Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14161] 
Questions to Ministers 
Tax Cuts—Four Tests 
1. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports suggesting that he abandon his four tests for tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes one from Mr John Key who has suggested that the four tests cannot be met and therefore should be abandoned. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that his four tests are completely irrelevant given that the Prime Minister has announced three times that there will be tax cuts and he announced again today just half an hour ago that there will be tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the Prime Minister and I have both in a synchronised fashion announced on many occasions that there will be tax cuts. But of course the interesting question for Mr Key is which of the following he thinks tax cuts should achieve: greater inequality reduced social services increased borrowing or increased inflation. Again he looks down as he spent much of yesterday looking down. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Did the Minister’s four tests have anything to do with his reneging in Budget 2007 on the tax cuts through bracket adjustments he had promised in 2005 or was it just—as he said at the time—because New Zealand taxpayers did not express sufficient gratitude to him when he decided in 2005 to reduce their tax burden? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think the phrase “chewing gum tax cuts” came from New Zealand taxpayers at large. I remember where that particular phrase came from. However that had nothing to do with the ongoing programme we will be announcing in the Budget. It will be interesting to see whether the National Party votes for those tax cuts. It has voted against every other tax cut this Government has introduced. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain why he has argued for 8 years that no tax cut could meet those tests and why he has suddenly discovered in election year that tax cuts can meet all of them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is wonderful at making up a fact asking a question about it and then sitting down and looking very pleased with himself about it. What I will not do is what that member did—cut taxes and then cut New Zealand superannuation to pay for it. 
Sue Moroney 
: How does the announcement of a programme of personal tax cuts fit with previous decisions around taxation made by this Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That programme will build upon and complement the $4.5 billion a year of tax cuts already introduced for families savers and business. I point out yet again that firstly National voted against every one of those tax cuts; and secondly as far back as I can go in history National has never voted for a cut to the business tax rate—only Labour Governments have done that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister remember when there were “Swiss chocolate” tax cuts without any cuts for public investment in education health and other areas such as in 1998 when there was a $1.1 billion series of tax cuts and who the Treasurer was who did that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do recollect some tax cuts in that period and I do recollect Mr Peters having something to do with them. But then I also recollect the National Government turning around and cutting New Zealand superannuation as a consequence. 
New Zealand - Australia Migration—Statement 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reported statement in early 2000 that she was ashamed of the number of people leaving New Zealand to live in Australia? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am glad the member said “reported” as I can find no such direct quote from me. I was of course extremely concerned at the time about the huge growth in the earnings gap between New Zealand and Australia in the 1990s—a 50 percent growth in the earnings gap. I note that it has not increased further since then despite the minerals extraction boom in Australia. 
John Key 
: If as reported in both the  
Press 
 and the  
Evening Post 
 the Prime Minister was ashamed about migration to Australia in 2000 how would she describe her feelings now when net migration to Australia has risen to 28000 people a year which is the highest number for 20 years and triple what it was 4 years ago? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I know there has been a major minerals extraction boom which has sucked labour out of Australian states that do not have that boom as well as out of New Zealand. 
Tim Barnett 
: Is housing affordability likely to be a factor in trans-Tasman migration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There are housing affordability problems on both sides of the Tasman. Here our Government is taking a lead on developments for affordable housing like that in Hobsonville. I note that last year Mr Key described the Hobsonville project as being economic vandalism and likely to lead to a big ghetto in his electorate. This morning on Radio New Zealand he said he agreed with it. I guess he was just talking to a different audience from the one he tried to whip up in his own electorate. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Finlay Macdonald who stated in the last  
Sunday Star Times 
 that our declining wage and living standards relative to Australia’s are the legacy of “socio-economic vandalism” by both the Labour and National Governments through the 1980s and 1990s and would she also agree that the great experiment in price stability run by those Governments has successfully created the desired low-inflation low-wage low-growth economy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: While the Employment Contracts Act held sway in New Zealand in the 1990s the average gap in real average earnings between New Zealand and Australia blew out from 19 percent to 28 percent. That gap has not widened since then despite the huge minerals extraction boom in Australia. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that when New Zealand loses 77000 people a year under permanent long-term departures and replaces them with the same number of people coming in—or a few more—that is a “brain exchange” as her other Ministers have put the case to be? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The demography experts are telling us that New Zealand is the net gainer on skills through migration at this time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that between 1984 and 1996 when the great economic experiment was persisted with first by Douglas then by Caygill and through to people like—I have forgotten already—Richardson and Birch Australia’s economy leaped ahead in real terms by 27 percent; and why would people in New Zealand want a change back to that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree with the member that hard-line neo-liberal policies in this country did a lot of damage to wages and to the social fabric. That is why this Government has pursued a different course from that. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister is convinced that we are gaining under this exercise of losing so many New Zealanders to Australia has she noticed a study done by the Australian department of immigration that pointed out that New Zealand has the biggest brain drain in the OECD in terms of native-born tertiary-trained people leaving this country when 45 percent of New Zealanders living overseas have a university degree? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I have not noted that but I have noted one of our leading demography experts saying in response to that sort of wild claim made by Mr Key that claims of an Aussie brain drain from New Zealand are a myth. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister recall the effect of the “mother of all Budgets” by Ruth Richardson when—[ 
Interruption 
] I know it sounds terrible to members because it is a home truth is it not? I say to members I did not back it—quite the contrary. I was expelled from Cabinet because I did not back it. For the benefit of members who have been here for 5 minutes I will give a bit of history— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just ask his question. 
Hon Member 
: Talk about history! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am not history sunshine. That member is. Can the Prime Minister recall the effect of the “mother of all Budgets” and what happened after it when this country was forced into a recession? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I recall the “mother of all Budgets” only too clearly. I recall that the effect within a short period of time was for unemployment in New Zealand under the National Government to go into double figures—for Maoridom it went to 25 percent. I recall that people could not afford to live in their State house I recall National charging people to go to the public hospital and I recall the benefit cuts. I recall tremendous damage being done to the economic and social fabric of New Zealand which is why National should never occupy the Treasury benches again. 
John Key 
: What message does the Prime Minister have for New Zealand families who are seeing their children their loved ones and their friends departing New Zealand in record numbers to go to live in Australia or does she think—judging by her answers this afternoon—that the message she is sending them is that that is OK because they are the dumb ones? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I know that Kiwis are entrepreneurial people who will do well anywhere they go in the world. I also know that New Zealand which has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world and is seeking skilled people today is a haven for high-skilled people from other countries. If Mr Key wants to say he does not welcome those people I would like to hear him say that at the ethnic functions he turns up at all over Auckland. 
John Key 
: Will the Prime Minister recognise that one of the major reasons why so many New Zealanders are leaving for Australia is that their wages are significantly higher than they would be in New Zealand and that in fact over the last 5 years the Australian Government has cut taxes progressively every year the Australian Government has used private sector capital to build infrastructure and the Australian Government has been concerned about housing affordability; and is the trend she is noticing that over the last 5 years the Australian Government has done a pretty darn good job and after 9 years her Government has finally woken up to the fact that it has some problems? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The only trend I have noticed is that the gap in real earnings between New Zealand and Australia blew out by 50 percent under a National Government and has not widened since. The other trend I have noted is for the Leader of the Opposition to get it wrong. This morning on  
Morning Report 
 he said he was going to increase wages. When he was asked “How?” he said “I am going to cut taxes.” Even  
Morning Report 
 said “But Mr Key that is not increasing wages.” 
John Key 
: On the basis of that I ask the Prime Minister whether if someone earns $100000 a year and his or her tax rate is 90 percent and then the person’s tax rate is cut to 10 percent under a National Government—where the person’s tax rate is lower than that under the Labour Government—that person has more after-tax wages? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the National Party’s policy is either for a 90 percent or for a 10 percent tax rate I would like to hear more about it. 
Land Use—Pressure on Environment 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he agree with chapter 13 dumped from the report on the state of the environment that “significant intensification of land use particularly pastoral land use” is “arguably the largest pressure today on New Zealand’s land freshwaters and coastal oceans and atmosphere”; if not what does he believe is the largest pressure on New Zealand’s land freshwaters and coastal oceans and atmosphere? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 As I am sure Dr Norman told the member because he was there both myself and the Ministry for the Environment officials spoke at length about the damning facts in the main body of this report and the summary document which clearly showed that this was the case. If the member has not spoken to Dr Norman about it I recommend that she opens the report just to the foreword and reads my comments in there saying that the report highlights the decline in water quality in New Zealand “as a consequence of the increasing intensity of agricultural production.” Clearly that is the case. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In that case which conclusions specifically was he referring to when he told the media on Monday that chapter 13 was scrapped because it made a series of conclusions that were not strictly supported by the facts and on what peer-reviewed reports is he basing that conclusion or does he just disagree with the specialists who wrote chapter 13? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is the very area—because it is forward-looking rather than backward-looking as the report is—that was outside the scope and actually not matched by the facts in the report. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question asked specifically which conclusions the Minister was referring to and he has not answered that at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to add to his answer? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is the conclusion that the member was referring to in her question. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the Government doing to address the issues raised in the report? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Labour-led Government is already taking a lot of leadership in this area. There is a substantial work programme and a range of initiatives in place to help us reduce or mitigate the impact on our environment: the emissions trading scheme support for household energy efficiency support for solar heating support for waste reduction and recycling initiatives and environmental standards on air and water through to the multi-million dollar funds for research into sustainable primary production and for sustainable land management. The list is actually much longer than that but I could get in trouble with Madam Speaker if I went through it all. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister in response to National’s policy announcement last year of 5-yearly reports on the state of the environment say: “Oh that’s Government policy.” when Cabinet minutes from 2002 show that despite the Ministry for the Environment recommending a 5-year report at that time Cabinet made a decision not to do so? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was not aware until the member announced on the day that the report was released that the National Party had any policy in the area. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was: “Why did the Government if its policy was to produce a 5-yearly report reject the recommendation of the Ministry for the Environment in 2002 not to produce a 5-yearly report?” The answer I got from the Minister was totally irrelevant to that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The transcript will show that the member prefaced his question with a remark about National Party policy for 5-yearly reports to which I responded. If the member’s memory is as short as that it is pretty sad. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to add any more to the other part of the question that was asked? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I indicated on the day it is the Government’s policy to now produce these reports every 5 years and I am glad the Opposition agrees with us. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister tell the House how long it will now take to get national environmental standards on water quality—as recommended by chapter 13 and as referred to in his previous answer—how long it will then take for regional councils to implement the standards in plans and consents and how long it will then take for water quality to improve? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can tell the member that the programme will have some draft standards for circulation in May or June. It is a process that requires a board and submissions and it is likely to be next year before regional councils actually start their work on it. On the question of how long it takes the advice I have had is that it does depend on the area. I am told for example that in the Taupo area some of the runoff does not actually get to the lake for 40 or 50 years so it is 40 or 50 years in those areas before the water starts improving. Apparently in some areas in the South Island it can be a matter of hundreds of years until the improvements that are made actually flow through into the rivers. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Was chapter 13 pulled because it clearly points the finger at agriculture and recommends a “polluter pays” principle at a time when the Minister’s Government is subsidising the farming industry’s greenhouse gas emissions to the tune of $1 million every working day and allowing it to pollute our rivers for free? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The chapter was pulled for two reasons: first that the qualitative comments contained in the draft section were not backed up by the facts contained in the report itself; second the substantive comments being made were actually right through the report. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Was the chapter pulled then because although the Minister’s Government proudly proclaims its biggest road-building binge in history chapter 13 states that doubling the distance travelled by vehicles on our roads over the past 20 years is putting pressure on the environment and human health? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The chapter was pulled because the qualitative comments contained in the draft report were not backed up by the facts contained in the report itself and the substantive comments being made were carried through the report itself. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for the member’s bill in my name tabled with the Clerk’s Office 8 months ago to be tabled and set down for first reading on the next members’ day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Roading—Public-private Partnerships 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why does the Government now consider the Waterview Connection to be a potential candidate for a public-private partnership? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Because it is a project of significant scale. Indeed it is the largest single roading project that we know of to make a public-private partnership a viable option because it may allow us to complete the project earlier than if it were funded from the National Land Transport Fund given the pressures on that fund. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister recall that late last year Labour ruled out the use of public-private partnerships in any form in order to score a political point on the day and in fact one Minister said Labour would die in a ditch to prevent any public-private partnership from being used in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that could be described these days as an academic question. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Does the current pattern of road funding differ from that in 1999? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes markedly. Total central government investment in land transport has increased by over 2½ times. Total central government public transport investment is almost 12 times higher and total central government spending on roading has doubled in that period. But there are still major infrastructure deficits that need to be overcome. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that the potential for a public-private partnership along the Waterview Connection is indicative of a relaxation in the Labour Government’s ideological position on private sector involvement in infrastructure; if so in what other areas does he foresee private sector involvement in New Zealand’s infrastructure projects? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the latter point in terms of telecommunications infrastructure of course the private sector plays the dominant—indeed the overwhelming—role and one of the arguments at the moment is whether the public sector should be playing a stronger role in that regard. I remind the member that the legislation that enables public-private partnerships which were not legal in 1999 when we became the Government was passed in 2003 under this Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: When Labour uses the term “public-private partnership” does it mean the definition given by the Minister of Transport who is meant to oversee this project when she said: “we already have public-private partnerships. We have the private sector building the roads; we have the public sector paying for them.”—is that what the Labour Government means? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Very clearly we have public-private partnerships with small Ps because the private sector does by and large build roads in New Zealand. It is a long time since we had a Ministry of Works that built the roads. Most people in the context we are talking about today understand Public-Private Partnerships with capital Ps to be rather more specific around the nature of the private sector involvement in the management of the entire process. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister confirm that the Government can borrow money at a lower level of interest than a business can and that businesses always want a profit; therefore why does the Government not just borrow the money build the required utility and pay it off over time—what is wrong with that option? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Claims have been made over many years that the private sector through a public-private partnership mechanism will be able to deliver on time within budget and probably more cheaply than the standard public sector - led procedures are able to do. We have not done this previously because most of the projects we have had have been relatively small scale and the costs involved in doing the first public-private partnership did not make it worthwhile exploring the options. This is a $2 billion - plus project. It is therefore worth testing whether those assertions are correct. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the real reasons the Government has mentioned public-private partnerships are that the Prime Minister wants a tunnel put through her electorate instead of a road that it will cost well over $2 billion—probably $3 billion—and that the Government would have to borrow the money or put petrol tax up even further to do so so it has decided to call it a public-private partnership? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: However expensive a tunnel might prove to be the National Party would be quite incapable of producing a light at the end of it. But more than that the deep tunnel option is probably cheaper than the alternative option of a cut and fill and certainly far easier to consent than trying to drive a road on surface right the way through existing areas. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that in fact Labour has been opposed to public-private partnerships the whole time it has been in office and that all it announced the other day was its intention to set up a committee to look at an option for something that cannot work under current legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well that is certainly more precise than anything we have heard from National so far in any of these areas. But more than that the member needs to remind himself that this Government went to the trouble of passing legislation through Parliament to enable public-private partnerships which were illegal—and which party voted against that legislation at every point? The National Party voted against it. 
Keith Locke 
: Point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We have a point of order. If members interject they will leave the Chamber. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article from the Melbourne  
Age 
 showing that a toll-funded public-private partnership motorway was much more expensive than if it had been publicly funded. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Unemployment—Reports 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received about the level of unemployment in New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen reports that the Labour-led Government is supporting more and more people into real jobs. We now have record employment record labour-force participation and record low unemployment. The unemployment rate has fallen to a new low of 3.4 percent—the lowest since records began 22 years ago when my colleague Darren Hughes was just 8 years old. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How many new jobs have been created under the current Government? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: We now have the highest level of employment recorded since records began—2.2 million New Zealanders are now in paid work. That means there are 377000 more jobs in our economy than there were in 1999. That is 126 new jobs each day since Labour has led the Government. This is all further evidence of our Government’s prudent economic management. 
Electricity—Supply 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Can he guarantee there will be no power cuts this coming winter? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 No Minister can give an absolute guarantee but I can assure the member that even at this stage the Electricity Commission Transpower and other industry participants are working together to ensure a secure supply of electricity is maintained. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister heard that current lake inflows are lower than they were in 1992 that the Cook Strait cable is now down to one operational pole that the Huntly power station cannot operate at full capacity because of cooling issues and that Contact Energy’s New Plymouth plant is shut and is not likely to open again this winter; are these the reasons why Transpower has called the crisis meeting today; and when will he tell the public of New Zealand that we are now gripped by an electricity crisis? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is true that there is an unusual combination of events for this time of year but we do not have a crisis. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Can the Minister explain to the House whether the unexpected withdrawal of Pole 1 of the Cook Strait cable and the retirement of the New Plymouth power station are substantially reducing North Island power capacity and has the system been robust enough to meet these and other challenges to date? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes the effects have been substantial. The combined loss of Pole 1 and the retirement of the New Plymouth station have caused a drop in overall capacity in the North Island of 870 megawatts. In addition we have had reduced generation at the Huntly plant due to the unusually warm Waikato river and partly because of the drought up there; and of course the Stratford plant has been out of action for maintenance. The drought conditions in the South Island have also meant that inflows are below average. But despite all of those factors—and this is an unusual combination of events—the system has been resilient enough to cope. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that the combination of events referred to will likely significantly increase the price of electricity; and if that is so how does he propose to address the concerns of elderly folk on fixed incomes who are very nervous about the situation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would not expect this combination of events to have a material effect on residential tariffs. They are not exposed to spot-market prices. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the comments made by the electricity commissioner—a former deputy leader of the Labour Party David Caygill—after some of the grid emergencies last month: “… I’m not sure that what sounds like a temporary set of factors coming together represents a problem we should be concerned about.” are part of the Labour Party’s spin to convince New Zealanders there is no problem when clearly there is? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I read the electricity commissioner’s comments. I agreed with them. I think at the time there was some exaggerated rhetoric around. It is true we have challenges this year that we did not have last year. One of the important foci at the moment is actually seeing whether we can return part of Pole 1 into service before winter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How does the plan to import 100 container-sized diesel generators to avert the crisis fit into Labour’s plans on climate change and will he now admit that the Government’s very poor attitude to hydro generation is the real reason why New Zealand is facing an electricity crisis this winter? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We do not have a poor attitude to any form of renewable— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about Dobson. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Dobson is actually being replaced by the Arnold River scheme on the West Coast with lower environmental impact and substantial output. It is a better scheme. In terms of Mr Brownlee’s question about mobile generators it is unlikely that that will come to pass but it is one of the possible contingencies being looked at and if it were necessary we would do it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is he aware that New Zealand’s possible dependence then on a set of diesel generators would make us like the Pacific Islands Nauru Niue and the Tokelaus; is this proposal an example of what sacked electricity commissioner Roy Hemmingway said in a High Court affidavit recently when he mentioned that the Minister of Energy has some slightly unusual ideas and is this issue an example of his thinking that is slightly outside the square? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The idea of mobile generators as a contingency is not one of mine. It has come from either the Electricity Commission or Transpower; I cannot recall which. As I have said before it is unlikely to be necessary but if it were necessary we would do it. If it were necessary the generators would be there as a contingency not as a first line of defence and if that contingency came to pass it would be for a period of hours over winter not days over winter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has he any explanation for how we are possibly facing another winter of power shortages when Helen Clark stated in 2004 that the Electricity Commission is being established to build security of supply and to ensure that there is enough standby generation for dry years and Pete Hodgson also constantly assured the House that the Electricity Commission would deliver security of supply when in fact today there is a crisis meeting because that security of supply is very much under threat? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This Government has always put security of supply at the top of the list and will always do so. Last year an additional 586 megawatts of capacity was built. There is approximately 300 megawatts of additional capacity under construction as we speak. 
Immigration Service—Asha Ali Abdille 
7.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What were the findings of the Immigration Service’s 2004 investigation into Somalian refugee Asha Ali Abdille? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I preface the answer to this question by noting there is a case before the courts. I am sure that neither that member nor anyone else in the House would want to jeopardise that serious matter. I am advised that the Immigration Service’s 2004 investigation into Asha Ali Abdille found that Ms Abdille had acquired criminal convictions after she was selected to come to New Zealand in 1994 but that those convictions did not affect her residency or refugee status. The report further noted that she had sought to sponsor 14 family members to come to New Zealand and that their applications were still under consideration at the time of the report. For the member’s information 13 of those applications were subsequently declined. One sister was granted residency in 2005. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that relatively shortly after Madam Abdille’s arrival here she stated that she was not happy and wanted to return to Somalia—so much so that there was a collection by Wellington’s refugee support service which raised money for an air ticket home only for her to change her mind again; if the Minister is aware of that and if she is found to be guilty in relation to her recent antics in endeavouring to leave this country will he ensure that she does leave it permanently? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am aware of some speculative comment in relation to the first part of the member’s question. As to the issue of what may or may not happen to Ms Abdille it would not be appropriate given that the matter is before the court for me to make any comment at all on it. 
Ron Mark 
: Would the Immigration Service ignore in normal circumstances an immigrant’s amassing of a huge dossier of convictions—including at the time of the 2004 review those of threatening to kill and common assault two counts of assaulting a police officer and a charge of conspiracy to murder after allegedly hiring someone to kill another person in a case that did not go to trial because a police witness refused to testify—when determining his or her ongoing right to live in New Zealand? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Bearing in mind again the legal proceedings I am advised that Ms Abdille was selected to enter New Zealand as a legitimate quota refugee in 1994 as I said. I am advised that Ms Abdille had no criminal convictions when she arrived in New Zealand. I also note that since 1999 quota refugees have received a full psychiatric evaluation on arrival in New Zealand. I am advised that in 1994 little if any psychiatric support or evaluation was provided to quota refugees. I would note that quota refugees by the very nature of their being refugees have been subject to trauma which is why they are in refuge from their countries. I repeat that in 1994 there was very little support; now since 1999 full psychiatric assessments have been done as refugees enter New Zealand. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister concerned that despite being described by the chairman of the Wellington Somali Community Association as having “quite a history of mental instability” and as being “an alcoholic and very unstable” Abdille was declared by the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board to be of no threat to herself and others just days before she attacked and wounded two Air New Zealand pilots with a knife? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am aware of a number of those facts. As I have said since 1999 quota refugees have been supported with psychiatric assessments. It is worth noting though that if issues are identified full and ongoing treatment is offered. However I am advised that under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act individuals cannot be compelled to accept treatment or be incarcerated except under certain circumstances. Compulsory treatment requires a court to determine that a person is mentally disordered within the meaning of the Act and to make a compulsory inpatient order or community treatment order for that person’s treatment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure that this will have occurred to you and to others but I ask what credence can be applied to a police record obtained from the authorities in Somalia. I mean do we get it from a warlord or what? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Deaths on Waiting List 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many patients have died while on the waiting list for heart surgery at Wellington Hospital in the past 3 years? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is a priority for this Government and for all New Zealanders to ensure that hospital quality and safety are amongst the best in the world. OECD data shows that we have the best 30-day survival rate for hospital treatment of heart attack patients. However it is a sad fact that around 18000 people in New Zealand died during the past 3 years of heart disease. I am advised by the Capital and Coast District Health Board that of these 10 were on the waiting list for cardiac surgery there. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How many of these deaths were preventable? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It has been alleged to my knowledge that three deaths were preventable. I have asked the Director-General of Health to mount an urgent independent investigation to ascertain the veracity of those claims. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What is the Government doing to improve hospital safety? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although the district health boards remain primarily responsible for clinical service delivery the Prime Minister underscored yesterday that the Government is making improvement in quality and safety a top priority. To this end a national Quality Improvement Committee has been set up. I have moved quickly to link part of the district health board budgets to progress on this agenda and to formally convey this policy through my annual letter of expectations to all district health boards. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why despite the spending of billions of extra dollars on health has the heart surgery waiting list at Wellington Hospital trebled since Labour came into office while the amount of heart surgery done there has flat-lined in recent years? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Under this Government some 4500 new nurses and some 2000 new doctors have been brought into our health system. I am advised that the Capital and Coast District Health Board was not funding-constrained in its elective surgery and we are working with it urgently to identify and resolve other bottlenecks. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What steps are being taken at the Capital and Coast District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As well as appointing a new chair and Crown monitor I asked the Director-General of Health to set up an independent review of the three alleged cardiac cases. In addition I have asked for an urgent recovery plan to reduce the waiting list. The Capital and Coast District Health Board is working on this and I am advised that it will result in an increase in elective cardiac surgery throughput of approximately 50 percent cutting the waiting list by at least half by November 2008. I will continue to push for the earliest possible reduction. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister stand by his Government’s solemn promise to those Kiwis desperately waiting for heart surgery that if they have 50 points and certainty of treatment they will receive life-saving heart surgery within 6 months; and whose fault is it that the Capital and Coast District Health Board has failed to honour this promise for 70 patients whose lives have been put at risk with the result of indeed at least three needless deaths? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would appear that the member has attempted to prejudge the outcome of an independent inquiry; I will not do that. The policy of a maximum of 6 months on a waiting list remains in place. I share the member’s concern that in some district health board areas people are waiting for longer than that. That is not acceptable to this Government. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The specific question was—and this is important for accountability—who is responsible for honouring that promise. The Minister has accepted that in other places too the promise has not been kept. Well whose fault is it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did actually address that part of the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the Minister has answered that part could you share with the House who is responsible? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the Minister has responded to the question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister explain why in some weeks more cardiac operations at Wellington Hospital are cancelled than are actually done; and is this the first-class health service that Helen Clark ironically promised in the House yesterday? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is the responsibility of the district health boards to manage individual clinical services. However the Government takes a very strong interest in the overall performance of the district health boards and I have already signalled that I am not satisfied with the performance in this regard. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What would the Minister say to the family of the late Mrs Beverley O’Neill of Napier a victim of this Government’s hospital waiting list and whose son said of his mother: “Mum was of the old school. She believed in the system … You work you pay your taxes for all the right reasons. And the one time she needed the system”— I say to the Prime Minister —“it let her down.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I would say to that family what I would say to any family who has lost a loved one through any such circumstance and that is that the hearts of all members of this House go out to them. It is not acceptable to this Government if people die preventable deaths while waiting for surgery. But again I would caution the member not to leap to conclusions before receiving the results of an independent rigorous inquiry. 
Heather Roy 
: In light of the Minister’s statement to the House on 7 November last year that he is “running this show” does he accept any responsibility for these needless deaths does the Government stand by its solemn promise that every patient who is given certainty will receive surgery within 6 months and can he give a categorical assurance that under his watch no New Zealander will die because he or she has had to wait longer than the 6-month minimum that his Government has said it is committed to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would make as much sense to define a successful ministry as being a situation where nobody dies as it would be to describe a Capital and Coast District Health Board hospital as a killer hospital. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just out of interest was that answer addressing the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think it did but I can understand why some members found it a little subtle. Would the Minister please amplify it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No Minister can prevent people from dying of disease—eighteen thousand people died of cardiac disease in New Zealand in the last 3 years. That member does not serve herself or this House well by denigrating the efforts of clinicians doing their best to prevent deaths. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister see any irony in that after 8½ years in office this Labour Government is not prepared to accept the fact that despite it pouring billions of dollars into the health service waiting lists for heart surgery at Wellington Hospital have trebled and fewer people are getting operations; and will the Minister tell the House how many more heart patients will die while on the waiting list at Wellington Hospital while his report is being prepared? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Regrettably it may be that the member did not hear my answer to an earlier supplementary question when I confirmed to him that the Capital and Coast District Health Board was not funding-constrained in respect of its cardiac waiting list. The Government has provided the funds. We are working with the Capital and Coast District Health Board to remove the bottlenecks. 
Asbestos—Government Assistance to Local Authorities 
9.  
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What financial commitment will the Government make to local and regional authorities to clean up sites contaminated by asbestos including the site of the former freezing works and hospital in Patea? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Although as the member is aware it is primarily the responsibility of the regional council the Government has already committed about 60 percent of the funding required to investigate contaminants on the Patea site—just over $64000. I have also indicated that the Government is open to sharing the costs of the glue or rubber sealant that will almost certainly be the interim solution for the Patea site. We will need the results of the investigation and accurate cost estimates for Patea to ascertain where this site fits vis-à-vis other sites that are contaminated around New Zealand before final decisions can be made about the level and timing of funding from the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What progress if any has been made on establishing a register of all affected Patea residents in order to ensure that appropriate monitoring and health surveillance reports can be established for the future? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The first step is to establish what was spread around the town at the time. To date the reports of testing show that both in the dust in the houses and in the air asbestos has not been found. We have to be very careful about panicking people who live in the town by suggesting that they have been contaminated when in fact it could well be that we have been exceptionally lucky and asbestos was not spread around. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Why was the owner Noel McColl not made to clean up the freezing works site’s rubble and soil which were affected by asbestos and pentachlorophenol contamination when the site has long been recognised as being potentially hazardous to public health for the past 27 years; and will we wait for another fire at the hospital site before we see any action? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The first part of the question should be addressed to the responsible authority which is the regional council. I thank both Jill Pettis and the much reduced member Chester Borrows for their support of the people of Patea and for their communications with my office on the subject. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What is the Minister’s response to local claims that district authorities have failed in their responsibility to restore a cleaner safer environment have minimised the seriousness of the situation and could be accused of negligence in allowing the residents to return home before formal tests were carried out by hygienists? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There will always be debate around the timing of these issues but when a series of tests from the dust on the houses not only in Patea but in a community that is downwind does not show asbestos then I think it would be stretching it a bit to criticise the authorities for letting people return to their homes. 
Question time interrupted.