Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10438] 
Questions to Ministers 
Schools—Anti-virus Software 
1. DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps have been taken to ensure that schools have ready access to reliable anti-virus software? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Free anti-virus software for State and State-integrated schools will be available from the beginning of next year. A large number of schools currently do not have quality anti-virus software leaving them exposed to virus attacks. Through the provision of a common high-quality anti-virus software package at no cost to the schools the Government is protecting the investment schools are making. 
David Benson-Pope 
: How does this initiative fit within the Government’s wider strategy for promoting the use of information and communication technology in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As Maurice Williamson often tells me ensuring our children develop good information and communication technology skills is an essential part of equipping them for life and work in the 21st century. I am looking forward to Maurice Williamson getting back on that front bench. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that most viruses are designed to attack the hegemonic proprietary software platform Microsoft while non-proprietary operating platforms such as SuSE Linux now meet international security certification and how will he protect the ability of schools to choose open-source alternatives? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Quite a few schools use open-source software. That is their right and if they want to do that that is fine. I am not aware of the technical details but my understanding is that a lot of the software will support Linux as well as Microsoft. 
Child Support—Liable-parent Debt Write-offs 
2.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Revenue 
: What message does the Government’s announcement that it will wipe part of the child support debt owed by errant parents on a “dollar for dollar” basis send to struggling solo mothers and their kids who rely on child support payments? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 The Government has made no such announcement. 
Katherine Rich 
: In that case with regard to comments that the Minister made to the Christchurch  
Pres 
s 
 how does he explain his comment that the bill proposed for next year will “increase flexibility and parents will be able to write off back debt on a dollar for dollar basis.”? Certainly every individual would think that their life would be more flexible if they were able to forget about their debts. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government has been canvassing a range of options to encourage parents to pay off child support debts. I will be progressing legislation next year that helps to reduce penalties on an ongoing basis. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: When was the current penalties regime put in place and is it working? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It was put in place by the National Government in 1992. The growth in debt has demonstrated that it is not working as well as it could be. That is why we are looking at making some changes. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: How does the Minster reconcile his statement that “New Zealand actually has one of the best-performing child support systems in the world” with the dreadful anomalies in our present system which can have a father of 10 children paying a total of $12 a week for all those children while a father of two pays almost $20000 a year in spite of having his children for 40 percent of the time; and will he now consider a comprehensive review of the whole system along the lines of that proposed by Judge Trapski almost a decade ago? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I believe that in general the child support system is working well. The penalties regime which is a part of it is arguably not and that is why we are looking at reforming it. 
Marc Alexander 
: What message does the Government send to New Zealanders when on the one hand it announces that it will wipe child support debt owed by non-custodial parents and when on the other hand Steve Maharey says “Every father has a responsibility to be emotionally practically and financially engaged with his parenting responsibilities.”? Which one is it to be? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Non-custodial parents who are in general but not always fathers do have a very important responsibility both to their children and their broader families. The Government upholds that. We are trying to make the system of collecting that debt more effective. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wonder whether the Minister could help the ordinary people of this country out by telling us why if someone is not penalised for not paying his or her debts that person would bother to pay them? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Firstly because parents should love their children and their children need them. Secondly because this Government is not and has never said it will be wiping off all penalties—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A voice came from over there best resembling a dog with a cleft palate but I think it was Mr Mallard making some allegation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say that such comments as were made were out of order. I prefer not to have them recorded in  
Hansard  
but now they will be unfortunately. But since the matter has been raised the member will stand withdraw and apologise for that allegation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you now to elucidate somewhat on what was out of order in my comments—a matter of fact was recorded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes but it was in the second person for a start and that is out of order above anything else. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why did the Minister talk about this proposal to wipe big chunks of debt yesterday—3 weeks before Christmas—when the first thing an irresponsible parent will do is stop paying child support because he knows that the Government will next year wipe out a large proportion of his debt? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place not all irresponsible parents are he’s. In the second place there are many reasons to continue paying one’s child support including the continued existence of penalties. 
Marc Alexander 
: How will the Government’s announcement that it is wiping child support debt generate any sense of responsibility for the men of this country or is this a twisted campaign to allow them to fertilise flee and forget? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Members of other parties simply cannot have it both ways. One cannot argue on the one hand that we need to do more to recover debt and then criticise when we do so—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is the only warning Mr Hide gets today. 
Katherine Rich 
: With regard to his last statement how does the Minister explain to mothers like Christine Hall of Dunedin who have been battling for years to get their ex-husbands to pay child support debts that his big idea to reduce debt is to forget about it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Without dealing with taxpayer-specific matters can I say this: the Government is determined to make it both better and easier for people to pay their child support payments. The presence of large penalties can act as a blockage to non-custodial parents re-entering the payment system. It is that blockage that we are seeking to remove. 
Marc Alexander 
: In light of the Government’s announcement that it will wipe child support debt for non-custodial parents who will not pay for their children’s upbringing will he also help to wipe the personal debt incurred by parents who are trying to pay for their children’s upbringing? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The presumption of the question is wrong. May I repeat that the Government is not proposing to wipe all debt for people who owe child support. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—Compliance Costs 
3.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Has he been advised of any compliance cost implications from the passage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Health 
: Yes he has. However the compulsory costs have been kept to a minimum. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In view of the provisions of the Act that require in just 27 days the outdoor entrance of every school classroom and building in New Zealand to be labelled as a no-smoking area firstly has the Minister advised schools of their need to comply within that length of time and secondly will her ministry be making an appropriation to cover the costs or is it something schools are expected to cover out of their operating grants at the moment to the detriment of the children they are supposed to be educating? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There will be a nominal cost to schools to provide external signs at all entrances. The Ministry of Health is working with the Ministry of Education to keep this cost to a minimum. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is the annual estimated cost of treating diseases associated with smoking in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is a considerable cost to New Zealanders from the impact of smoking. For example the health costs alone including hospital costs are estimated in 1992 dollars at $202 million a year. 
Hon David Carter 
: How many Ministry of Health officials will be employed to police the smoke-free environments legislation and will the Minister assure the House that this number of staff will be able to cover adequately the whole of New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There are no plans to increase the number of smoke-free officers or health protection officers who currently exist. There are now 17 dedicated smoke-free officers in New Zealand and their job is to oversee the current legislation. There are 117 health protection officers in relation to food issues toxic substances and so on. There is no intention or plan to increase the number of them at this stage. We want to give this law a chance—to see how it goes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the total revenue take for the Government from taxes on cigarettes and tobacco and is it not 3½ times higher than the figure the Minister has just given us for the costs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have with me the exact number of dollars from cigarette revenue but I gave the member the cost to the health sector only. The only research we have in New Zealand to show the cost was done by Brian Easton in 1997 and it showed a cost of $22 billion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we are entitled to raise by way of point of order the question as to what the Minister meant when she said $22 billion. Did she mean the whole world? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the Minister’s answer and she is entitled to give it. It was a specific answer. 
Heather Roy 
: Did the Associate Minister give any regard to the Ministry of Health’s proposal last year in the 5-year plan for tobacco control in New Zealand for its “cost-saving strategy for the health sector” to transfer the enforcement of smoking laws to the police; and how does he square that proposal to require the police to enforce these laws with the Government’s claim that anti-smoking laws are about social change and not policing? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Obviously the Government did not consider giving this matter to the police. No provision was made for that and it is not likely to be. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What assurance can the Minister give the House that every school in New Zealand will meet the requirement of the Act to have every outdoor entrance labelled as a non-smoking area by 1 January 2004 in view of the fact that the Act was passed only last night and may not yet have received the royal assent and that most schools are closing for the holidays in the next couple of weeks—or is this provision just some new employment programme for the summer to get people out there painting the signs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the member is assuming that there will be some gold-plated sign applied to the building. I think we will find that schools have enough time between now and when they return at the end of January to put in place a sign stating that they are non-smoking areas. 
Schools—Closures 
4.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he on track for closing about 300 schools as reported in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 on 2 November 2003 and how many have been closed this year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The figure of 300 is an estimate of the total number over the next decade to 15 years based on a drop of 76000 students over the same period. There is no predetermined number of school closures. Fourteen have been closed this year—none as a result of reviews—and eight will be opened next year or the year after. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why is his ministry sending out letters to principals telling them not to involve pupils in their opposition to school closures when some pupils are old enough to vote are required to be on boards of trustees and are affected by the closures too or does he think that pupils should not have an opinion about the closing of their schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I respect the psychologist involved in sending out the letter. I think that from a psychologist’s point of view it was quite good advice and it should be looked at. But I think it would have been better if the ministry had not sent it because it has inflamed the situation. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why is the Government engaged in the process of school network reviews? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I indicated before the population drop over the next decade to 15 years of people of school age will be about 76000. It is slightly unfortunate that that is happening quite unevenly around the country. We are building new schools in north-west Auckland and south-east Auckland where there are likely to be 40000 extra people over the next 8 or 9 years. It is important that we have a real matching of where the students are and where the schools are. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the Holy Trinity model of shared governance and professional leadership which is currently being proposed for a group of Catholic integrated schools—in line with New Zealand First policy I might say—being promoted as a possible alternative for State school reorganisation through the network reviews? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes it is including by National Party MPs. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of an email to a South Canterbury mother from Michael Deaker one of the ministry facilitators that states: “The requirement that schools resulting from this review be sustainable over 10 to 15 years and include viable professional communities of teachers ... we have set a roll figure of around 160 as the minimum for country primary schools.”; if so has he told Michael Deaker what he has told this House—that there is no minimum roll figure for rural schools and that Mr Deaker should be careful to give factual and accurate information to communities whose schools are under threat of closure? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and indirectly yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he have a response to the 35-page report commissioned by the Timaru District Council that challenges not only the flawed network-review consultation process but also its lack of economic and social impact assessment and the faulty use of population projections? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In discussing it with the council I have suggested that the fundamental problem is that we have more schools than the number of pupils justify and nobody wants his or her school to close. Education is about children not buildings. Half-empty schools are in nobody’s best interests. I was quoting Nick Smith. 
Deborah Coddington 
: As Minister of Education what does he think is so wrong with the schools that he is closing when the parents are in favour of them the community supports them financially and physically and the Education Review Office has given many of them glowing reports; can he tell the House why he thinks he knows better? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not sure of the relevance of the GST comment but the important point that has to be made is that we have to make some choices. I accept it is the ACT point of view that schools should be allowed to drift to closure. As I have indicated 14 have done that so far this year not as part of a review. It is my view that we have to look to having a sustainable network. We have to have schools in the right places. We have some very strong boards of trustees and principals in charge of schools of 13 or 14 pupils when 5 minutes down the road there is another school that is struggling. If we could put the strengths together I think we would guarantee quality education in a way that that member knows is not being delivered in some schools now. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are a couple of things I want to call to your attention. Firstly at the end of the last question a comment was made to the Minister by the junior Government whip to which he responded at the start of his answer and clearly there was meant to be some barb inside that comment directed towards the questioner. That was inappropriate. It should have been picked up on. 
Secondly in the previous question he was asked whether he would give a response to the Timaru District Council. He chose instead to read a very good quote in the circumstances from the Hon Nick Smith but failed to give his own ideas on that matter. That cannot be considered as addressing the question—if one just says that someone else said this. 
There is another matter that I would ask you to consider in the case of this Minister. Throughout his responses there are these little chips and comments which quite frankly will lead to considerable disorder if they are not heard by you and if he is not required to apologise for his appalling performance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Three points were raised but the second one has no relevance at all. If a Minister quotes another member and agrees with the member I cannot see what on earth is wrong with that. The first and third points are relevant and were accurately made. I am just warning the junior Government whip to keep quiet. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Minister try again to reply to the last question put by Deborah Coddington asking why is he opposed to small schools that the parents are in favour of the pupils like and the academic results of which are excellent; and is he now saying that the only reason he is closing them is that adjacent big schools are failing and that somehow closing the successful small schools will help? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Defence Forces—Deployment Off Shore 
5.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has he received any recent updates on current New Zealand Defence Force deployments off shore? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes. I can tell members that we currently have 480 defence personnel deployed in 17 missions in 12 countries. Major deployments include 17 personnel in Timor-Leste contributing to UN missions 126 with the intervention force in the Solomon Islands and 296 personnel in the Middle East including Afghanistan and Iraq. 
Darren Hughes 
: Given the multilateral nature of these deployments has he received any reports on their effectiveness from the other countries we are working with? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes. During my recent visit to the United Kingdom the Ministers and defence chiefs whom I met with made it clear to me that we should be proud of the high regard in which our defence personnel are held by their international peers. The high standards of training and the approach to operations are valued and respected by the defence personnel they work alongside. 
Tauranga Surgeon—Patient Safety 
6.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How does she explain Mr Ian Breeze performing surgery on Mr Barry Baker at Norfolk hospital on 6 December 2000 and operating on Mr Baker again at Tauranga Hospital on 10 and 14 December 2000 given that in her answer to question No. 3 yesterday she stated that restrictions were placed on Mr Breeze on 29 August 2000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The answer I gave yesterday was correct. Restrictions had been placed on Mr Breeze’s ability to carry out colorectal surgery in Tauranga public hospital on 29 August 2000. I am advised by the Bay of Plenty District Health Board that the surgery carried out on Mr Baker on 10 and 14 December 2000 was not colorectal. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Given that according to the Bay of Plenty District Health Board Chief Executive Officer Ron Dunham fellow surgeons whistle-blew on Mr Breeze accusing him of incompetence why was the Bay of Plenty District Health Board unable to take action until the Health and Disability Commissioner stepped in; why did it not get the college to competency-review him earlier and why did it not get the Medical Council involved? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: My understanding is that Mr Breeze had had an audit earlier. The member got it wrong this morning when she said it was done by Mr John Simpson—it was done by another person in 1995. It was the district health board that put on the restrictions. I say to the member that she ought to ask the Medical Council. After all she was one who strongly supported self-regulation by doctors over their own profession. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why was the Bay of Plenty District Health Board unable to stop Mr Breeze practising surgery when Southern Cross’s investigation committee was able to conduct an inquiry into his practice in 2000 and immediately banned him from practising in its hospitals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The district health board stopped him from operating on colorectal cancer in August 2000. It continued to put restriction on his practice. However the competency of health professionals is decided by their own organisation the Medical Council. That organisation self-regulates the health professions—something that that member strongly supported. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why did it have to be Shirley Crowley who took a complaint and I quote: “I was advised to take a complaint. I was told it was not correct. I was told this in intensive care and I was told by other medical people namely at Southern Cross Hospital because they did their own investigation and the investigator there said: ‘You have to take this further.’ I said: ‘I don’t really feel that I’m the right person to do that.’ and he said ‘Yes you are’. He said: ‘Somebody has to do it and it’s got to be you.’ ” Why did it have to be Shirley Crowley; why did the system not ensure patient safety? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member makes a very good point about the system. The member will recall that prior to the passage of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act complaints could be reported to a number of agencies: the Medical Council the Accident Compensation Corporation etc. I explained this to the member yesterday. Fortunately we changed that. There is only one place to complain to now and that is the Health and Disability Commissioner. That came out of the inquiry we had about Dr Graham Parry. It probably could have been fixed years ago. Fortunately this Government has done it. 
Question time interrupted.