growing from $2.2 billion to $3.6 billion, while investment returns were, unsurprisingly, down. Given the global recession, investment returns actually make up less than 20 percent of the losses. Although we are quite confident investment returns will recover to more normal rates, they make up only a fraction of the loss. The fundamental problem of the accident compensation scheme has been the huge increase in claims costs.

💬 David Bennett: Can the Minister confirm that the biggest single increase in claim costs was income compensation, which is up from $655 million in 2005 to $966 million in the 2008-09 year; if so, what changes contributed to this large increase?

Yes, the member is correct. The increase in income compensation can be attributed to deteriorations in rehabilitation rates and also to legislative changes. The previous Government changed the criteria for returning to work by requiring that a person’s previous income had to be considered, and it increased the threshold for work from 30 hours to 35 hours per week. It also changed the rules around income compensation for casual workers, part-time workers, and non-earners. All of this has added to the cost of income compensation. None of these changes were funded, and that contributed to last year’s $4.8 billion loss.

💬 David Bennett: Which Government decision during the last financial year has had an impact on the accident compensation scheme’s loss of $4.8 billion in the 2008-09 year?

In December the new Government provided a $300 million cash injection to address blowouts in the non-earners account. Without that cash injection the scheme’s losses would have been $5.1 billion. In August and October last year the previous Government introduced over a dozen additional entitlements. Extending the scheme at that time, when the accounts for the previous year to June had shown a loss of $2.4 billion, was unwise and has compounded this year’s deficit.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that accident and rehabilitation insurance costs in Australia are higher than in New Zealand even after adjusting for the different way motor vehicle accidents are funded; if so, why does he keep saying that New Zealand’s lower-cost accident compensation system is fundamentally broken?

When the scheme lost $4.8 billion in the last year and $2.4 billion in the previous year, it is a bit rich for the member to say that our levies are less, because quite simply our levies are not meeting the cost of claims. Over the last 4 years claim costs have gone up at five times the rate of inflation. If any members of this House believe that that is sustainable without levy increases, then they really are financially illiterate.

Accident Compensation—Proposed Legislative Changes

7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he agree with the reported statement from the Prime Minister which says “the public needed to tell the Government how much they wanted to pay in increased levies, compared with an extension of the scheme”?

Yes. I am advised by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board that increases in levies of the order of 50 percent or more would be required to fully fund the scheme, based on the current law and entitlements. Such levy increases are not tenable for families or businesses, so we are going to make changes to the law, to the regulations, and to the operations of the accident compensation scheme to make it affordable. There will be public consultation on the levies and on the legislative changes to entitlements.

💬 Hon David Parker: Why should New Zealanders have faith in that promised consultation process when restrictions on access to counselling for victims of serious sexual crimes, cuts to orthopaedic surgery, and cuts to home-based care are already being implemented in advance of any such consultation?

The consultation process on the sensitive claims in respect of counselling actually started over 2 years ago and was launched by Steve Maharey as a member in the previous Government. In respect of the changes in surgery, I would note that the amount of surgery funded by the accident compensation scheme being provided this year is higher than last year. The Government is committed to consulting with New Zealanders openly and honestly about the very difficult balance that we need to make between levy costs and in terms of entitlements.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What response does he have to the claim by Labour Party President, Andrew Little, that the board’s financial statements are false, that Mr John Judge’s statements about ACC’s financial difficulties are misleading, and that changes to the scheme are not required?

I would firstly note that ACC’s books last year, under Council of Trade Unions President Ross Wilson and the previous Labour Government, showed a loss of $2.4 billion. ACC’s claimed liabilities this year were calculated by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the same actuaries as for the year before. The numbers were then checked by the Department of Labour’s actuaries, Finity Consultants Pty Ltd. I also note that the $23.8 billion liability and the $4.8 billion loss have been signed off by the Auditor-General. Is Labour now telling the House that it distrusts PricewaterhouseCoopers and Finity Consultants, and also rejects the view of the Auditor-General? The real problem for the Labour Party is that it mismanaged ACC, that it is in a serious financial pickle, and this Government is trying to get it on to a sustainable financial path.

💬 Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree that cutting accident compensation entitlements and the scope of cover does not magically make those costs disappear but, rather, passes them to injured New Zealanders and to the health system, and in some cases in the future, to the criminal justice system?

Can I give the example of physiotherapists, where the previous Government made it free. It was not free. It resulted in a fivefold increase in the cost of physiotherapy. The point the member seems to miss is this: if physiotherapists are free—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s the same cost. Who paid it?

Ruth Dyson is the member who put it in place, and it was a mess. Ruth Dyson said that the physiotherapy changes were going to cost $10 million; they cost $100 million. Officials have advised me that there is absolutely no record to show there has been any improvement in the rehabilitation rates as a consequence. The simple answer, I say to Mr Parker, is that when there is a part charge it is my expectation that the growth rate in the use of physiotherapists will drop off.

💬 Hon David Parker: What steps has ACC taken to reduce home support costs for seriously injured New Zealanders, as was reported in the Dominion Post last week, and how does he reconcile that step already taken, with John Key’s promise to have a transparent conversation with New Zealanders before significantly reducing cover?

I think New Zealanders do understand that when ACC has made a loss of $4.8 billion in the last year, when its liabilities that are unfunded in just 4 years have grown by $13 billion, any responsible Government would be taking a more disciplined approach to its spending. Let me be very plain. Under the last Government, ACC’s costs were growing at five times the rate of inflation. This Government does not believe that that is financially sustainable.

💬 Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a transcript of an interview between John Key and Larry Williams where Mr Key says that there needs to be a conversation with New Zealanders before cutting—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What date is this?

💬 Hon David Parker: It is dated yesterday, I think—12 October.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A radio transcript, is it?

💬 Hon David Parker: Yes, a transcript of a radio interview.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a radio transcript of 12 October. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none.

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

Methamphetamine—Legislative Measures to Tackle P

8. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: What legislative measures is the Government taking to tackle P?

The Government has progressed, and is progressing, a range of legislative measures that will ensure the authorities have more tools than before to fight against the gangs and P. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, the Search and Surveillance Powers Bill, and the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill will assist in that regard. I am confident that these measures will help the authorities to gain the necessary tools to attack gangs and other organised crime syndicates that manufacture, supply, and distribute P.

💬 Chester Borrows: What are the unique characteristics of P use in New Zealand that have made dealing with methamphetamine a priority for the Government?

New Zealand has the third-highest reported use of methamphetamine in the world. This Government, led by the Prime Minister himself, has made getting rid of P a priority because it is wrecking lives, wrecking families, and fuelling crime.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What representation has he received from the Minister of Health about the cost of a doctor’s visit and the cost of a prescription charge, which will now be faced by older people in our communities—people who are not setting up a P lab but who have just a really bad cold?

The member can be assured that the Minister of Health has been heavily involved in the plan that was released by the Prime Minister in recent days. Frankly, I find it a bit odd that that member and Clayton Cosgrove have taken a view that seems to be opposed to tackling this awful drug.

💬 Su’a William Sio: How will the Government’s cutting of $3.57 million and more than 50 jobs from border control allow a greater focus on P at the border?

Although I do not have any responsibility for border control and the primary question relates to legislative matters in my area, I can tell the member that the Prime Minister has directed 40 border control officials in the New Zealand Customs Service into special work and task force groups in this particular area. I can assure him that recent gains made in this area by that organisation have been significant.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Release of Papers

9. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: On what basis did he select the papers on the changes to the emissions trading scheme to be included for release last Friday, 9 October 2009?

I did not select the papers; I asked officials to gather together and release all papers relevant to amendments to the emissions trading scheme, and it is my understanding that these have all been released, subject to normal Official Information Act conventions.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Why were full briefing papers not released, rather than just the cover notes to those briefings—for example, those dated 3 and 27 July on intensity-based allocation—and why have large excerpts from many papers been blanked out and marked “withheld”, without specifying the ground claimed for withholding the information?

There was a very large amount of information, which we tried to get out very quickly. Some sections have been withheld, and I will tell members what those two key areas were. The Government is in negotiations with the Australian Government—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: So the Minister did see the release!

Oh, get a life, Mr Cunliffe!

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been acknowledged; there will be silence.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Minister has seen fit to draw me into a discussion, it might be appropriate to indicate that the reason for asking the question is that the Minister himself—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He cannot use a point of order to litigate that kind of matter. If he interjects, he cannot be too upset if the Minister answering responds to the interjection.

Some parts that were subject to negotiation with Australia about bringing the New Zealand and Australian emissions trading schemes together were sensitive, for obvious reasons. Those negotiations are ongoing, and they have not all been released—

💬 Hon Annette King: They’re going nowhere.

The deputy leader of the Labour Party really is having difficulty. The second area where some documents were not disclosed was because this was Crown Law advice, and that has long been the convention.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Is the reason no Treasury papers were released that the Minister does not want taxpayers to see the Treasury modelling estimating that “If a 1.3 phase-out rate is maintained into the long term, the proposed policy settings for intensity-based allocation indicate a cumulative increase in Government debt of around 6 to 8 percent of GDP by 2050.”?

The problem that the member has is that he is making claims—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will resume his seat, right now. The member has asked a perfectly fair question about whether Treasury papers were released, and he seems to have some information about what might have been in the papers. The answer should not start with “The problem that the member has …”; the answer should start with the issue the member asked the Minister about.

The papers did include a very detailed table of Treasury’s analysis of the cost of changes to the emissions trading scheme. The problem for the member is that they do not back up the false claims he has made.

💬 Nicky Wagner: Did the papers released show any contradictions between advice from officials and public statements on the emissions trading scheme?

Yes, the papers showed that the costs of the scheme over its first decade are actually less for the taxpayer than they were under Labour’s scheme, despite repeated claims that have been made by the member opposite. The advice also contradicts claims that the Government’s changes mean that taxpayers will be subsidising industry for billions of dollars with the changed allocations to industry. In fact, officials’ advice is that allocations to industry are likely to be fewer than those provided in international agreements, and the Government is likely to have a surplus in years all the way through to 2050.

💬 Charles Chauvel: How does the Minister think that the public will be able to make proper and informed submissions on key aspects of the amendments to the emissions trading scheme, given that submissions close at 5 o’clock today, when they will have had exactly 1½ working days to consider officials’ advice and papers that have been released selectively, and so much vital information remains withheld?

I point out that the economic analysis on which the changes to the scheme are based was released over 3 months ago. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics report was released at a very early time. I make this further point to the member: is it not funny how times change? The papers analysing Labour’s emissions trading scheme were actually not made available until 2 months after submissions closed. At least under this Government the papers have been released in advance of that timetable.

Civil Defence and Emergency Management, Ministry—Response to Emergencies

10. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management responds effectively to civil defence emergencies?

The Government is committed to ensuring that New Zealand has in place the best possible civil defence and emergency management systems and support. Although overall the responses to the recent tsunami alerts were excellent, particularly on a regional level, there were some issues with communication. As a consequence I have today announced the terms of reference for an independent review of the civil defence response to the 30 September tsunami alert. The review will run alongside the ministry’s own comprehensive review of its operational response, and will primarily focus on how public information was managed. The review will be led by Dr Simon Murdoch, a former Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and is expected to be reported back by the end of this month.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What reports has the Minister received regarding civil defence responses in the regions?

I have had a wide range of positive reports regarding civil defence responses in the regions. One example was an email from Taupō Bay residents passing on a “well done” for the organised and professional way that the residents of the bay had been evacuated by local civil defence. It is also worth acknowledging the excellent work done by local civil defence groups in less high-profile events, such as during the Napier siege and during the recent central North Island snowstorms.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: When will the Government deploy the deep-sea buoys that the United States has already invested in, and Australia is about to, that are essential for detecting and measuring tsunamis at an early stage to ensure that civil defence can provide the public with accurate and reliable warnings?

The whole issue of warnings and alerts is part of a constant, ongoing review that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management and its director do. It is part of the ongoing development that has progressed over recent years, under both the previous administration and, certainly, this one.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What other steps are being taken to ensure that New Zealand is prepared for civil defence emergencies?

As important as it is to ensure that the Minister of Civil Defence responds effectively to disasters, the most critical thing to ensure community resilience is for people to be prepared themselves. The best example of this is Abby Wutzler, the 10-year-old girl who saved the lives of her family and others during the Samoa tsunami, after learning at school of the warning signs through the ministry’s “What’s the Plan Stan?” teaching resource. In light of this, it is Disaster Awareness Week this week, and people should take note of the key message “Get Ready Get Thru”. Being prepared for a disaster is simple: plan what one will do in an emergency and set aside some basic supplies of food, water, medicines, and other necessary items. I draw the House’s attention to this kit I am holding, which is to be taken to the supermarket. On it is a recipe for being prepared; it has all the ingredients that are needed in case of a disaster. I recommend it to every member of this House and to the public of New Zealand.

NZ On Air—Investigation into Asia Downunder

11. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Is he satisfied with the quality of the investigation by NZ On Air into the TV series Asia Downunder as reported on 21 May 2009; if so, why?

Yes; because I have confidence in the chair and chief executive officer of NZ On Air.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: How then does the Minister explain why the 21 May “not guilty” findings of the first inquiry were broadcast far and wide, but the findings of the 12 June inquiry showing a $100,000 rort were conveyed in only one letter, addressed personally to Melissa Lee?

I think the member would have to ask NZ On Air about that. I make the point that a $100,000 rort was not mentioned in that letter, and I think the member is misleading the House on that point.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Approximately how many times did the Minister meet NZ On Air in June, July, and August of this year?

That is a very silly question to put forward as an oral question. If the member wants to put it forward as a written question, I will quite happily give him the answer to it, because I can look in my diary and tell him.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that if it was a silly question you would not have allowed it. I remind you that I started my question by saying: “Approximately how many times …”. I was asking for a rough guess. That is not a silly question. It suggests that the Minister may want to give us an estimate.

I might just as well answer a question on the length of a piece of string—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the question is not absolutely specifically targeted at the primary question. However, it is related. I think it is not acceptable for the Minister to say that a question is a silly question. If the Minister does not have the information with him, then that is a perfectly acceptable answer. The member said “approximately”. It is not really acceptable to tell a member that a question is a silly question. I would like the Minister, please, to treat the House with a little more respect than that.

I cannot tell the member offhand, but I am quite happy to supply the answer as a written answer.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Minister meet with NZ On Air monthly, or is it more or less frequently than that?

Less.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think my point is a little obvious. If the answer to the question is yes, and the question was—

💬 Hon Members: Less.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There will not be interjections. I heard the answer as “Less.” The member asked whether the Minister met more or less frequently than once a month, and the Minister’s answer that I heard was “Less.”

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Minister believe the comment of his colleague Melissa Lee that she first found out about the misappropriation yesterday—12 October—when the letter from NZ On Air—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet.

💬 Melissa Lee: Idiot!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is totally unacceptable. I ask whoever made that interjection to stand, withdraw, and apologise for it, because the Speaker was on his feet and had called the questioner to order. I call Melissa Lee. I want to hear the withdrawal and apology.

💬 Melissa Lee: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. Now let me deal with this matter. I think the member asking the question needs to accept that the Minister is in no way responsible for any actions Melissa Lee may have taken. I invite him, since this is his last supplementary question, to reword that question to bring it within the Standing Orders.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Has the Minister received any advice from his officials as to why Melissa Lee said that her misappropriation was discovered by her only yesterday—12 October—when those same officials sent a letter personally addressed to her, dated 12 June?

I am sorry; can the member just restate the question?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat the question.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Has the Minister received any advice from his officials as to why his colleague Melissa Lee said that she first found out about the misappropriation yesterday on 12 October, when his officials signed off a letter to her dated 12 June telling her all about it?

No.

Accident Compensation—Policies

12. Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) to the Minister for ACC: Why is he persisting with many of the previous Government’s ACC policies at an “increasing” cost to the country, and when will he implement National’s policy of opening it up to competition?

Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. I ask the front benches of both main parties please to show a little more respect to this House. If they do not respect each other, they should show a little respect to the House.

The new Government will be reversing many of the previous Government’s scheme extensions that saw the Accident Compensation Corporation become a welfare agency rather than an accident insurer, and saw the scheme’s unfunded liability blow out from $4 billion to $13 billion over the last 4 years. We are delivering on our election policy of doing a stocktake, as announced in August. We are bringing in private-sector case managers to assist in the rehabilitation of long-term compensation recipients capable of working. We have deferred, to date, our policy of investigating opening up the work account to competition, as it is not a priority at present, given the scale of the immediate problems facing the scheme.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Why is the Minister so reluctant to introduce the declared policy of the National Party in 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008 of opening the work account to competition?

The member misrepresents the policy, which was very clear. It was that we would investigate competition in the work account. I point out to the member that actually the work account is in the least difficulty within the scheme. It is the motor vehicle account, the earners account, and the non-earners account that have had the multibillion-dollar problems. The Government, understandably, has wanted to focus on the problem where it is greatest.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Could the Minister explain to the House how it is equitable or efficient to load on to current employees and employers levies of up to 50 percent more than this year’s real costs?

It has been a long-established and quite sound policy of not just public-sector insurers but also private-sector ones that the full cost of accidents that occurred in the current year should be covered. The reality of the scheme as it stands is that cases where the cost of an accident this year may flow on for 40 years of care costs need to be covered, in terms of assets held by the scheme. The basic problem is that it is $13 billion short of achieving that, and that is why substantive change is required.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Will the Government be taking any actions to address criminals getting lump sums and other generous entitlements from accident compensation when their P labs have blown up, or when they have been drunk-driving for the umpteenth time?

Yes. We are toughening up access to accident compensation for those who committed criminal offences. Rather than having the system at the moment, where the Accident Compensation Corporation can apply to the court in extreme cases—there has been only a handful of cases and often these are overturned by the court—we are proposing a new law that will automatically disentitle claimants who injure themselves while committing a serious crime.