Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7404] 
Questions to Ministers 
Early Childhood Education—Costs 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that the costs of early childhood education will be lower “for all New Zealand families with the implementation of up to 20 hours free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds beginning in July next year”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: In June last year a joint statement was issued by the Minister of Education and me which said: “The Labour-led Government is also working towards lowering the costs of early childhood education for all New Zealand families with the implementation of up to 20 hours free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds beginning in July next year.” I stand by that statement. From July this policy will be able to immediately lower the costs of early childhood education for families with 3 and 4-year-olds enrolled in a teacher-led centre. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that under her Government’s 20 hours policy parents will be asked to pay optional charges for the so-called free care the kids receive and when is she going to admit to Kiwi mums and dads that her promise of free childcare is nothing but another Labour Party cruel hoax? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Twenty hours free has to mean 20 hours free. What is being paid for with this money is up to the regulated level of care. Very few centres ask for or deliver more than above the regulation but some do. For example they might take children on outings to a zoo or whatever and they may arrange an optional charge for parents for that. 
Tim Barnett 
: What responses has the Prime Minister seen to the policy of 20 hours of free early childhood education? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why if the 20 free hours policy is about increasing participation and quality in early childhood education are playcentres and parent-led kohanga reo excluded from the policy simply because they are not teacher-led? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The policy is for 20 hours of free early childhood education in teacher-led centres. That is because the costs of providing early childhood education also rise with registered teachers. As the member will know when the policy first came out those in the playcentre movement welcomed it and agreed with it because they rely on a volunteer base and their costs are in administration—which is what we have given them $4 million towards. I should also point out that kohanga reo are eligible for the policy if they have teacher-led centres and many of them do. 
John Key 
: Has she seen warnings from the Government’s early childhood education advisory committee that parents who do not sign up to pay the so-called optional charges may be subject to “back-door exclusions” and that their kids could remain on waiting lists until their parents agree to cough up the cash? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen that. It is not the advice that will be put into action anywhere in this country. I met yesterday with all of the early childhood sector and overwhelmingly they are reporting that their members are keen to take this up come 1 July. 
John Key 
: Has she seen further advice from the advisory committee that optional charges “will lead to a two-tier sector” with free childcare at the “low end” and fee paying at the “top end” and will not such a two-tier system perpetuate the growing underclass in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The shrinking number of people who are in situations of disadvantage in the country will enjoy the policy of 20 hours of free early childhood education. I pointed out to the member before on behalf of the Prime Minister that the overwhelming majority of centres now—if he cares to go and visit one—are providing a service that is within the regulated level of early childhood education. Very few charge for more. Optional charges can be for such things as going to zoos but this rate will cover quality education in those centres. 
John Key 
: Is it not the case that parents who do not sign up to pay additional “optional charges” for the 20 free hours will not be able to enrol their kids who will end up being relegated to the waiting lists of over-subscribed services; is this not just another example of Labour leaving those who are most in need out in the cold—and I am surprised the Minister is not in McGehan Close with the Prime Minister today playing catch-up? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If I could just get a word in edgeways I would tell the member that if he went to any early childhood centre he would find that they do have rules there that say one has to be quiet for a wee while. 
Hon Member 
: They are better behaved than National. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They are better behaved than that member. Can I say in answer to the first question from Mr Key that the answer is no. Can I say in answer to the implied second question that the only way people will miss out on 20 free hours is if there is ever a National Government because it would scrap the policy. 
John Key 
: How will this policy help the kids who need education most when only one in eight in Manukau childcare centres surveyed by the Early Childhood Council have committed to offering the 20 free hours; and is it not a hoax to tell those in South Auckland—those most in need—that their community will not be providing services? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is worth pointing out that the early childhood survey the member is referring to was of a potential 600 respondents 42.9 percent of whom responded. They responded in January. They have not really even discussed the issue with the Ministry of Education yet. What I can tell him for example is that the New Zealand Childcare Association told us yesterday that 90 percent of its members have already indicated that they are in the process. Barnardos has said that all of it members are in the process—and this is still just the beginning of the year. I am sorry that the policy is working but it is. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister take it from the thrust of Mr Key’s questions that he is calling for even larger increases in spending in early childhood education and is he aware that yesterday at the Finance and Expenditure Committee Mr English called for large reductions in Government spending? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware that the co-leadership of the National Party do find it difficult to stay on the same script. So yes I am aware that Mr Key in his efforts to hug Labour is offering the same policy that Mr English is at the same time undermining in select committees. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table the minutes from the early childhood education sector meeting that show that the practical consequences of the Government’s 20 free hours policy will not work that parents will be put on waiting lists and that young New Zealanders will not get the opportunity to join the scheme. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received regarding the implementation of the 20 hours of free early childhood education policy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 At the risk of repeating myself I say that this week I met with the representatives of the early childhood education sector and they expressed their support for the Government’s policy of 20 hours of free early childhood education. They see a great deal of benefit for New Zealand families. Even at this early stage some organisations like Barnardos have already announced that they will offer 20 hours of free early childhood education in all of their centres. Other organisations have also stated that many of their members are keen and ready to offer the policy of 20 hours of free education. They are currently working through the details of that policy with the Ministry of Education. The ministry is travelling throughout the country talking with the sector and supporting it as it moves towards 1 July. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports has he seen on alternative approaches to funding early childhood education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Today I visited the National Party website and saw reports of the National Party saying that the policy of 20 hours of free early childhood education “will not go ahead”. It is strange therefore to see that the National Party currently appears to be endorsing the policy. Its spokesperson Paula Bennett has stated that she is alarmed that some families will miss out on the scheme. The only way they would miss out on the scheme is if there were a National Government as National is committed to abolishing it. 
Paula Bennett 
: When the Minister referred to 20 free hours as being “simple” and said that all that parents have to do is turn up to their local centre and say their child is there for the free 20 hours was he referring to the fact that the word “free” in the slogan “20 free hours” does not actually mean free or that service providers cannot charge fees but can charge something called optional charges for some things but not others or that a parent working an 8-hour day will get only 6 free hours or that no one has any idea of how many places will be available or how the system will be administered; what is simple about this policy? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I think I can anticipate it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well perhaps Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect where on earth was that question going and where was it coming from seeing as she has given it about eight shots and we are still none the wiser? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That was not the point of order I was expecting. Members are reminded that they are to ask questions not give speeches and that questions must be answered succinctly. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I was referring to the very simple fact that the way to get into this policy is to have one’s child enrolled at a teacher-led centre and to attest that the child is enrolled there for the purposes of the policy. 
Taito Phillip Field—Immigration Associate Minister 
3.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many failed refugee claimants or failed asylum seekers had immigration decisions reversed through visas or permits being approved by the Hon Damien O’Connor in response to representations from Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Although I do not have precise data for the exact dates in question I am advised that from 15 August 2002 until 31 March 2005 458 ministerial appeals were made by Taito Phillip Field. Of these 28 related to refugee status claimants of which some 10 were granted some form of intervention by the then Associate Minister of Immigration. Only one of those was directly related to residence. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Minister tell Parliament on 23 November last year that the concerns raised with the former Minister of Immigration by the Department of Labour’s workforce deputy secretary Mary Anne Thompson “related to advocacy not decision making” when Mary Anne Thompson stated publicly on 16 November last year that “The concern there was not only just about the applications Mr Field was making but the number of decisions reversing the department’s decisions”—the decision making of the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place it was because that was the subject of the House debate at the time. In the second place it was because the expressed concerns of the deputy secretary as confirmed publicly were about the general processes and not the specific nature of the Sunan Siriwan case. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Minister tell Parliament on 22 November last year that “there was no question as to the previous Associate Minister’s decision-making”—that is Damien O’Connor’s decision-making—when the deputy secretary Mary Anne Thompson stated publicly on 16 November last year that she approached the Minister of Immigration with her concerns after the group manager for service international KerupiTavita drew to her attention the number of failed asylum seekers who were getting those decisions reversed following applications from Mr Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It may interest the member to recall that in the year 1998-99 when he was Associate Minister of Immigration there were some 2649 refugee status claims. If I were now as Minister of Immigration to revisit the legitimately made legal broad discretionary decisions of former Ministers where would that end? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believe that my question was pretty explicit and the Standing Orders do require the Minister to give an answer that addresses the question. The Minister’s answer just given to the House in no way addressed the quite explicit question I asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Certainly the Minister’s answer did address the question though obviously not to the satisfaction of the member. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that the deputy secretary Mary Anne Thompson told a parliamentary select committee on 16 November last year that the department’s group manager for service international KerupiTavita had “several chats”—I repeat “several chats”—with Damien O’Connor’s private secretary about the numbers of failed asylum seekers getting decisions reversed by Mr O’Connor following representations from Taito Phillip Field; if so does he think it plausible that the private secretary would have forgotten to pass on that information on each of those occasions? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I reply yes because I read the transcript; and yes because I know what life is like in the Beehive. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: In reviewing the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report—as the Minister has claimed to have done—what steps has he taken to review the allegation by immigration consultant Mr Timothy Spooner that Taito Phillip Field enjoyed favoured treatment with regard to requests to Mr O’Connor for ministerial intervention on immigration matters? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seem to recall that Dr Ingram QC described Mr Spooner’s representations as entirely without substance. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: In reviewing the immigration matters contained in the Ingram report were any communications found—or is he aware whether the police have found any communications—implicating the Hon Phil Goff following his meeting with Sunan Siriwan while Siriwan was working on the floor of Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: None beyond the repeated but rather pathetic attempts of the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister have the information to say how many questions on this issue have been put to him by the National Party and does he know or do his colleagues know of any other issue in the history of this Parliament that has had as many questions as this issue and why do we not just leave it to the police to conduct their inquiry rather than have this trial by Parliament by some very unqualified advocates? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. My press secretary did a count and advised me that there was one sitting day last year since the inquiry started on which I did not receive a question on this matter and the record is four questions. It may assist the member to know that I am rather enjoying it because it is rather good practice on a fairly harmless issue. 
Truancy and Absenteeism—Rates for Maori 
4.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: He aha nga mahi ka tohua e ia hei mahi ma te Minita o Te Mataurangaimuri mai i te panuitanga o te ripoatawhakataki o te tau rua manomaonomonga tamariki kei te haere kareraneii te haere kei te ngaroraneiinga kura o Niu Tireni e whakaatuana e rua orau te rahiakeingatau e rua monga tamariki Maori kei te ngaroinga kura a he rahiaketenei ki eramonga tauira Tauiwi tauira Ahia hoki?  
[ 
What action will he be recommending to the Minister of Education following the preliminary report on  
Attendance Absence and Truancy in New Zealand Schools in 2006 
 which shows the Maori truancy rate has risen by 2 percent in 2 years a rate greater than that of New Zealand European and Asian students? 
] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: I can confirm that the percentage increase in the Maori truancy rate was 1.6 percent between 2004 and 2006. That is based upon the attendance and absence survey undertaken over a 1-week period in August 2006. The Government is deeply concerned about the increased rates of truancy across all groups if they occur and in particular those around Maori at this time. We have been working closely together with a range of agencies on strategies that are targeted at lifting our performance around truancy issues and in particular at getting Maori to stay at school for longer and achieve good qualifications. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Is he aware that in 2005 Maori students in year 11 attending Maori medium schools had a higher rate of attaining the National Certificate of Educational Achievement than Maori in other schools did; if so what strategies is he recommending to ensure that the success of kura kaupapa Maori education is replicated in mainstream schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes the Associate Minister is aware of those statistics. They reflect an agreement amongst schools that are often labelled as mainstream and kura that one of the key elements is the way that young Maori see themselves—whether they have a strong sense of being Maori as Mason Durie would put it. Te Kotahitanga would be a good example of a programme that replicates that in the mainstream setting and I understand that the results to be published soon by Russell Bishop are quite outstanding. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What initiatives have been developed and implemented to improve Maori participation in education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Encouraging students to stay at school is a top priority for the Government and since we have been in power we have been aiming to do just that. A major review of the district truancy service has now been done and its results are being implemented. The Student Engagement Initiative is beginning to have an impact. Other programmes are Te Mana; Te Kotahitanga which I mentioned before—it is currently in 59 schools and undoubtedly will be expanded given how successful it looks to have been—and better systems of course to ensure that we know where students are including the electronic enrolment system and student management systems. These are just some of the things we are doing to help with this issue. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: When will the Minister take responsibility for the rising Maori truancy rates and the large number of Maori students who leave school without qualifications; if he is not going to take responsibility when will he resign? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Associate Minister of Education takes full responsibility right now. Can I just mention though on the last-mentioned issue raised by the member that Maori educational achievement is actually improving quite dramatically. There have been big improvements in recent years. In 2002 35 percent of Maori school-leavers left school with low attainment. By 2004 that figure had dropped to 25 percent. More Maori are obtaining university entrance qualification; in 2004 that figure stood at 12 percent which was up from 8 percent in 2002. We are seeing more and more women in particular move on to tertiary education. The member should be quite proud of what is happening amongst Maori at this time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I took the time to count the number of interjections that the questioner made following his asking the question. In total he gave 15 different interjections after he had asked the question. He was trained far better than that! It is a deterioration of standards that that is tolerated by his new party and he should know better—15 interjections! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order. Certainly the member who asked the question at one point made it difficult to hear the answer. He has an opportunity to ask other questions. I would just say that such interventions are not helpful. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the Associate Minister planning to recommend setting up a goon squad to visit each morning the homes of students with poor attendance records in order to wake up the parents get the kids breakfast then walk them to school; or does he believe the answer is to be found in greater ownership of the problem being taken by parents whanau and Maori leaders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has no intention of setting up a goon squad to run homes around the country but I am sure that someone like Tau Henare with all that noise is willing to wake kids up right across the country. 
Heather Roy 
: Will the Associate Minister of Education recommend to the Minister of Education that Maori communities be given their children’s share of education funding so that they can choose or start a school that meets their specific needs; or is he in denial about the clear failure of current policies with 7 percent of Maori children regularly truanting and 53 percent leaving school with no qualification? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No the Associate Minister of Education is not going to do that because we are seeing big improvements in the education system. More people from Maori backgrounds are enrolled in early childhood education more people are gaining qualifications throughout the system and more people are going on to university. We are seeing more Maori move on to higher levels of study for example compared with the general population. Maori people are as the Associate Minister of Education is fond of saying on the move. They do not need help from the ACT party. ACT members should stay in the Territorials. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that last comment was necessary or helpful. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: Does he not agree that if Pakeha students and their teachers had better knowledge of the Treaty and its relevance today Maori kids might feel safer and therefore want to stay in school for longer; if so why is he segregating study of the Treaty to a Maori curriculum rather than explicitly including it in the schools curriculum; is that not just entrenching racist attitudes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I agree with the member that Maori need to know as Mason Durie has said how to be Maori in the school system and that is what we are committed to doing. The second part of the question is quite wrong—there is no segregation of the curriculum. In fact one of the most exciting things about that curriculum is that we are not merely translating it; it is being put into a Maori education framework this year. That is why it is so important. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister’s Speech from the Throne in 1999 in which she said: “As long as the economic and social gaps between Maori and other New Zealanders remain large the Government of New Zealand cannot claim to have addressed the needs of all New Zealanders. My Government is committed to closing the gaps.”; and how then does he account for the fact that Maori truancy rates have climbed since 2004 leading to Maori having a truancy rate more than 4 percent higher than that of New Zealand European students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I of course remember the speech made by the Prime Minister in 1999 as all of us remember every single word she has said. The Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring that everybody gets a fair deal in this country stands today. I shall take just one thing that I said before: Maori are moving into higher levels of study at a higher rate than the population in general. The gaps are closing. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: How does the Minister account for the fact that not only did the Maori truancy rate increase to 7.1 percent for females and 6.6 percent for males but the gap between it and the European rate also widened from 3 percent in 2004 to 4 percent in 2006; what funding has been allocated to address Maori truancy and disengagement from education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Those figures are correct. The member is reading off a survey that I have as well. I just point him to such programmes as Team-Up Mission-On Hui Taumata which brings together educators from all across the country and the iwi education partnerships that are going on. There are a large number of programmes today that are to do with student engagement and with ensuring that we are able to track students. We have revised the district truancy service. The programmes go on and on. We are determined to ensure that young Maori stay at school until the compulsory leaving age and leave with a qualification. 
Corrections Minister—Confidence in Department 
5.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Why did the Minister’s department give Graeme Burton a 2-week head start from when he first breached his parole conditions on 5 December until it notified that breach on 19 December; and why was it so slow to act when the police told it on 30 November: “that if Burton’s parole wasn’t revoked and he remained in the community that he would kill someone.”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: All the details around this tragic accident are under investigation. Four inquiries are under way. It is not for me to prejudge the outcomes of those inquiries other than to say that any lessons learnt will be acted on immediately. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Constant interjections of: “Answer the question.” when Ministers are attempting to answer the question are not helpful to the order of the House. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that the  
Community Probation Service Operations Manual 
 states: “Conviction or further offending is not necessary before considering recall action.” and that staff need to bear in mind any behaviour that causes concern or brings about greater risk to the community as well as any alert or concerns expressed by police; and why did the information received from the police that Graeme Burton was likely to kill someone not lead to immediate recall action? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not have the operations manual in front of me but those words do sound familiar. The questions the member asks will be answered by one or all of the four inquiries under way. 
Simon Power 
: Why did the Minister’s department fail to provide details of Burton’s stand-over tactics and assaults against fellow prisoners including a claim he broke one man’s arm when they were serious enough to warrant transferring Burton to another cell to “ensure the good management and safety of others” or does he think the safety of inmates is more important than the safety of the public? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am informed that that information was passed on. Those things will be investigated and we will find out— 
Simon Power 
: Well what happened? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Simon Power gets it wrong every time as he did when he was defence spokesperson and stated that New Zealand should go into Iraq. 
Simon Power 
: Why did it take the Department of Corrections 2 weeks to notify Burton’s breach of parole when the probation service manual states that parolees on the offender warning system as Burton was must be actively managed and some form of enforcement action must be commenced within 1 week of non-compliance; and why did it take 2½ weeks to notify when the manual states that recall action should be taken immediately when there is repeated non-compliance by those on the offender warning system? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The member might have one thing right when he quotes from the operations manual. There is a requirement to act immediately. I am informed that they did. However I am not prepared to prejudge the outcome of those inquiries. I suggest that the member gets it right for once and awaits the outcomes of these inquiries. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with the bizarre statement made by his chief executive Barry Matthews in regard to Graeme Burton that it is “just unrealistic” to expect that taking action against offenders who breach their parole conditions will prevent them from doing any more harm; if so how has he allowed parole enforcement to become so lax in his department on his watch? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I reject absolutely that Barry Matthews myself or anyone in the department would imply that it is not imperative that we take action and do everything possible to keep the community safe from people like Graeme Burton. 
Unemployment—Reduction in Numbers 
6.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports if any has he received on the Government’s progress at reducing the number of New Zealanders in long-term unemployment? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am advised that the number of working-age people who have been receiving the unemployment benefit for more than 1 year has fallen by 80 percent since the Labour-led Government took office. National left a legacy of more than 70000 long-term unemployed in 1999. By December 2006 this Government had reduced that number by more than 56000 to around 14000. Responsible economic stewardship coupled with policies that support people into work and services that support the needs of employers and job seekers have created a climate where we can ensure that people have real work for real wages. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Minister received any specific information about whether Burnside—the scene of a recent speech by the Leader of the Opposition—could fit Mr Key’s description of being one of the “places where rungs on the ladder of opportunity have been broken.”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have received advice that suggests that situations such as that described by the Leader of the Opposition did exist in the Burnside area. There were in fact a total of 3458 people receiving the unemployment benefit from the Riccarton and Papanui service centres but that was in 1999 the last time this country was unfortunate enough to be under the mismanagement of those members. The number receiving the unemployment benefit today in that area is not 3458 but 403. This Government’s policies have restored the ladder of opportunity for more than 3000 people which that party had taken away and would remove again if this country were ever unfortunate enough to see it in Government. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 When this question was put in this morning it was addressed to the Minister for Social Development and Employment. It was subsequently shifted by the Government and I seek leave of the House to amend one word in my question so that I am addressing the Associate Minister by the correct gender. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Child Abuse—Policy Advice 
7.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: What policy advice has she received from the Ministry of Social Development to address the significant increase in child abuse notifications that has more than doubled from 26588 to 66210 in the last 7 years? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports on the increase in notifications and also how to manage this demand. A significant point is the growing recognition and growing intolerance in our wider community particularly backed by action from the police of the damage to children who are in violent family situations. It is worth emphasising that the goal of better managing this demand is not simply to reduce it. When people have concerns about the safety of a child or young person Child Youth and Family should be informed. The key is to make sure that families and children get the most appropriate response given their circumstances. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the House take it from the Minister’s answer that she thinks it is a good thing that we had 66000 notifications of child abuse last year as opposed to 26000 notifications of suspected child abuse 7 years ago and if it is a good thing is it going to be an even better thing if we have more notifications of child abuse—say 70000—this coming year? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The ideal would be that New Zealand had zero notifications because we had zero acts of abuse against children. That is not the situation. In my view it is far better for us to have situations of potential abuse or actual abuse notified rather than being ignored. It is highly unlikely that more than about 5 percent of the increased notifications is due to increased incidence. 
Shane Jones 
: What has been the trend in unallocated cases? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: While the total notifications received has doubled Child Youth and Family has worked extremely hard to reduce the number of unallocated cases—from 3000 in October 2004 to 435 in October 2006. I think all members will appreciate that this is a significant achievement. 
Judith Collins 
: Does she agree with Helen Clark who when notifications of child abuse numbered 13500 in 1994 said that it was “a national shame” and if she does agree with that statement when notifications numbered 13500 what is her view of the record 66000 notifications of child abuse under her watch in her Government? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Any abuse of a child should be the entire country’s shame. 
Judith Collins 
: If 13500 notifications of suspected child abuse are a national shame what words would she use to describe the fivefold increase to 66000-plus a year that we are getting under her watch? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have never seen child abuse statistics as a competition. In my view it is far better for us to act together to deal with the problem that we clearly have in our country. 
Judith Collins 
: Why have substantiated child abuse cases more than doubled from 6000 when this Government came into office 7 years ago to now over 13000? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I indicated in my answer to the primary question a large drive for the increase in notifications has seen a decrease in tolerance in our community particularly backed up by action by the police where children are in situations of family violence. It is important to note however that although there has been a significant increase in the number of notifications there has not been a proportionate increase in findings of abuse over that same period. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is she continuing to quibble about figures and spin slogans—saying that substantiated child abuse is less when it is actually more—when we have some children in this country who are hungry who live a life of utter misery and who live with violent adults in their homes while she is just sitting there saying that the bigger the figures the better the problem? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am not. 
Child Safety—Innocenti Report Rankings 
8.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she have confidence in her service’s intervention work when the Innocenti Report ranks New Zealand children last in the OECD for safety; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes I do. However I think that all members would agree that there is room for improvement. The vast majority of deaths captured by the safety indicator result from traffic fatalities drowning falls fire and poisoning. The proportion of abuse is very small but even one child’s death from abuse is one too many. 
Judy Turner 
: How can she have confidence in her department when Child Youth and Family does not even centrally collect important information regarding violence against children such as the types of injury and the relationship of the perpetrator of the victim; and without knowing information such as who is doing this violence and what type of violence it is how can Child Youth and Family hope to stop trends in child abuse or identify areas that need attention? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The collection of data in New Zealand is far more robust than in most other comparable countries. It is not necessarily the responsibility of Child Youth and Family to do it but that data is collected. It is my view that the primary point of the member’s question is correct: that information must be utilised by organisations including Child Youth and Family. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the trend for New Zealand’s infant mortality rate? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Our infant mortality rate fluctuates from year to year but has been trending downwards over time. It has actually more than halved over the last 20 years. 
Anne Tolley 
: How does the Minister justify the huge cuts in family well-being services—the important interventions and wrap-around services aimed at those New Zealand families at risk—from almost $59 million in 2004 to just $38 million in this year’s Budget when clearly from the Unicef report children in New Zealand are more at risk of abuse neglect poor health etc. than in most other developed countries in the world? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am delighted to hear the member supporting an increase in social services expenditure. I am not sure which of her co-leaders would provide the financial policy to back that up. 
Judy Turner 
: Does not the lack of tracking and monitoring further support my call for accountability that would see the instigation of a Child Youth and Family complaints authority; if so is any work being done on such an authority at present within the ministry? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Following the advocacy and hard work undertaken by the member asking the supplementary question I have requested my officials to investigate a complaints authority for Child Youth and Family as in my view the member has proven that it would have merit. I hope that further work on such a complaints authority will continue with the participation of United Future. 
Judy Turner 
: I seek leave to table the answer to written question 16643 last year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Herceptin—Pharmac 
9.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he confident that Pharmac’s forthcoming decision on whether to fund Herceptin will be based on proven scientific evidence and in the best interests of New Zealand women with breast cancer; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am confident that any decision on Herceptin will be based on all available evidence and expert clinical advice and will consider all the options. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in the House on 10 October when he said that Herceptin was not funded because the number of women was sufficiently small that “we did not think it was worth a $30 million per annum investment”; if so how does he think it makes women like MhairiFlett mother of Sophie and Brodie feel to hear him say she is not worth it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As I said in the House yesterday Pharmac continues to keep the issue of Herceptin under close review. It is following data that becomes available pretty much every month and is in fact looking quite hard at new data this week. 
Ann Hartley 
: What is the Government’s commitment to women with breast cancer? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The commitment is very strong. The member will be aware that not only have we increased breast screening by almost 20 percent per annum—and it continues to increase significantly with another three mobile units coming on stream presently to ensure that rural women Maori women and so on have access—but also that this Government has both introduced new drugs against breast cancer and extended the range of treatment for other existing drugs. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Does the Minister consider that offering women with breast cancer an experimental and unproven 9-week course of Herceptin is in their best interests when proven international best practice is 12 months of Herceptin—a practice that has been followed by 23 other OECD countries—or is he happy to let our women be the guinea pigs? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think the member should be careful about besmirching a way of using Herceptin that is used in significant parts of Europe especially in Finland and is sometimes used in North America. It is the treatment of choice of some oncologists in those countries especially in Finland even though 12-month treatment is freely available in that country. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister read the documents I tabled yesterday and familiarised himself with the 1000 percent cost discrepancy quoted by both the previous Minister of Health and Pharmac before and after the 2005 election; if so has he ordered an inquiry into why such a colossal discrepancy was quoted and who verified the pre-election figures and perhaps more important could he tell us why the public should have confidence in Pharmac which clearly set out to deceive both the previous Minister the public and cancer victims and when will we see someone involved in that deceit being held accountable? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have not launched an inquiry but I have sent a message to Pharmac asking it to please explain. My own view is that it made a mistake but I do not know that. Certainly in my time as Minister of Health no one has suggested that the cost of Herceptin would be $300 million. I think an extra zero was added. It would be $30 million whether we were to go to 12 months’ treatment or less. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Is he prepared to take and follow through with the advice of New Zealand oncologists given that they are meeting today with Finnish researchers brought to New Zealand by Pharmac to discuss the best way for Herceptin to be accessed by New Zealand women with breast cancer and could he please explain why he says women are not worth the Government funding Herceptin? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am very happy to take the views of the oncology community of this country. Indeed Pharmac and its various subcommittees are consulting with it on that matter now in order to come to a way forward if indeed there is one. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Will the Minister be signalling to Pharmac prior to its forthcoming decision that funds will be available for Herceptin so that the decision whether to fund it is based on scientific fact and drug effectiveness not drug cost? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member seems to forget that the cancer treatment subcommittee of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee—which body is asked to look at effectiveness not cost-effectiveness—itself came to the view that Herceptin was a low priority in this country. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table evidence that proves that when it was pointed out to Pharmac that its figure of $300 million was grossly inaccurate it persisted in using it and still to this time has not put out any retraction. 
Document not tabled. 
Child Poverty—Unicef Rankings 
10.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “huge progress” has been made towards eradicating child poverty; if so can he explain the results of today’s Unicef report on international child poverty which found New Zealand to be one of the worst countries for keeping children safe and healthy? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes; New Zealand can be justly proud of the huge progress we have made in the three areas that comprise the material well-being section of the Unicef report. In the area of child material deprivation we are reported as being sixth out of the countries reported. In the area of households without jobs we are reported as being 18th in the OECD based on the year 2000 data. Back then the household labour force survey unemployment rate was averaging 6 percent; it is now 3.7 percent and we are ranked among the top four countries in the world. In the third area of relative income poverty we were ranked 18th based on the 2001 data. Since that time the Working for Families tax credits have substantially changed that position. At the end of the 2007-08 tax year we will have reduced the percentage of children living below 50 percent of the median income level from 15 percent to 4 percent which will place us in the top five countries of the OECD alongside Denmark Finland Sweden and Norway. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is he concerned nevertheless that by discriminating against beneficiary families with the Working for Families package his Government has exacerbated the inequality and deprivation that still face some of our children; and what action will he be taking in response to the recent statement from the Child Poverty Action Group that “minimum incomes still need urgent Government attention”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Can I remind that member and other members of the House that beneficiary families have received an average weekly amount through Working for Families components of $32 from the end of October 2005 compared with the previous year and from 1 April 2007 all families including those on benefits will receive an extra $10 per week per child; because of the policies introduced by this Government since 1999 from 2008 all families with children earning less than $35000 a year will effectively pay no tax at all. Almost all families with incomes below $45000 receive significant gains. Nearly all sole parent families receive extra money from the Working for Families package as a whole and the combined effect of all the Working for Families changes to family assistance is an estimated average gain of $64 per week from 1 April 2006 rising to over $80 per week by 2008. In terms of the question of the comment made by Dr Turner from the Child Poverty Action Group I draw the member’s attention to the earlier part of the quote which was: “CPAG research showed that current Government policy was helping a lot for many low-income families. Overall there had been significant improvement on the 90s when a lot of policy damage was done.” 
Hon Members 
: Come on! 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can understand the National Party not wanting to hear that—and then the statement continued with the comment the member quoted. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind the Minister that answers are meant to be succinct. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is the impact of Government initiatives on the material well-being of New Zealand families? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think it is very significant indeed. Incomes have risen. The medium income has risen 32 percent between the last two censuses. Employment has increased and there is lower unemployment. Members will know that 115000 people are now not reliant on a benefit. With the Working for Families package at 1 April $1.6 billion annually will be channelled to lower and middle income families—money that the National Party wanted to give to its friends instead. In the area of income-related rents $417 million a year benefits 84000 children in 59000 families. And the list is not yet complete. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister share the concern of Unicef New Zealand Advocacy Manager David Kenkel that the report shows: “There are countries out there with far fewer resources than us but they are doing much better than we are.” in relation to child welfare; and does he believe that simply throwing money at the issue is the main solution to our appalling child welfare statistics? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes and no. I draw that member’s attention to the comments made this morning by Barnardos Chief Executive Murray Edridge who said: “How should we respond to the conclusions of this report? Shall we engage in unseemly political point-scoring? Shall we blame the Government and avoid personal and community responsibility? Or shall we take a good hard look at ourselves? The children of this nation demand we do the latter and if we have any sense of responsibility for the future of our society that’s exactly what we will do. Perhaps the most important question of all however is whether New Zealand society has the capacity and maturity to engage in constructive public discussion of the findings of the report.” I would like to thank the questioner for the question. That is exactly what I propose to do. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister explain why the quality of New Zealand data is inadequate for the purposes of comparison to the extent that the Unicef Innocenti researchers were not able to include New Zealand in some of their more important measures—for instance New Zealand does not even participate in the UN’s  
Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Study 
 which is recognised by most other OECD countries as a vital tool for planning for future well-being? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That is an issue that the Children’s Commissioner raised yesterday with me. I am happy to discuss that further with my colleagues and report back to the questioner. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister support the belief that New Zealand’s shocking child welfare statistics are a societal issue; if so what is being done to change how New Zealand as a whole values and cherishes our children? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I do and I think my earlier answer makes my and the Government’s attitude quite clear. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr Gay Keating of the Public Health Association who says: “We need a major rethink now to show we value our children as a result of this report.”; if so does he also agree that removing any legal defence for violence against children by passing my bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act would be a step in the right direction? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I do and I believe that as a result of some of the comments we have heard on this matter this morning a large number of members of Parliament and members of the public share that member’s and my view. 
Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change—Ministerial Foreword 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: Is it his photograph and signature on the ministerial foreword on the Government options paper titled  
Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change 
? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 Well I am reasonably sure that it is; if it is not it bears a remarkable resemblance to me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Minister reconcile the statement in the document under “Deforestation Option 1”—“a charge would be levied on any party that removed a non-Kyoto forest and introduced a new land use. The charge would be set at a rate per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent and levied on the level of carbon assessed as stored … That is equivalent to an emissions cost of around $13000 for each hectare of land deforested …”—with his statement made yesterday: “The claim by the foresters in the National Party that the Government is proposing a $13000 per hectare tax on deforestation is wilful ignorance and deceit designed to alarm the community.”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: That sounds like an accurate description of the National Party to me. The document of course goes on to state—and the member did not quote this—“The Government would carry a portion of the deforestation costs incurred under the Kyoto Protocol by: Agreeing a threshold level of emissions in each commitment period below which parties could deforest without being liable to pay the charge and/or”—these are options of course—“Setting the charge at a discounted level below the expected international price of greenhouse gas emissions.” 
The document is therefore very clear that if this option proceeded—and it is a consultation document—then some of the costs of deforestation currently estimated at $13000 a hectare would be carried by the Government. Consequently it is absolutely correct to say there is no proposal to charge $13000 per hectare retrospectively or otherwise. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What reports if any has the Minister seen on ways to control deforestation? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As a remarkable coincidence I have seen such a report. It is the National Party’s blue-green discussion document. It makes only one suggestion dealing with deforestation and that is to remove the 21 million tonne deforestation cap. The present cost of that policy is estimated to be $651 million and I would like to know from the National Party how it plans to fund this together with the tax cuts offered year after year by its leader in this House on Tuesday. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister still intending to hold further briefings with the National Party on these issues given that in the first week of Parliament it has now twice breached the usual protocols in respect of private briefings given by Ministers; and would he not be better off restricting briefings to parties that uphold protocols like New Zealand First? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Firstly the Minister who is being asked that question has no ministerial responsibility in that regard. Secondly it was Michael Cullen who announced to Parliament that there had been a meeting then misled Parliament over the content of it. David Parker was the other Minister who was responding to an offer that was made to him some 18 months ago. Madam Speaker I think that question was right out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not think it is out of order provided that a briefing has been given. Has a briefing been given? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There has been no briefing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There has been no briefing? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Speaking to the point of order there have been briefings of some parties on the question of deforestation and climate change. New Zealand First is one of them. I have to say I have enjoyed its cooperation and confidentiality which is how New Zealand First treated such a briefing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. The question was in order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement made in the House yesterday: “The rate of deforestation under the previous National Government was higher than any deforestation now.” when official Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry figures show an increase in forestry of 491000 hectares from 1990 to 1999 and the press statement of his own ministry last year stated that 2004 2005 and 2006 were the very first years since 1951 that there was any deforestation; and is not the only person guilty of ignorance and deceit the Minister? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What I was referring to yesterday in the House was the fact that between 1994 and 1999 under the period of National Government new plantings in New Zealand were reduced from 98000 per hectare to 40000 per hectare whereas in a similar period between 2000 and 2005 the reduction was 28000 not 58000. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister now telling the House that when he told us yesterday there was deforestation during the 1990s he really meant that in the last year there was only 40000 hectares of new forests and that now the latest figure is 11000 hectares of deforestation—and somehow we will need to believe that things have got better? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What I am telling the House is an accurate description of what has happened in forestry in the last decade and a half. There have been fewer new plantings and more deforestation because of the economics of agriculture versus forestry. If the National Party has a new policy to announce to communities—that it will be restricted in the change of land use it has—would it please announce that and tell the farmers and foresters of New Zealand what it has in mind. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain how being the first-ever Minister of Forestry in New Zealand to preside over a declining forest estate is consistent with the Prime Minister’s talk of carbon neutrality? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: One of the real advantages that the New Zealand economy has particularly with its natural resource base is flexibility of land use. And it always has been so. This Government is dealing with a new era of climate change that requires new policies—nothing retrospective but new. And those new policies are not some kind of new revelation on the road to Damascus in the way the leader of the National Party has just discovered climate change; this Government has been working on climate change policies for a very long time now. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does it say about the Minister’s competence in his portfolio that he publicly accuses others of deceit and ignorance for suggesting a deforestation tax when that is exactly what he has put forward as option No. 1 in his document and when he makes false claims that contradict his own ministry over deforestation; and is this not a sure sign that he and his Government have gone well past their use-by date? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As a matter of fact the preferred option in the document is for tradable permits. I understood that the National Party agreed with tradable permits so what is Dr Smith going on about and wasting the time of this House when he knows full well that the options in that paper include one that evidently the National Party publicly—I do not know about privately—agrees with? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for the benefit of the Minister to table  
Deforestation Option 1: Flat charge on land use change from forestry to another use 
.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.  
Biofuel—Prime Minister’s Announcements 
12.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports if any has he received on the Prime Minster’s announcements this week on biofuels? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I have received many reports welcoming the announcement of a 3.4 percent sales obligation equivalent to over 100000 carbon neutral cars and trucks in New Zealand by 2012. Biofuels are good for our health our environment and our economy. This really is sustainable economic transformation. Endorsement of our approach has been widespread including that from environmental groups the motor industry and oil companies. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What reports if any has he received on alternative approaches to biofuels? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: All parties are welcome to submit any new policy ideas they may have through the regular submission process. I have been meeting with other parties over the matter of biofuels and other climate change matters. Yesterday the National Party in a hollow stunt cancelled our scheduled meeting to discuss these important issues. Given National’s inability to keep up with changes in technology and leadership I believe that it cancelled the meeting because it has so little to offer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister tell the House assuming that carbon neutrality is not just an empty slogan exactly where he is going to offset the other 31 million tonnes of emissions we would still be emitting from the energy sector alone after his biofuels target was fully implemented in some 5 or 6 years’ time? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There are a number of points but I do not have time for all of them. Of course some of the reductions in emissions will come from the stationary energy sector including electricity generation. The other point that has been made is that the biofuels target will be reviewed annually from here on. This is an area that is moving fast. The importance of this measure is that it actually gets the infrastructure in place to cater for higher levels of biofuels in the future. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of the six possible concerns the Automobile Association has in regard to biofuels; if he is will he comment on the first three which revolve around price vehicle performance and engine damage? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Certainly. The concerns of the Automobile Association are proper; it has to protect the interests of its members. In respect of price it is not expected that the price of bio-diesel will be higher than the cost of diesel. Indeed on prices last year it would probably have been cheaper. In respect of bio-ethanol the exemption from excise duty will mean that the production of ethanol itself is economic but there will be a very slight increase—probably of 1c to 2c per litre in fuel price—by 2012. In respect of quality issues there is not expected to be any diminution in performance of vehicles with regard to their ability to take biofuels. There is a grey area as to how much bio-ethanol they can take but there is no doubt they can take up to 3 percent of bio-ethanol blends which is what would be delivered by a 3.4 percent mandatory obligation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that if his biofuel strategy is successful and after 2012 we have the equivalent of 100000 vehicles on New Zealand roads running with biofuel we will still have over 3 million vehicles on our roads running with fossil fuel? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I cannot confirm that. Indeed the essence of the target if the member had been following is that it is likely that all vehicles will be operating on blends that incorporate biofuels. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the letter from Mr Parker and the response from National so that the public and the Parliament might be clear as to the conditions under which National is interested in having climate change discussions with the Labour Party. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the website from the National Party Bluegreens website this week showing Dr Brash as party leader and no commitment to biofuels. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.