Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:9933] 
Questions to Ministers 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “20 hours free education a week will be able to be provided for 3 and 4-year-olds at any licensed teacher-led service in New Zealand from July 2007.”; if so what did she mean by “free”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; 20 hours free means the regulated standard is free. 
John Key 
: Did the Prime Minister mean the regulated standard could have added to it top-up fees and all sorts of surcharges; if so when will she admit to Kiwi mums and dads that her promise of 20 hours is actually not free—it is free for a fee? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am simply amazed the National Party continues to attack this policy which will save parents thousands of dollars a year. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister did not answer the question. I did not ask whether it would save New Zealand parents thousands of dollars. The question was whether it would be free under her regulated service; if not when would she tell New Zealand parents that it will not be free or is that because she knows it is not free—it is free for a fee. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My advice to the member is to stop digging into a ditch on this one. This is the biggest extension to free public education since the first Labour Government introduced free secondary education; also no doubt opposed by the National Party. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has she seen any reports relating to the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes; quite a lot from the National Party in attacking it so I assume its policy is to drop it and cost our parents thousands of dollars a year. That is yet another reason for not voting National. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that paying early childhood centres what they had been previously charging or what they would like to charge would be an open cheque-book policy—particularly for the private sector—that no responsible Government could ever entertain and that the source of the difficulties the policy has confronted has been some ill-considered pre-election rhetoric? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is absolutely right to finger that the National Party would pay presumably whatever a provider wanted which is an utterly irresponsible way to handle public money. 
John Key 
: Are we led to believe that if McDonald’s this afternoon decides to adopt her definition of “free regulated service” New Zealanders will be able to rock up to their local McDonald’s and get a Big Mac for free only to find they have to pay three bucks for the box? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not aware that McDonald’s provides childcare services. Perhaps the member could enlighten us further. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Wayne Wright chief executive officer of Kidicorp who says: “It’s not free. It’s subsidised”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Key-burger!” Half-pie and half-chicken. 
JOHN KEY 
: There will be no free McDonald’s at his stadium because they are not building it actually mate—for the record if he missed that little one. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not realise he was back from Valencia sorry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the House please settle. It has been almost impossible to hear both the questions and the answers. Would we please keep the level down otherwise we will be having questions and answers in silence. 
John Key 
: Does she agree with Wayne Wright chief executive of Kidicorp who says: “It’s not free. It’s subsidised 20 hours for all 3 and 4-year-olds. Unfortunately it was presented as a free programme. It’s not free.”; and who does she think she is kidding by trying to maintain that free means free? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Kidicorp has been a very good supporter of this policy. It is coming in and will comply with it. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister remember receiving a letter on 15 June 2007 from John and Bridget Kidd who like so many parents expressed that their local provider will not be able to opt into the system because it is not free; what response does she have to them when they said in their letter: “We challenge you to phone around central Wellington ECEs and find another that is opting into your policy. If you find any then we challenge you to ask how long their waiting list is.”; and is it not true that the Prime Minister just does not want to admit that her Government has broken yet another election promise? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is going to be terribly disappointed when he sees how many centres are signing up. 
Roading—Funding of Local Roads 
2.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports if any has she received about local roads and the way in which they are funded? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I have seen a report that states that local roads are paid for by local rates and therefore the burden falls very heavily on our farming communities. This inaccurate claim is found in the National Party’s rural issues discussion paper recently published by National’s so-called “rural team”. This paper is riddled with inaccuracies which indicates that the National Party either knows very little about rural issues or is deliberately misleading the public. 
Sue Moroney 
: Can the Minister explain exactly how local roads are funded? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: For the benefit of National Party members who obviously do not know local roads are funded in a partnership between local government and central government. Local government pays its contribution through rates and other funding sources such as developer levies. Central government through Land Transport New Zealand pays a financial assistance rate to local authorities. The rate is calculated on a needs basis and for this reason rural authorities receive a higher assistance rate than urban and provincial centres. The base financial assistance rate for rural councils is 56 percent while for urban councils it is 45 percent. In addition to the base rate for routine maintenance works local authorities receive a 10 percent higher rate for new construction work so rural areas receive 66 percent funding through central government. The major burden—I say to those opposite—falls not on the farming community but on the Government. 
Peter Brown 
: Why is it such a surprise to the Minister that National members do not understand how local roads are funded; they did not understand when they were in Government—why should they now? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no ministerial responsibility in that question. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very difficult to hear members. 
Peter Brown 
: I will not go over the opening of my question again but noting that will the Minister explain and tell the House precisely when the Government will honour its election Budget commitment that all tax taken on petrol will go into the roading account? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In relation to the second part of the question the Government is doing work on that right now and announcements will be made in the very near future. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s National policy! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is certainly not the National Party’s policy. I hear from interjections it is but I need to tell National members they do not know that policy either. In fact the National Party said that it would put all petrol tax into the national road fund. That means it will be a billion dollars short because we also put in diesel road-user charges and motor vehicle licensing. So we know National Party policy is actually to cut a billion dollars off roading in New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Minister whether she remembers that very visionary bill of 1994 from New Zealand First that sought to put all taxes and duties collected for roading into the roading account; and does she remember what happened when Mr Williamson the then Minister of Transport and the National Party all 12 years ago—it seems like a lifetime now—unanimously voted it down? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not recall that but I rely on the member’s word. I do know that the National Party has never had a commitment to transport; it has never had a commitment to roads; but in this discussion document that it is putting out around the rural communities it is trying to pretend it is consulting on something that it has no intention of changing. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know what you have asked us to do in respect of noise at question time but Mr Henare over there is either saluting his new leader or he is waving to somebody over here. But if he is suggesting that anybody over here will be gone let me tell him that he was gone last time long before us and next time he will be gone long before us as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but I do remind members that they should be very careful with the gestures they make in this House. 
Sue Moroney 
: In the light of the Minister’s answers what level of contribution is the Government making to local roads? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Central government’s contribution to local roads has increased significantly since 1999. In fact it is over double what it was then. Total Government investment in local roads has increased from $298 million to $612 million. [ 
Interruption 
] This is for local roads. I say to Mr Smith that we are not talking about the main highways. He constantly gets things wrong. It is for local roads which are in the discussion document put out by the National Party. National does not know that we have doubled the amount of money we are putting into those roads. In fact we have even ensured that a road like the Kapiti Western Link Road up the coast receives 90 percent of its construction cost based on funding that this Government gives. This Government has been committed to infrastructure in New Zealand particularly roading and public transport infrastructure and there is more to come from this Government. 
Taxation—Property Investment 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he asked Treasury for any advice on new forms of taxation of property investment or any changes to the current regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Following the joint recommendation of Treasury and the Reserve Bank in their  
Supplementary Stabilisation Instruments 
 report of February 2006 I agreed that further work should be done. One option that emerged as having potentially positive impacts was the ring-fencing of losses from residential property investment. This of course would not be new. It was the law in New Zealand before 1991. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is the Government’s policy on ring-fencing losses from investments in rental property? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government does not have a formal policy position on that. I personally believe that it is worth investigating because since the repeal of those provisions in 1991 there has been very very substantial growth in losses which have substantially outgrown the actual rental income. 
That clearly points to heavy gearing of the purchase of rental property and probably has contributed to an overheated housing market. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any other advice on changes to the tax system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Almost daily. I regularly see reports of Mr Key calling for large-scale tax cuts while Mr English is saying that now is not the time for extensive tax cuts. According to Mr English this is “hardly a sin because while John articulates a confident and aspirational view about the future I focus on putting together the numbers and the programme”. So what should we believe: the aspirational view or the numbers? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the words in the question or any changes to the current regime is the Minister aware of comments made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank that amount to admitting now 13 years on that high immigration is leading to high house prices in Auckland and is leading to high indices in respect of the inflation rate and then to high interest rates; could he tell me where the Governor of the Reserve Bank his staff and his predecessor have been these last 13 years and will the governor too be called a racist for raising the effect of immigration on inflation and high prices in this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think Dr Bollard did quite rightly point to the fact that very strong levels of immigration—particularly through 2002-04—placed significant further demand pressure into the economy. There have been a number of other factors as well. It is also worth remembering of course that we have a very tight labour market and strong shortages of skills and immigration is part of the answer to that problem. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree that all returns on investment should be treated equally by the tax system whether annual income or capital gain and whether from property or from shares; if so when will his Government introduce policy to this effect? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Generally speaking that has been the underlying principle of taxation changes over the last 20 years and that is why Mr Oliver in responding to questions at the select committee pointed out that taxation on housing in respect of capital gains is not tax advantaged compared with any other asset class. That comment was completely misunderstood. It is also true however that housing purchasing is one of the very few areas where one can actually borrow 100 percent of the purchase price with no prospect of an actual return on equity except in terms of the capital gain at the end of the process. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister confirm that work to develop a capital gains tax is not on the Government’s work programme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is correct. The Government is not working on a capital gains tax. To take the logic of Mr Oliver it would have to be a generalised capital gains tax across all asset classes and the Government has no intention of introducing such a regime. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that at the select committee the Inland Revenue Department made it quite clear that housing does not enjoy any tax advantage and can I take it from his previous answers that the Government is looking to bias the taxation system against housing by ring-fencing losses from investment in housing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly the member completely misquotes and misrepresents what Mr Oliver told the select committee. What Mr Oliver told the select committee was that on the issue of capital gains housing was not tax advantaged in comparison with other asset classes. He went on to say that it does benefit from more general features of the tax system such as deductibility of interest appreciation deductions and of course the point I have just made that one can borrow 100 percent of the asset and offset the losses from that against other income. There is no other asset class where one can borrow 100 percent of the purchase price with no expectation of a return in terms of income as opposed to capital gain at the end of the day. That is why Mr Key supports the position I have taken. 
Hon Bill English 
: So is the Minister now saying that he intends to change the tax law to prevent people from taking the benefit of losses on one single investment—that is housing—although they can take losses on everything else and that he is going to change the tax law in order to make banks change their lending criteria? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I am saying is that when we can sort out the difference between the aspirational view and the numbers view of the National Party there may be consensus around a sensible change to the taxation regime. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm and make it clear to the House that despite the Inland Revenue Department advice that there is no particular tax advantage for housing he is involved in a work programme with Treasury that is designed to implement tax law that ring-fences losses made on rental housing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat: the member is wrong. The Inland Revenue Department has not given that advice. I— 
Hon Bill English 
: They did. They did. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The Inland Revenue Department told the select committee—no matter how many times the member misrepresents it—that there is no difference in asset class and Mr Oliver himself has advised me on that fact. Indeed the Inland Revenue Department supports ring-fencing of housing losses. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister is so convinced that housing has some tax advantage can he please advise the public and investors exactly what it is because the Inland Revenue Department expressly told the select committee in answer to my two direct questions that there is no tax advantage for housing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Oliver was responding to the issue around capital gains on housing versus capital gains in asset classes. That is what he told the select committee and that is what he has told me. I invite the member to try to borrow 100 percent of the purchase price of any other asset where he would make no return on that investment by way of income and would simply have to wait for a capital gain at the end of the day. The bank would laugh him out of the door. 
Hon Bill English 
: When does the Labour Government plan to implement a policy ring-fencing the tax losses on rental housing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: When Mr Key wins the argument with Mr English because I know that Mr Key supports this particular move. 
Dalai Lama—Government Welcome 
4.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What has the Government done to extend a welcome to the Dalai Lama during his current visit to New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Dalai Lama is not an official visitor. He was facilitated at airports and police have made their own operational decisions about his security. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister not think it is somewhat inconsistent to take a strong stand on human rights in Fiji yet refuse to meet the Dalai Lama officially in Wellington to discuss the appalling human rights situation in Tibet and how New Zealand might help to alleviate it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On a number of occasions I have raised with Chinese leaders the issue of the treatment of people in Tibet and I will continue to do so. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Government so desperate to get a free-trade deal with China that it would forgo an official meeting with the Dalai Lama while he is here and sacrifice our moral right as a nation to speak out on human rights issues as we wish and to meet such internationally reputable figures? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No that question is absurd. As I told the member in an earlier answer I have regularly raised the issue of Tibet with China’s leaders. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister welcome the Dalai Lama’s support for New Zealand’s courageous antinuclear stance in the face of intense criticism from a great power; and does she not think it would be similarly courageous to stand up to pressure from another great power not to openly support the rights of the Tibetan people and to meet its leader? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I welcome any support for New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy. I can assure the member that pressure is normally counter-productive. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Providers 
5.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many teacher-led early childhood education providers have opted in to the Government’s promised policy of 20 free hours for all 3 and 4-year-olds as of today’s date? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Ministry of Education is processing all advanced claim forms that it has received from early childhood education services and checking them for accuracy so full information on take-up is not currently available. As I informed the member last Thursday I will be in a position around 1 July to give full details on how many centres are in the scheme how many children are involved where they are and so on. I know that the member is optimistically looking forward to that result as am I. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why does the Minister not know how many centres have opted in to his policy; when all the centres had to return their forms nearly 2 weeks ago and all the Ministry of Education has to do is to count them is he expecting the House to believe that he has no idea how many centres have opted in at this point and is he not negligent if he does not have some estimate? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One thing I do know is that I do not need to deliver the timetable that the member opposite is offering me. I just repeat that the Ministry of Education is processing claim forms now. The member might like to know that although the closing date was 6 June a number of centres have been trickling in since then and asking whether they can be part of the process that kicks off on 1 July. So if the member can just hold her enthusiasm until 1 July we will try at around that time to get the information to her. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does the Minister agree with National Party spokesperson Paula Bennett who told Radio New Zealand National on Saturday that it is clear parents will get cheaper early childhood education from 1 July? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do agree. From 1 July tens of thousands of New Zealand parents will have more money in their hands every week and the number of those parents will grow over following years as the number of services increases. Having many services involved will mean that parents are receiving between $80 and $90 a week for 20 hours free early childhood education and some will get up to as much as $97 per week. So I am very glad of and I welcome Miss Paula Bennett’s recognition of the policy. I understand now why the numbers went up in Whakatane when she was there as a result of her visit. 
Katherine Rich 
: When this policy is due to go live in under 2 weeks is the Minister expecting the House to believe that he has no idea how many centres have opted in at this point when all the Ministry of Education has to do is to take the forms and count them? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I want to reassure that member that everything is under control. I know she is anxious; I know she is worried; I know she is optimistic. I know that John Key is saying that 20 hours free is a wonderful policy and that meanwhile the National website says that the party will scrap it. I know that all those contradictions are there but they will come clear around 1 July. 
Katherine Rich 
: When this is a flagship policy for this Government which promised at the 2005 election that all 3 and 4-year-olds would have access to 20 free hours is he as a Minister saying he has no idea—not even an estimate—of how many centres will take up this policy by July? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Of course I keep track of this policy but I want to say to the member that she should just relax. She will know when the policy kicks off around 1 July what the numbers are and we will give her a full and an accurate picture. 
Paula Bennett 
: Is it within the rules for a centre to change from half-days or 6-hour full days to 7-hour days regardless of how long a child is there and then to overcharge for the seventh hour in order to make up for the shortfall in funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If the member has a real case as opposed to the hypothetical one she has outlined she can give it to me and I will look at it. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister agree with Anthony Gilbert a childcare specialist who sent a newsletter to centres advising that in order to get certainty of income they should bend the rules by extending sessions to 7 hours and overcharging for the seventh hour? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Paula Bennett 
: In that case can the Minister confirm that his officials saw Anthony Gilbert’s newsletter that advises centres that they should bend the rules by extending sessions to 7 hours and overcharging for the seventh hour and that they saw it before it went out made a few adjustments and then approved it for distribution? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One thing I do know is that I will not rely on the account given by the member about anything that has happened around this policy. I will confirm to the House that one of the things the ministry has been doing is working closely with the sector. The ministry has had over 162 meetings this year alone with members of the sector. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not hear a word of that last answer from the Minister. I wonder whether he would be good enough to repeat it and whether the hubbub could subside. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister summarise his answer please? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I pointed out to the House that I would not rely on that member for any kind of account of a meeting that she was probably not at herself. I also said to the House that the ministry has been working closely with people from right across the sector and has had at least 162 meetings this year with individual centres and with groups. I think the ministry is doing a good job of explaining the policy. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the newsletter that was approved by the ministry— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Fisheries—Apprehensions by Fisheries Officers 
6.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Does he stand by his statement that the 35 percent decline in the number of apprehensions by fisheries officers between 2002 and 2006 is a “pleasing trend”; if so why? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Yes. This decrease in the number of apprehensions can be attributed at least in part to an investment in education and increased patrol presence and inspections by fisheries and honorary fisheries officers. Increased public support is also a possible contributing factor to the improving levels of voluntary compliance as a consequence of television series like  
Coast Watch 
 the 0800 4 Poacher telephone line and the “Poaching is Theft” campaign. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena ano koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister see the irony that the decline in apprehensions comes despite an increase in the number of fisheries officers and that in any other enforcement agency an increase in the number of enforcement officers results in increased apprehensions; and would he not agree that for him to claim that the Ministry of Fisheries is an exception to the rule is nothing but an attempt to put a spin on the shocking decline in apprehensions? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well I do not think that people can have it both ways. People wanted stronger compliance and stronger monitoring of the fisheries area. That is exactly what has happened. As a result people have learnt the lesson that losing their boats and cars and being fined heavily is not a great experience. Because a lot of this activity takes place in well-identified regions word gets around and I think we should be congratulating fisheries officers on the magnificent result they have achieved. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why does the Minister not think that the 35 percent decline in the number of apprehensions is due to the fact that there were 246 honorary fisheries officers in 2002 and there are only 161 fisheries officers today—cutting the numbers by almost 100 staff—why does he not think the decrease in the number of apprehensions is due to the decrease by 100 in the number of honorary fisheries staff? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Some of the honorary fisheries officers whom the member seems to want to rely on for prosecutions convictions and monitoring were performing their duties on 1 or 2 days a year. The reason that the number of honorary fisheries officers has been reduced is that the number of full-time officers has been increased. I would have thought that even the meanest of minds could comprehend that. 
Pita Paraone 
: Would the Minister agree that the decline in the number of apprehensions is actually the result of his ministry’s policy which requires fisheries officers to work in pairs due to safety concerns—a policy that has effectively halved the manpower available to patrol our 15000 kilometres of coastline and allows poachers to pillage our coast at will—if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The reality is exactly the opposite of what the member claims. In truth while the number of apprehensions has reduced because of education and the acknowledgment of the regions where this is a problem—poachers do not want to engage in the activity any more—the level of prosecutions has increased because the activity of full-time well-qualified fisheries officers has meant that those prosecutions are sheeted home and convictions are obtained. The word is getting around that poaching is just not worth the candle. 
Work and Income—Helping People into Work 
7.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What resources are available to Work and Income case managers to help people into work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The greatest resources at Work and Income’s disposal are its own expertise training and support processes which have helped reduce unemployment numbers by 85 percent since 1999 from 161000 under National to around 24000 today. Over the same period total benefit numbers have reduced by 35 percent. I am pleased to advise the House today that Work and Income can properly take credit for the recent trends in sickness and invalids benefit numbers which together have fallen for the second consecutive month. I am also pleased to advise that sickness and invalids beneficiary numbers alone have fallen by 1299 in the last 2 months at the same time that unemployment benefit numbers have fallen by 4231. I am sure that the member and other members will want to join me in congratulating Work and Income staff on the good work they are doing in supporting people into work and independence. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister confirm that in order to get people into work Work and Income case managers have unlimited budgets; if not can he explain the comments of British Labour MP and chairman of the UK Work and Pensions Select Committee Mr Terry Rooney who informed the UK Parliament this year: “We saw in New Zealand that the personal advisers have absolute flexibility. I found it a bit dangerous in fact because it seemed that they could spend any amount of money as long as someone accepted a job.”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Although I clearly have no responsibility for a British MP I am delighted at the resources and the initiative that our Work and Income staff use. However their budgets—as the member will be aware—are very tightly controlled. For example employment subsidies to help people gain the skills employers need are capped at $34 million. The Jobs Partnerships with Industries fund is capped at $7 million. Those programmes are jointly designed to move clients straight to work. Frankly I think all members of this House would be only too pleased that around 136000 New Zealanders who were receiving an unemployment benefit when National was in power are now in work. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has he received on the success of Work and Income’s Jobs Partnerships with Industries schemes? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Ministry of Social Development recently won the Vero Excellence in Business Support Award for the “most significant” contribution by a Government department recognising Work and Income’s Jobs Partnerships with Industries programme. Through this programme alone Work and Income has assisted 3550 people into employment or employment-related training. It has 42 partnerships operating with large employers and industry associations all of which involve working closely with industry and employers to understand their needs. Work and Income I am pleased to inform members has not stopped there; it is working on partnerships with a further 15 industry sectors. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Will the Minister be introducing measures to suspend or reduce the benefit of sickness and invalid beneficiaries if they fail to meet the new planning and activity requirements outlined in the Social Security Amendment Bill; if so will he not consider that this punishes those who are sick or disabled? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am sure the member will agree that the attitude of this Government has been not to be punitive as advocated by other parties but to support people into work. I would draw to his attention for his information the very considerable success of exactly that approach with domestic purposes beneficiaries whose numbers are trending down very strongly and would assure him that that approach will be adopted with those who currently receive sickness or invalids benefits. Frankly I say to the member many people who are sick get better and I do not believe that—and I believe that New Zealanders do not consider—it is unreasonable to expect them to plan for an eventual return to work if and when their circumstances permit. 
Judith Collins 
: Do those tightly controlled budgets allow Work and Income staff to pay money for beneficiaries to buy a car to get a job? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Work and Income often provides levels of support necessary to get people into work on all sorts of bases—most of them recoverable. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree with the analysis of Dr Louise Humpage and Dr Susan St John that the move to enshrine paid work as the only source of well-being demonstrates “That a Labour Government is undermining the original notion of ‘well-fare’ would have Michael Joseph Savage turning in his grave”; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I certainly do not. I believe that the greatest testimony to the success of our policies is the numbers I have mentioned today at least twice and on several other occasions. The fact of the matter is that for example in terms of youth unemployment in 1999 when National was in power around 17500 18 and 19-year-olds were receiving the unemployment benefit; that number is now around 1200. 
Hon Annette King 
: How many? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is 1200. That is an extraordinary testimony I believe to the success of our policies in supporting people into work. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister confirm that Mr Rooney was correct when he said of Work and Income case managers: “They even told us of cases where they had bought people cars because the job was 70 or 80 miles away … They were not buying Bentley convertibles—they were TR7s—”; if so what is the upper limit for car purchases under Work and Income? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As I said earlier I have not seen the report of Mr Rooney’s conversation with either his mirror or his microphone. I would be happy to investigate any particular instances the member might be concerned about if she were to give me any details. 
Judith Collins 
: Would one of the cases referred to be that of the new taxi driver who had $12000 worth of driver training provided for him then another $15000 provided so that he could pay for his taxi; if it is just how many cars has Work and Income helped to buy in this way under the Minister’s stewardship? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would be delighted to find out that information for the member if she would ask a question. 
Judith Collins 
: What sort of signal is this Minister sending to hard-working New Zealanders who try to be independent if people who go on a benefit and need a car can have Work and Income pay for it—the Government will pay—whereas people who struggle on their own and try to cope do not get any help at all? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Well I have the natural concern about the accuracy of any statements that member makes actually. But I can say that I am sure most New Zealanders are only too pleased at the level of support being provided by Work and Income which has moved 136000 people or more back into work in this community. We have done that by providing support for people not punishing them—and loans. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the United Kingdom parliamentary  
Hansard 
 of 17 May 2007. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
General Practitioners—Workforce 
8.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he made any recent announcements about the general practitioner workforce? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. The Government has increased the places in the general practitioner education programme by 50 percent starting from early next year. It is also possible that there will be a further increase from 2009 but the Government first needs to weigh the need the cost and especially the capacity a bit more closely before making that decision. 
Maryan Street 
: What is the origin of this long-term workforce shortage? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In the early 1990s National cut the general practitioner education programme in half on the grounds that “the market” would provide. The market did not provide. My colleague Annette King increased the intake a little in 2002 as I did again at the beginning of this year. But from February next year we will be training the highest number of general practitioners ever trained in this country. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it the Government’s intention to proceed with a medical training board or does the Government have alternative ideas? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is the Government’s intention to proceed with a medical training board. We will probably call it a health training board but its first task will be to progress undergraduate training. I might just say parenthetically as the member raises the issue that last December my colleague the Minister of Finance increased funding to medical schools by 40 percent and increased funding to dental schools by something closer to 50 percent. We can contrast that with the “mother of all Budgets” where in the small print dental school funding was cut by 40 percent. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table official documents that show there are fewer general practitioners today than there were when this Government started. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Schools—New Entrant Class Sizes 
9.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why did he announce in this year’s Budget a reduction in new entrant class sizes to no more than 18 students by term two next year when Labour promised before the last election that there would be a reduction ensuring “that by 2008 there are no more than 15 students in a class.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government is committed to moving to a teacher-student staffing ratio of 1:15 for year 1 students. The first phase of this process means that the appropriate property provision will be made available and 702 extra teachers will be in place by term two 2008. It is our intention to fund the second phase in Budget 2008. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister categorically guarantee that there was no shift in the policy whatsoever from Labour’s promise that “by 2008 there are no more than 15 students in a class” even though he went out of his way to announce a totally different teacher -student ratio in the Budget; if there was no change why direct the spotlight on himself by announcing a ratio of 1:18? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is no change in the policy of moving to a teacher-student staffing ratio of 1:15 for year 1 students and I have just explained that it will be funded through those two Budgets. But it is an interesting point that the member raises about the policy which originally did state that there would be no more than 15 kids in a year 1 class. The sector pointed out that that of course would give them some difficulty with flexibility. So while we will fund that ratio the way those kids will be allocated to classes by agreement with the sector will be up to them. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What reports has he seen on alternative methods to reduce class sizes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a report that between 1991 and 1999 the then National Government increased the number of students per teacher in secondary and composite school classrooms. National currently has no policy to improve ratios so once again we see crocodile tears over a policy that the National Government has not even gotten around to addressing yet. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why has the Minister told the House that there is no shift in his policy when his own official work programme clearly notes a shift in policy and says that by mid-2007 in time for Budget 2007 on the policy of smaller class sizes the Minister has to “reposition issue as smaller class sizes in the junior school rather than a fixed ratio” and “to use speeches to talk about smaller class sizes rather than just the 1:15 ratio”; if there is no shift why go out of his way to reposition it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is no change in the policy of moving to a teacher-student ratio of 1:15 for year 1 students. 
Hon Bill English 
: No one trusts you. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This year we have funded 702 extra teachers. That will be in place by term two. To the member Bill English on the other side who destroyed the health system I think trust is misplaced in him. 
Katherine Rich 
: How can the Minister tell the House that there is no shift in policy and nothing has changed when in his official work programme it is noted that this objective has been completed through a series of speeches and announcements designed to reposition this issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is no change in the policy of moving to a teacher-student ratio of 1:15 amongst year 1 students. The first phase of that was funded in this Budget and the next phase will be funded in 2008. 
Katherine Rich 
: If there is no change in the policy why should the Minister go out of his way to “reposition the issue” and go out of his way to announce a totally different ratio from the one he promised at the last election? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know that the member possibly was not listening before so let me go back to the fact that when we talked through this policy with schools one of the things they did ask for was that instead of a rigid 1:15 class size they wanted the ratio funded and then some flexibility about how they would apply it. That is what we have talked about and that is what the schools have asked for. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So you changed the promise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If there is one person in the House who knows about changing promises it is the person who is intervening now Dr Nick Smith. 
Katherine Rich 
: So while the Minister stands in this House and swears there has been no repositioning of the issue even though it is actually in his work programme is he saying that as a result of consultation with the school sector they have asked for a larger ratio rather than a smaller one hence his movement to a 1:18 ratio from his promise of 1:15? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. Let me go through it again. The policy of 1:15 stays for year 1 students. The first phase was implemented during this Budget and the second phase will be implemented during Budget 2008. 
Rest Homes—District Health Board Funding 
10.  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is the Department of Labour investigating a report that “District Health Boards are increasing funding for contracted rest homes but want them to get it only if they sign collective agreements with their staff.”; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have read the press release to which the member refers. It is not correct. The fact is that district health boards are being asked to ensure that providers of residential care and home-based support services have in place access to collective agreements for their employees. Unlike the situation under the Employment Contracts Act the return of which the National Party is promoting we say workers should have a genuine choice about being on an individual agreement or a collective contract. I am surprised that even that member is so opposed to genuine choice. Even the ACT party supports it. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can a contract that forces employers to promote collective bargaining and makes them report to the district health board if they have not concluded a collective agreement be consistent with the Employment Relations Act’s stipulation that employers must not express a preference when it comes to collective versus individual bargaining? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If I may give the member some advice it is firstly to listen to the answer to the primary question and ensure that the facts of the situation are put on the table rather than using her imagination; and secondly to stop undermining her leader by continually promoting a return to the Employment Contracts Act which he is denying. 
Darien Fenton 
: Can the Minister explain how collective agreements in the aged-care sector will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services for older people in care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can. In order to improve the quality of aged-care services it is crucial that we reduce the high turnover of the workforce so that we can train caregivers better and have a better-skilled staff looking after older New Zealanders and supporting disabled people. Collective agreements play an important part in reducing staff turnover by enabling better relationships between employers and employees promoting better conditions for workers promoting consistent quality standards and reducing the possibility that newly hired workers are employed on lower wages and conditions than others who do the same job. Lower turnover of course also benefits employers by reducing the huge cost of recruitment and training. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does she agree that it is inappropriate for a State agency to attempt to impose compulsory unionism on private companies by threatening to withhold funding increases and can she confirm that collective agreements were never part of the increase in funding negotiated by New Zealand First? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There is no compulsion there is no threat and I am sure that New Zealand First always envisaged that as part of the significant increases in both residential and home-based support services funding a fair share of that money would flow on to the hard-working caregivers. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How is it possible for an employer to promote a collective agreement to his or her employees without promoting union membership to those very same employees? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The district health boards are asking providers to have in place access to collective agreements. In fact there is no compulsion either to be a party to the collective agreement or to be a union member. There is no such requirement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that the money we are talking about over $400 million is part and parcel of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First and can I also ask the member who asked that question on behalf of the National Party whether she remembers the famous line in a Rolling Stones song that goes: “Hey! You! Get off of my cloud.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I can certainly confirm the considerable support that New Zealand First has given our Government to ensure that funding goes into residential care and home-based support services. I can also confirm the fact that according to my mother that is a valid Rolling Stones quote. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Has the Minister heard statements made by her colleague the Minister of Health to the Health Committee that “I’m trying to promote collectivity.” and that providers “won’t get the funding unless they make available collective agreements” and will she be advising him that employers cannot express a preference between collective and individual bargaining; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: On the basis of the member’s quotes from the Minister of Health there is no need to advise him on that matter. It is very clear from his support for the promotion of collective contracts that he is very well aware of the law because that is exactly what the legislation says. 
Paid Parental Leave—Uptake 
11.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has she received any evaluations on the uptake of paid parental leave in New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have received a recent evaluation of the paid parental leave scheme that the Labour-led Government introduced in 2002. It shows that it is widely embraced by New Zealanders and has been taken up by 80 percent of eligible women. With last year’s change to include the self-employed the scheme is now available to nearly 90 percent of all women in paid work. 
Dave Hereora 
: Noting the Minister’s primary answer did the evaluation identify any potential barriers to the scheme or its further extension? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. It noted that although few fathers currently use the parental leave provisions many said they wanted to take time off work to help care for their new babies. Our Government is committed to exploring options allowing that to happen and to supporting parental choice much—I note—to the disdain of anti - paid parental leave advocate Kate Wilkinson who said that when it comes to providing this support the State should “butt out”. Even if the evaluation did not identify the National Party as a barrier to paid parental leave Kate Wilkinson’s attitude would certainly suggest otherwise. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a direct misrepresentation. What I said— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that is not a point of order. Please be seated. The member knows that is not a point of order. Any further questions? No. Then we go to question No. 12 Heather Roy. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take personal offence at being misrepresented by that Minister—Standing Order 116. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I said that is not a point of order. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: This is a different point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is your point of order? 
Kate Wilkinson 
: It was a personal reflection on my credibility and I take personal offence at being so misrepresented. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member should know by now—she has been here long enough—that if she wants to make a personal statement that is in order but that was not a valid point of order. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I seek leave to table the press release quoting Kate Wilkinson saying the State should “butt out”. 
Document not tabled. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I seek leave to table that same press release which stated I had said the State should “butt out of the home”. 
Document not tabled. 
Early Childhood Education—Petition 
12.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What if any advice did his officials provide him following their “in-depth” discussions with petitioners Amy Malcolm and others who are calling on the Government to honour Labour’s election promise that “20 hours free education will be provided for three and four-year-olds at any licensed teacher-led service in New Zealand from July 2007”; and what has he done to assure himself that the concerns of Amy Malcolm and others regarding the promised 20 hours free policy have been allayed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 My officials have advised me that they have explained to Ms Malcolm that the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy is aimed at currently enrolled 3 to 4-year-olds and that as more services and teachers come on stream we will be able to expand the number of children who can access this outstandingly good policy. Indeed I would point out that since Ms Malcolm and the other persons alongside her began their petition of course the number of providers in her area has risen substantially. Hopefully more children are now getting into those centres. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister understand the difference between subsidising 3 and 4-year-olds and making this scheme free as was promised by Labour; if he does what is the difference? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member would know from reading the material on this policy that 20 hours’ free early childhood education applies to that regulated level of education that we are paying for. As the booklet shows if there are additional services that a centre wishes to provide like taking children out on trips to expand their experiences then that centre can establish an optional charge for those services. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why does he not just admit what the rest of the country already knows—that Labour’s promise of free education for 3 and 4-year-olds was an election year lie? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government is carrying out the promise of putting in place a 20 hours free early childhood education policy. As the member opposite knows this is extremely popular and if he wishes to revive his own fortunes at the next election he may like to get on board with this outstanding policy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not so many days ago that we were regaled with a code of conduct and Mr Hide started doing a somersault and became the leader of the code of conduct for parliamentarians. Yet today he gets up and accuses parliamentarians of lying. What is to be Rodney? 
Rodney Hide 
: I might—and I know I have to do this constantly with the Rt Hon Winston Peters—remind the member of the Standing Orders. My supplementary question was perfectly in order and I actually did not do what he accused me of. Maybe Mr Peters is getting to an age where he struggles to follow proceedings. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we should just leave it there. They are not points of order. [ 
Interruption 
] There will be order if members wish to stay in the Chamber. They are not points of order. The member asked his question and it was responded to by the Minister. As to any other comments I am sure the public will make up its own mind. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Now there you go Madam Speaker. I was talking about the code of conduct. I remind Mr Hide that the first sign of ageing is that you grow through your hair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is entirely inappropriate as the member knows. 
Dianne Yates 
: What other responses has the Minister seen to Labour’s 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a statement from the New Zealand Educational Institute which represents thousands of early childhood education teachers saying: “We are delighted to see the increasing numbers of quality centres deciding to opt in to the opportunity that 20 hours’ free early childhood education will offer from 1 July.” because it can see that it is a much better deal than anything else on offer for families. I can only imagine that the New Zealand Educational Institute has taken one look at the Government’s policy and one look at National’s absent policy and it knows where it is well off.