Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8900] 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2007—Reserve Bank Discussions 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he discussed his forthcoming Budget with the Reserve Bank; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Associate Minister of Finance) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] When they have finished over there— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes order please. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No it is not the Minister’s normal practice to brief the Reserve Bank on the contents of the Budget. However as always Treasury has discussed the Budget’s fiscal parameters with the bank and it was able to assure the bank that the fiscal stimulus in the current year is substantially less than was forecast in the half-yearly update and that for the next 2 years it is roughly the same as was forecast. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister therefore seen the Reserve Bank’s published advice that his spending plans over the next few years are causing problems for monetary policy; if he will not take that advice why would he take advice on monetary policy from the Finance and Expenditure Committee whose expertise is considerably less than that of the Reserve Bank? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In fact the Governor of the Reserve Bank has pointed to a number of factors that he believes are responsible for the level of inflation. When that member asked the Governor of the Reserve Bank in the select committee to name the most important factor he said it was housing. Housing was the very issue that the Governor of the Reserve Bank wanted to discuss with Mr Key and Mr English along with Mr Mallard and Dr Cullen but of course those talks were sabotaged by Mr English. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister inform the House whether a common currency with Australia will be announced in this year’s Budget; if not can he inform the House of any reports to this effect? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course I cannot predict what will be in this year’s Budget but I would not be letting any secrets out by saying that this Government has rejected the concept of a common currency with Australia as proposed by John Key. If one really wanted to put our exporters under pressure one would align New Zealand’s currency by adopting the Australian currency which is mineral driven. That would put our exporters into a much worse position than they are in—but then what would Mr Key know? 
Charles Chauvel 
: What recent reports has the Minister seen calling for a looser fiscal position which would put more pressure on monetary policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I know that the Opposition spokesperson on finance Mr English keeps calling for a tighter fiscal position but every day in this House and every day outside this House we hear National Party spokespeople calling for more expenditure. Yesterday Mr Ryall asked us to train another 80 to 100 doctors a year. Today Mr Key is out there saying that the Government should be putting more money into broadband. It seems that Bill English does not talk to his colleagues because they are saying mutually inconsistent things. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister trying to give the impression that monetary policy can be run differently when he has had 8 years of advice from Treasury and the Reserve Bank and two major reviews of monetary policy by world experts and he himself has not proposed any particular change to the framework but persists in giving the impression that it could all be done differently from how it is done if only I had agreed to that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In fact this Government has run a very tight fiscal position. If the member who asked the question recalls the select committee hearing he will know that Dr Bollard said he had not seen a need to intervene through most of the period. What amazes me is that although this Government has run big surpluses last year we had John Key saying we should put $11 billion of the tax surplus back into the economy which is absolutely the opposite of what Mr English the co-leader—or is it the competing leader—is saying. The National Party just cannot get its position together. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that when they answer questions they should address the question and not introduce any superfluous comments of a personal nature. 
Hon Bill English 
: What sort of claim can the Minister make to being a manager of the economy when his response to the severe pressure on some exporters is to do nothing himself blame the Opposition and send the problem to a committee? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I totally disagree with the allegation made by that member. If he reads the Minister of Finance’s speech to the manufacturers in Canterbury today he will see just that. This Minister of Finance has run a very sensible policy including policy in areas that will assist in the growth of the economy—like the superannuation scheme which was opposed by the National Party until last year and like KiwiSaver which was opposed by the Opposition when it was introduced in legislation last year. But I suspect that those members will come around on both of those issues because they know that that is the exact direction in which economic policy should be going. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is made up of senior intelligent and capable members whose intelligence knows no bounds and that if there is one committee of this House that could look seriously and intelligently into this matter that committee would be it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I partially agree with the first statement. On the second statement I think that it is sensible if we are looking at adopting a position that all members in all parties in this House can contribute to to hold such an inquiry so that some of the issues that some members in the House are too scared to address—or run a mile from after agreeing to discuss them—can be discussed rationally. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have asked members including those who made the interjections that I heard—although I did not interrupt the answer—not to make comments of a personal nature or of abuse across the Chamber. Obviously members are entitled to interject and intervene but could they please cut out the personal comments that have become unfortunately a little too common. 
Hon Bill English 
: Instead of further reviews committees and crocodile tears can the Minister tell the House and the public one serious proposition he has made for changing the monetary policy framework? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Minister has sought to discuss— 
Hon Bill English 
: No tell us one proposition. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is addressing the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am answering the member’s question if he shows a little patience. What the Minister has done of course is to sit down with other members of the House—including that member—to discuss some of the options that have been put up by the Reserve Bank. It was interesting that John Key responded very positively to that. It was regrettable that that member did not do so. I would refer the member to seven successive Budgets that have seen this country have a higher level of growth than almost any other country in the OECD to a policy that has seen the creation of 330000 jobs and to a policy that has seen 70000 kids taken out of poverty. All of those things are excellent examples of what the Minister of Finance has done to promote an economy that supports a fair and decent social system. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does that answer mean that the Minister of Finance after 8 years of advice and two major reviews of monetary policy carried out by world experts does not have one single proposition to change monetary policy that can be taken seriously; if he does not have one single change why should the Finance and Expenditure Committee waste months on coming up with something that he will ignore anyway? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In terms of international reports I know that that member has embraced the OECD report and its propositions that GST should be increased and that the age of eligibility for superannuation should be increased. But I can assure the member that this Government does not intend to do either of those two things—unlike what that member is promoting. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Minister’s pathetic political responses to serious issues can he tell the House what sort of mess the Government is in when the Prime Minister told the  
Trans Tasman 
 newsletter last week: “This will be a big macroeconomic Budget with major initiatives on business including tax credits for export development and R and D.” and today right at the end of the Budget process Dr Cullen has announced that he has ditched one of those major initiatives—namely the tax credits for business? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What the Minister has said is that there will be in this Budget approximately $1 billion in business tax cuts through one form or another. That is something I warmly applaud in terms of encouraging investment and further growth. I am particularly disappointed that that member has said he opposes such cuts but let me say this. The member alleges a crisis in policy. This is the sort of crisis we have. We have company tax returns that grew on average by about 20 percent a year through much of this term. More Kiwis than ever before are in jobs—2.1 million; there are 330000 extra jobs. We have job growth and rising incomes and we have better public finances than in practically any other OECD country. Those are the facts. The allegations made by the member are quite wrong. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister followed Helen Clark’s example and discussed the forthcoming Budget with John Key as after all these days it is hard to see the difference between National and Labour on policy and who knows he might get National’s vote? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The short answer is no and the longer answer is that it is amazing how the right-wing members fall out amongst themselves. 
Television—Digital Service 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What progress has been made with making digital television available in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the House that free-to-air digital television broadcasting commenced yesterday. The FreeView group of broadcasters launched its satellite service which means that all New Zealanders now have access to free-to-air digital television which provides superior quality reception and better pictures and sound. I hope that over time we will see more channels more content and more services like interactivity made available throughout the country. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Madam Speaker I have been having some difficulty hearing—[ 
Interruption 
]—because of the noise in the Chamber not my own disability. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The level of conversation amongst members on all sides of the House is starting to rise again. If members have urgent business they want to transact with each other would they please take it out of the Chamber. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What advice has the Minister received on the transition of free-to-air broadcasting to digital? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Following a proposal from the group of free-to-air broadcasters I took advice from a range of independent analysts officials of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit the Ministry of Economic Development Treasury and free-to-air broadcasters themselves. That advice told me that it was essential that broadcasters move to digital because analogue broadcasting equipment was becoming redundant and because New Zealanders needed to share the advantages of digital television like countries all around the world. The only bad piece of advice I have had concerns my being disappointed by the constant complaints by the National Party spokesperson on broadcasting who has led the industry to believe that he opposes digital television which is a very real shame. This ought to be something that is shared across the House. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Will the Minister then be taking the advice he was given that he needs to set a date for switching off the analogue signal; and does the Minister realise that unless he takes that advice takes the responsibility and names a date FreeView does not have the chance of attracting an audience and will therefore represent a waste of $104 million of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member knows the advice was the exact opposite. Countries around the world have found that setting a switch-off date is one of the most difficult things to do. Therefore the advice suggested that we set a time frame which we have done of between 6 and 10 years which is exactly what all the broadcasters agree with what the FreeView platform agrees with and what we will do. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Number of Recipients 
3.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf by the Associate Minister of Education yesterday in relation to 20 free hours that “Ninety-two thousand 3 and 4-year-olds will benefit from this”; if so when will these 92000 children actually receive 20 free hours? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As I have said on a number of occasions up to 92000 children aged 3 and 4 will be eligible for this policy which will be rolled out from 1 July. They can take up that eligibility at any centre that offers free early childhood education and is teacher-led. From the ongoing contact I have had with officials and with the sector—I met just this morning with the symposium on early childhood education—I remain very optimistic. I also would refer members to the fact that it now appears that over 200000 attestation forms have been distributed through the centres themselves for parents to use. That seems to me to indicate a high level of interest. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is it any wonder that the Associate Minister got it wrong yesterday when he grandly proclaimed that 92000 3 and 4-year-olds will benefit from the Government’s policy of 20 free hours when this policy keeps slithering from all 3 and 4-year-olds to “up to” “hopefully” or “around” 92000 kids having access but not getting the actual hours? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the member by now must be losing count of the number of questions she has asked on this issue. I do not think that on the way through I have changed at all the phrase that up to 92000 3 to 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres will have access to this fantastic policy. I can say to the member something else that I have repeated and it is that I am sure that by the next election we will see a bipartisan position on this policy. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has the Minister or any of his staff contacted the Associate Minister and told him that the promise in the last election that 92000 3 and 4-year-olds would benefit from this policy has actually changed and that now only a fraction of those kids will receive those hours? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Associate Minister understands the policy fully. He also understands something else that is very very important which is that if there were a National Government not one single child would get access to this policy because National is dedicated to scrapping it. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has the Minister realised that only he and the Labour Party are now disturbingly upbeat about this policy which sector groups refer to as dangerous morally wrong and the biggest threat to the quality of early childhood education in our generation and which even 37 percent of the members of his beloved Childcare Association do not support? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The figure at the end of that question is quite wrong. If the member would like to contact Nancy Bell she would hear that 67 percent of the Childcare Association’s members have already opted in and only 6 percent have indicated that they may not with the middle group saying they are still talking to the parents. I remain optimistic about the policy and given that Mr John Key is so keen on it—and therefore we already have the basis of a bipartisan agreement—I am very anxious to deliver it for the leader of the National Party if not for the member herself. 
Paula Bennett 
: Can the Minister confirm that a briefing paper from his own ministry dated 21 July 2006 formally advised him that there was a need to contain “unrealistic expectations that could form around the word ‘free’ ” and will he tell the House precisely what those unrealistic expectations are? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know—because I am sure she has worked on the policy itself—this policy started 5 years ago. The symposium today marks the halfway point. It runs through until 2012. We have yet to train a large number of teachers. We have yet to open a large number of centres. We must ensure that during this period of time we maintain realistic expectations in relation to that overall 10-year policy. We are doing exactly that. 
Paula Bennett 
: Can the Minister confirm that the “unrealistic expectations” that his ministry was referring to in its advice to him on 21 July 2006 were unrealistic expectations that the Government might actually have meant what it said to parents when it used the word “free”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know that the member is attempting to use sarcasm but let me just go back to the central point—[ 
Interruption 
] It was an attempt; it was not very good but it was an attempt. As I said to the member previously this policy is a 10-year strategy that is halfway through. For example we have 5000 teachers in training right now to go into early childhood centres. Over the next 5 years the centres will expand the number of teachers will expand and Mrs Bennett—who has become a vociferous supporter of this policy alongside Mr Key but unlike Mrs Rich I notice—will therefore get her way as she sees this policy roll out. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the report in Nelson’s newspaper that Paula’s Preschool which has signed up to the Government’s 20 free hours policy also has a policy of a compulsory voluntary donation to go with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the briefing document from the Ministry of Education to the Minister which clearly states that unrealistic expectations could form around the word “free”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Ambulance Service—Crewing 
4.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he agree that all ambulances responding to emergencies should operate with a minimum of two qualified crew as required by the New Zealand Standard for ambulance services; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The current contracts with ambulance providers refer to “best endeavours” to achieve double-crewing in accordance with the current New Zealand standard. At least 82 percent of ambulance call-outs are double-crewed although as better data becomes available it may prove to be a little higher than that. As resources and trained staff become available we will move closer to the goal of complete double-crewing. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that in some parts of New Zealand ambulances are routinely responding to emergencies single-crewed in cases including road accidents cardiac chest pain back injury near drowning and overdose amongst others and is he concerned that during the months of March and April alone there were over 100 cases of single-crewed ambulances going to emergencies just in Horowhenua according to a report from the New Zealand Ambulance Services Association; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have not seen the New Zealand Ambulance Services Association report that the member has just referred to but now that I know it exists I will seek it out. There are approximately 300000 call-outs in New Zealand—just under 1000 a day—and the vast majority of those are competently completed successfully by two competent ambulance crew. It may help the House to know that despite its name the New Zealand Ambulance Services Association is not the industry body—that is Ambulance New Zealand. The New Zealand Ambulance Services Association is in fact a Wanganui-based union with approximately 12 members. 
Maryan 
 Street 
: Has the Government supplied resources to help attain the New Zealand standard for ambulance services? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes we have—year after year. For example the agreement with St John’s which provides most ambulance services in New Zealand has in the past 3 years included funding increases that require it to employ an extra 67 staff. These extra staff are in addition to the normal adjustments for population and the price is additional to the normal price movements. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister concerned that on 2 March this year a single-crewed ambulance was sent to a patient in cardiac arrest in Horowhenua—the patient later died—and does he agree that it takes at least two people to resuscitate a patient in cardiac arrest and then transport that patient to hospital; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am concerned as I was concerned a month or two ago when I think in Huntly a member of the public drove the ambulance because the single ambulance officer was in the back attending to the patient. These instances still occur. The point is that they are occurring less and less commonly because we are increasing ambulance services and funding to ambulance providers each year. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister concerned that by the admission of his own figures that he produced today about 50000 ambulance call-outs are single-crewed; does he agree that this widespread practice is putting lives at risk; and will he as the Minister of Health take action to give statutory force to the standard for the double-crewing of ambulances; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I should reiterate that the figure of 82 percent is probably conservative; it is the minimum percentage of ambulance call-outs that are double-crewed. Eighteen percent or fewer have one. For example 3 percent of all calls are recorded as having no ambulance drivers at all. That is clearly wrong. I do think that we should move towards double-crewing and over the years we have put further funding into ambulance services so that we can. That is why we are getting closer to double-crewing now in this country than we have ever been. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was whether the Minister would give statutory force to the double-crewing standard. I wonder whether he could answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member is aware in supplementary questions only one question is normally permitted. There were several in that question. The Minister did address some of them. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the statistics for March and April showing that in more than a hundred cases in the Horowhenua ambulances were sent to emergencies single-crewed. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
State Houses—Quotable Value New Zealand Valuations 
5.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is Quotable Value New Zealand’s latest “independent replacement valuation” or market valuation of each of the three Glen Innes State house properties—land and buildings—that have a rateable valuation of $2 million $1.43 million and $1.40 million respectively as per his response to question for written answer 11513 (2006)? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The member appears to be asking two separate questions. On the one hand he wants to know the replacement value of three small old modest State houses located in Glen Innes. I guess the value would be “not much”. On the other hand he also asks for the market valuation of the land and buildings. These are the figures I have already supplied in my written answer. Actually the value of one of these properties has fallen because it did not have the expected redevelopment potential expected at the valuation. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I had to prove to the Clerk’s Office that Quotable Value New Zealand had supplied Housing New Zealand Corporation with the market valuations or replacement valuations for land and buildings for these three State houses. I proved that to the Clerk’s Office. I asked a specific question about the valuations of these three properties—not the rateable valuation but the replacement or market valuation. The Minister had all morning and half the afternoon to prepare the answers. I want the market valuations of these three properties. Could I please have the answer? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The member asked a question and the Minister addressed the question. That is what he is required to do. What the member wants is not necessarily what the Minister has to provide. The Minister addressed the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Madam Speaker when you look at this question you will see that the member asked me for two valuations: the replacement valuation or the market valuation. I provided those two answers. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker you need to think very very carefully about this particular question I think because much of this information is available publicly. Some of it is not and it is the little bit that is not that we want the Minister to talk about today. Mr Burton might say that the Minister addressed the question. We all know that one can address a question by standing up and saying “rhubarb” and sitting down. Or a Minister can simply refuse to address a question. But I think there is significant public interest in this particular issue. It is a requirement under the Standing Orders that an answer is given consistent with the public good. Letting Ministers just misuse people’s good intentions like this is unacceptable. The Minister was asked for the independent replacement value. He must know that and he must surely be able to give it to the House today. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I cannot be responsible for the quality of questions lodged by the member Phil Heatley. The question asks what the replacement values are. I have said that the replacement value on three old small State houses located on very valuable land in Glen Innes is not much. But if we take into account the member’s second question of what the market valuation is of each of the three properties’ land and buildings that amount is quite considerable and I have given him that answer in my reply to his written question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister then share the information that is in the written answer. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The information is in the initial question. These valuations are $2 million $1.43 million and $1.4 million. I did correct the fact that one of the values had dropped because the site was not as expected suitable for redevelopment. One of the valuations had actually gone down. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is exactly the problem. These are rateable valuations. Rating valuations are struck on mesh blocks. They are struck as an average across a block of properties. They are not struck particularly on any value. Anybody who buys real estate knows that they use the quotable value as a guide but it very very seldom reflects the actual market price. I think we are simply looking for the independent value on the replacement cost of these properties which includes land and buildings. The Minister must know this. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: We seem to be at cross-purposes here. The question actually asks two questions: “What is the replacement of these small old houses?”—not much. But what is the market valuation of those properties when one takes into consideration the valuable part of those properties which is the land? It is considerable—and I have given the value. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question has been down on notice and I do not know anything about it. But I am sitting here trying to understand it because this is question time and it seems to me we have a problem. The Minister clearly does not want to give the straight answer and has come down here ill-prepared. We know that there is a valuation for these properties and it will not be “considerable” and it will not be “not much”. Maybe the Minister could say if he does not know and has not got the answer: “Look I’m ill-prepared for this question and I’ll get my office to have a crack after question No 12.” because it is clear that it is not going to go anywhere. If the Minister of Housing with a question on notice “What is the value of this house?” says “not much” or “a lot” it is hardly answering the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I now understand what the issue is I think quite clearly. The Minister has addressed the question. He has not obviously addressed it to the satisfaction of members in terms of giving specific amounts that is true. But he has addressed the question generally so I will ask us to move on. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling in a way that causes great problems but I think we must have a bit of a look at this. For the Minister to on the one hand say: “The valuations are as provided in my written answer the rating valuations.” in answer to a question that specifically asks about independent market valuations; and then on the other hand to say: “Well the land is worth a lot and the buildings aren’t worth much.”—surely if that is addressing the question then we may as well just shut Parliament and spend our days reading fiction. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand. But it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer that has in fact been given. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The reason I have taken this point of order is that a week or so ago you took a point of order from my colleague Gordon Copeland ahead of me because he was faster to his feet than me. My colleague Ron Mark was clearly ahead of Gerry Brownlee. Standing Order 102 actually states that seniority prevails and now I am asking you—and I accepted your ruling the other day—to please clarify whether we operate points of order by the Standing Orders or by your edict the other day when you twice sat me down in favour of Gordon Copeland? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is who the Speaker recognises. In this instance I recognised that Gerry Brownlee was on his feet. But I have recognised the member ahead of Gordon Copeland you will notice this time. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members wish to remain with us for the rest of question time then they will not intervene on points of order. I call Ron Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: I am raising this point of order in anticipation of a problem in the hope that you will consider what has just happened. I am worried now and I would like your view and your ruling as to whether answers such as “not much” by a Minister of the Crown will be accepted because I foresee a situation where if I ask my supplementary question which is written down here where a specific figure is known and a specific expectation of the Minister exists to be on top of his portfolio and to know the detail I might too now receive the answer “Not many.” I ask you to consider where this will lead the House if successive Ministers—of immigration finance or defence—answer the questions from other members of Parliament such as “How many soldiers deployed to Bamian” with “Not many.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have got the essence of the member’s speech. I just remind members that points or order are meant to be made succinctly. As members know—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet OK? As members know they cannot require specific answers to questions. In this instance as I ruled the Minister addressed it. It is demonstrably clear that it was not considered to be an adequate answer to the question. However that was the Minister’s judgment and it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of that answer. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just wanted to speak to the points of order raised by both Gerry Brownlee and now by Ron Mark which are similar. I point out because I think it is helpful to you and to the House Madam Speaker that the Minister is quite right. This question refers to three different valuations: an independent replacement valuation a market valuation—that is two—and three a rateable valuation. I think the Minister’s point was—and he is quite right—that a replacement valuation and a market valuation are two different things yet Mr Heatley has asked for them. So how can the Minister possibly answer the question when the question itself is ambiguous? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What I was trying to demonstrate was that the replacement value of the small old houses was quite modest. To build a house of that size would cost about $280000. I could have come down with that figure but that was not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make was that the member in asking his question is asking two different questions. One is the replacement value of the house and the other is the actual total value. We have given him the precise answer to the total value. I apologise if the House found that my answer was too flippant. It is about $280000 to replace those houses. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speakers’ ruling 153/3—it is quite a well-known Speakers’ ruling—that Ministers should provide an answer if that answer can be provided consistent with the public interest. Indeed there is in some of the surrounding Speakers’ rulings a clear process for Ministers who believe that it is not in the public interest to provide the information that is sought at question time. I suggest to you that in the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves today it seems likely that the Minister does in fact have particular figures that the member who asked the question asked for. It may assist the House if you were to seek confirmation from the Minister that he does in fact have the information and were to ask him to provide it. I think that should be the way in which we interpret that Speakers’ ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. But I think to some extent it was just the way in which the question was phrased that may have led to some confusion. But the Minister has now I think specifically addressed the question with a specific figure. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would ask you to consider the comments that the Hon Chris Carter has made in several points of order. He has said that he was asked the replacement value. He was not asked the replacement value of the properties; he was asked the independent replacement valuation which—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the important point is this I say to the Minister as he will know every year Quotable Value New Zealand prepares an “independent replacement valuation”. A document with those words was provided to the Clerk’s Office to verify this question. An independent replacement valuation is prepared on high-value properties of Housing New Zealand Corporation every year. Those independent replacement valuations are the replacement valuation of the whole property. So for the Minister to stand up in the House and say that he is unaware of that difference when yesterday he gave answers based on those independent replacement valuations is quite wrong and he needs to be reprimanded. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I think we have the point. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No Phil Heatley will speak and then anyone else who wishes to contribute please let me know. 
Phil Heatley 
: I would like to stand and confirm what the Hon Tony Ryall just said. I went to the Clerk’s Office because I had to confirm with its staff the paperwork that showed that the valuation of the property—which was the land and the buildings—was called an “independent replacement valuation”. So that is what I asked for—the independent replacement valuation of the land and the buildings. I put in there to help the Minister the words “or market valuation” because that is what New Zealanders generally know it as—and to help the public in understanding my question. My question specifically asks for the valuation of the land and the buildings—the replacement valuations. The Minister has simply given back— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can we get to the point—succinctly? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No no. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No no. Madam Speaker I need to clarify something. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. But would the member please be succinct. He is starting to repeat himself. 
Phil Heatley 
: I will be succinct. The Minister has simply reflected back to me the rateable valuations which I have already provided to him in the question. I would like to confirm that Tony Ryall is quite right. The Clerk’s Office has confirmed this and I would like the independent rateable valuations on all those properties. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. We understand your point. Is there anyone else from that side of the House or anywhere else? Judy Turner would like to contribute. Is the member contributing to the point of order? 
Judy Turner 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No—good. Then we will have the Hon Chris Carter in reply. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Hopefully this is my last contribution on the point of order. The Hon Tony Ryall is not correct; Housing New Zealand Corporation has properties valued for insurance and rating purposes only if the buildings themselves are worth over a million dollars. These three little old houses in Glen Innes are manifestly not worth over a million dollars. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank all members for their contribution to this. I think we did get the question addressed; I would now like to move on with the supplementary questions and I have Judy Turner in my sights. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is usual for the member who asks the primary question to have the first supplementary question and I have not had it yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh I am sorry. I felt perhaps that we had had a full discussion. But of course the member can have his question first and I apologise for being distracted. 
Phil Heatley 
: When in the exchange of points of order the Minister said that Housing New Zealand Corporation values properties only where the buildings are worth over $1 million is he telling this House that there are 145 State house properties where the buildings are worth over $1 million; and could he please tell us what the land is worth on those 145 properties? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member is once again being evasive with the truth. Independent valuations by Housing New Zealand Corporation are only of properties worth over $1 million. Many of the properties that Mr Heatley quoted in the House yesterday are huge blocks of flats or very large community houses; they are not actually homes. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Minister what reports have you received about the 145— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No no! 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Well I did actually preface it with the word “Minister” but I will do it correctly for Mr Brownlee’s sake. Can the Minister tell the House what reports he has received about the 145 properties worth more than $1 million that the honourable member Phil Heatley referred to in the House yesterday? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It would appear that Mr Heatley got his facts wrong again. These valuations are mostly not for stand-alone properties; they are in fact for 145 sites on which there are 2674 individual units. A housing complex like the Dixon Street flats here in Wellington that has 119 individual units is recorded as being only one property. He got it wrong. 
Phil Heatley 
: What is the market value of the three properties in Glen Innes which have a single house on them each that have a rateable valuation of $2 million $1.43 million and $1.4 million; what is their market value? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Those figures have already been given to the member—$2 million $1.43 million and $1.4 million. But the $1.43 million property has fallen in value because when its value was assessed we thought it could be used in more intensification of the site but it proved unsuitable. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is part of the Government’s housing strategy to own million-dollar - plus State houses when he said yesterday in this debating chamber: “… just because a house is worth over $1 million that does not mean to say it does not have a valid place to be a State house.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: When these properties become vacant the corporation makes a decision about whether to retain the property redevelop the site to make better use of the land or even to sell the property. We are not having a programme of selling off 13000 State houses like the National Party. 
Judy Turner 
: If the Minister is unwilling to sell the high-value properties with current tenants in residence is he prepared to look into rent-to-buy schemes for tenants paying market rents in State houses as a way of improving home ownership rates and to free up capital for reinvestment in State housing so that waiting lists can be better addressed? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not prepared to have rent to buy but what I am prepared to do and what we are doing in Hobsonville is to create new greenfield sites where it is possible for first home buyers to buy their property. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is not this Government’s policy to ensure that all State houses are congregated together in the lowest-income area and that that failed policy of the National Party in the past is still causing problems throughout New Zealand? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that that is Labour’s policy. What I can also say is that it is very disappointing that the local member for the Hobsonville area John Key is totally opposed to the project to create affordable housing in his electorate. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can he please confirm parliamentary question No. 4110 that the $2 million Glen Innes property has a tenant paying $80 a week in rent and has been there since 1998? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I cannot confirm the rental but what I can confirm is that the three properties that Mr Heatley asked about in his primary question have been tenanted for between 7 and 39 years. Perhaps Mr Heatley could tell this House why he wants to kick an old lady out of her house where she has lived for 39 years. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has Housing New Zealand ever proactively approached this tenant in the $2 million State house explained the waiting list numbers and offered the tenant another house in the wider area or one of the five $400000 properties that the sale of this house could buy; if so what did the tenant say? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What I can confirm is that Housing New Zealand Corporation actively keeps tenants informed of home ownership opportunities as well as encouraging people living in houses that are either too large or too small to apply for transfers. I wonder whether the member is prepared to go and visit that tenant and explain why his party sold 13000 State houses. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the parliamentary answer that states that the $2 million Glen Innes property has been tenanted for 10 years to someone paying $80 a week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the parliamentary answer that gives the rateable value of these $1 million - plus properties. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table Quotable Value’s annual review in which it gives the market value of these $1 million properties. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the House’s indulgence. Before I put this request to the House I explain to you that it is about a question we have asked on numerous occasions but have not been able to get an answer to. I seek the leave of the House to ask that supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Kyoto Protocol—New Zealand's Liability 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he agree with the estimate of Murray Ward former head of the Government’s own Climate Change Office that New Zealand’s Kyoto liability is likely to be $1.8 billion rather than Treasury’s current estimate of $567 million? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No I do not. The figures used by Dr Smith are based on a volume of emissions that is unrealistically high and I am confident that the Government’s climate change policy will reduce our emissions not increase them—as Dr Smith projects. In terms of the cost of each tonne the price reflects the cost of reducing emissions and that price depends on how far and how fast the world moves to reduce emissions. What is clear already is that the price in New Zealand will be substantially lower than the European price upon which Dr Smith bases his calculations. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it credible in the Government’s accounts to include provision for deforestation of 26000 hectares when the December report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry puts the figure at 47000 hectares; and is not the key reason that these Kyoto figures look so bad that the Government’s awful forestry policies are causing ever-increasing levels of deforestation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Government’s proposed $21 million tonne cap on deforestation liabilities has been in the public arena for a long time. It remains true that the future cost of carbon depends on how far and how fast the world moves to reduce emissions. I make the point that that is up in the air and if the world’s purpose on climate change is as lacking as that of the National Party then the price of carbon would drop to zero and global warming would of course get worse. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What recent announcements has the Government made about economic incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy in order to meet our Kyoto Protocol targets? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We have consulted thoroughly over recent months and a clear message has been received—that is that the vast majority of submitters believe that all sectors can and should do their fair share bearing in mind that it will be easier for some sectors than for others. With this endorsement we have announced that detailed design work is proceeding on a possible “cap and trade” scheme covering all sectors of the economy and all greenhouse gas emissions. The design of effective greenhouse gas pricing is in the opinion of the Government important for both environmental and economic reasons. We look forward to continuing to engage with other interested parties as we complete that design. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister tell the House regardless of whether we are talking about $1.8 billion or $567 million what proportion of that is directly attributable to agriculture; and does he agree that until all sectors including agriculture have to pay for their carbon emissions that money represents a direct taxpayer subsidy to animal farmers? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Approximately 49 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the agricultural sector and it is important that all sectors do their bit. That is not to say that the agricultural sector should have to reduce emissions at the same rate of reduction that would be achievable for example in the transport or electricity generation sectors. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it credible for the Government to reduce its Kyoto Protocol liabilities for deforestation by approximately $500 million by saying it will do it with a 10 percent deforestation cap and by passing that liability on to forest owners when it has not introduced or passed any legislation to do this when the public statements of other political parties show that it does not have the numbers to pass such laws and when this liability stands to take effect in just 7 months—on 1 January 2008? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I think it is about time for the National Party to stop scaremongering. Nick Smith should stop— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was quite a deliberate question about the 10 percent deforestation cap that will require legislation and whether indeed the Minister has the numbers for the Government’s books to be able to credibly reduce the amount by $500 million. The Minister chose to begin his answer by just making some derogatory comments about National. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. If the Minister would just address the question and leave aside all other superfluous comments. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am confident that the Government’s climate change policy will not only see that deforestation cap met but also bettered. National’s statements to the contrary are scaremongering again. Nick Smith should stop trying to frighten the New Zealand public about climate change action and actually start trying to become part of the solution. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has the Minister received any reports on alternative approaches to managing our Kyoto Protocol liability through a “cap and trade” scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Indeed I have— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: National supports it. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Nick Smith says those members support it. Well I have received reports of a “cap and trade” system that proposes no cap on deforestation no cap on agricultural emissions no cap on transport emissions no cap on industrial emissions and a cap at current levels on electricity emissions. This is Dr Smith’s “cap and trade” scheme—“cap and trade” without a cap. It would not work and it would be next to useless. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I ask the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] I would be happy to table what our actual policy is for the benefit of members opposite. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: They would steal it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes they probably will steal it.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please ask the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it credible for the Government’s estimates of the Kyoto Protocol liability to be based on a carbon price of just $10 a tonne when the only Kyoto Protocol - compliant carbon market has a trading price of $30 per tonne; and why when it comes to the exchange rate is the Minister happy to use the high market value of 74c in the dollar to minimise the liability but will not use the market value for carbon? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: For a start the Government accounts do not have it at US$10 a tonne; they have it at US$12.50 or thereabouts. This figure is set by Treasury. I have confidence in the Treasury figure. One of the reasons I have confidence is that Treasury is right to use a figure that is substantially lower than the European figure—as this report from one of its economic advisers from London points out. It states that the European price is not appropriate for New Zealand—particularly because the European price is considerably more than what other Kyoto-compliant units can be bought for—and simply using the European price as a proxy for the assumed price in the Crown’s carbon accounts would therefore significantly overestimate the cost of Kyoto compliance. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of the promise made by the leader of the Labor Party in Australia that should Labor win the election it will introduce $10000 interest-free loans to homeowners to install solar heating; if he is aware of that does he believe that this could reduce any Kyoto Protocol liability and is worthy of consideration for introduction here? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is no doubt that increases in the use of solar heating of water reduce electricity consumption and therefore electricity greenhouse gas emissions. That is why the New Zealand Labour-led Government as part of our agreement with the Greens has given a push to solar hot water heating. That is being approached in three ways. We are trying to build volume so as to drive down the cost using market forces we have increased the subsidy and we are also driving costs out of the system—as Minister Cosgrove announced yesterday—by simplifying and making standard the consent processes which looks like it will save as much as $500 a unit. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the Minister gave a very full answer but I actually asked whether he thought the interest-free home loans idea was worthy of consideration. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister recall Government Ministers telling New Zealand that we stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol then in 2005 the Government saying: “Oops we got it wrong. We’re going to have to write out a cheque for $500 million.”; and given that the former head of the Government’s own Climate Change Office Murray Ward and also the Green Party are saying the figure is more like $1.5 billion to $2 billion will the Minister apologise to the public for the mess he has made over his numbers around the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It will not have escaped many members that the person the member quotes Murray Ward was the manager of the Ministry for the Environment’s climate change team when the surplus of 55 million tonnes was projected. I do have confidence in Treasury’s projections. I do have confidence that it is correct as to the amount it assigns to the value of carbon. I also accept the proposition that the cost of carbon per tonne is likely to increase over time as the world becomes more ambitious in its carbon reductions. But that does not mean the cost of carbon will increase in the short term to the European price which is higher than our own. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I note the Minister accused me of scaremongering in respect of deforestation so I seek the leave of the House to table the 2006 deforestation report by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry stating that in fact our levels of deforestation are double those that the Government can provide for. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a document entitled  
Price of Kyoto Compliant Emission Units 
 by a London economist which reports that the European price is not appropriate for New Zealand and would significantly overestimate the cost of Kyoto compliance. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Television—Health Gains 
7.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What agreement with major television broadcasters will the Government announce today and what long-term health gains are anticipated? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 This morning with the Minister of Broadcasting I announced agreement with the two major free-to-air TV channels on a five-point plan aimed at improving food advertising to children by limiting the sort of advertising shown during children’s programming zones. This will help improve nutrition and promote a more healthy lifestyle amongst our children which will promote long-term health gains. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the essence of this agreement and how does the Minister intend to satisfy himself that it will work? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The essence of the agreement is that only advertisements that meet the new standard can be shown. In addition the television companies will pay for some social marketing campaigns along the lines of Push Play which will help to promote lifestyle changes in general. The Ministry of Health will monitor these changes so that I can learn to what extent they are successful. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One shows that the category of children’s programming that the new announcement will cover is 21 hours on TV2 and 15 hours on TV3. 
Document not tabled. 
Sue Kedgley 
: The second document is a survey by the Broadcasting Standards Authority showing that most children watch television outside those hours. 
Document not tabled. 
Music Awards—Prime Minister 
8.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Has she been advised of the statement by Neil Finn that “It sort of makes me sick to see Helen Clark getting up at the music awards and taking the bows”; if so what is her response? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Yes the Minister and I have seen that statement and as Helen Clark noted we are not going to get into a debate with Mr Finn on it. What I will say is that this Government can be justifiably proud of its record in supporting New Zealand music. In 2000 the Labour-led Government set up the Music Industry Commission to grow New Zealand music both at home and overseas. It funded the development of music for broadcast through New Zealand On Air and it funded the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and other music through Creative New Zealand. I am very proud of what we have done. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Would the Minister agree that Neil Finn raises a very important question namely that there is a distinction to be made between Government intervention in the arts and Government interference in the arts and that this Government is interfering with the arts for its own grubby political ends; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: This Government has never interfered in the art of music. What we have offered was some support in the business of music. Neil Finn has indeed made a significant contribution. Indeed the meetings that the Government-in-waiting had in 1998 and 1999 in terms of our proposals for music took place in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are getting to the point where it is really difficult to hear an answer. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why did the Minister insist on presenting an award at last year’s music awards after she was initially not invited because of the self-serving speech she had given the previous year only to use that platform to give another long self-serving speech before hastily departing; and would it not be appropriate for the Minister to admit in the words of the Split Enz song: “That was my mistake.”? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I think what people do at music awards is often to try to look hip and I have to say that the Prime Minister looks rather more hip than Don Brash ever did. She was very warmly welcomed by the range of New Zealand musicians who see that this Government is seriously interested in both New Zealand music and support for New Zealand musicians. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why does the Government support New Zealand music? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: This Government supports New Zealand music in very strong contrast with what the people opposite have done when they have had opportunities to do so. The Government supports New Zealand music because it is about New Zealanders telling their own stories and singing their own songs. It is also about jobs and exports. All of those things matter to this Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is the last warning to members. Unless the level of noise goes down we will be having questions and answers in silence. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Could it be as Tim Finn would say that the Prime Minister is causing “a fraction too much friction” for his brother because she is always taking credit for the success of others or as Neil Finn says: “It’s like New Zealand music is taking over the world and it’s all because of Helen.”; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am pleased the member knows a few 1970s and 1980s song titles. I suggest he comes up to speed as this Government has done. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that comparing the celebration of New Zealand Music Month with the solemn remembrance of Anzac Day and with the thousands of New Zealanders who sacrificed themselves is the same sort of political misjudgement that was so well demonstrated by the Associate Minister at the Anzac Day service in Auckland when she tried to dictate who should be laying wreaths? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The Associate Minister did not try to dictate who was laying wreaths but merely tried to prevent those who were trying to take political advantage of Anzac Day from doing so. I am absolutely clear that it is absolutely unconscionable for parties to parade themselves when New Zealanders served and died for this country. 
Horticulture—Labour Shortages 
9.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What initiatives has the Government taken to assist horticulturalists with seasonal labour shortages? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Government launched the well-received Recognised Seasonal Employer initiative on 30 April which was developed in partnership with Pacific States and communities industry and unions. It will assist seasonal industries to self-manage the labour shortage encourage the employment of Kiwis first and provide a sustainable labour solution for the future. 
Darren Hughes 
: How will the Government ensure that overseas workers do not displace New Zealand workers in the seasonal industry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Given the exceptional unemployment rate currently being experienced in New Zealand—3.7 percent—migrant workers need to be an important secondary source of labour. Employers must access all available New Zealand labour first the Ministry of Social Development must verify that labour shortages exist in particular areas and employers must be accredited after having demonstrated good employment practices. Unions employers and Pacific Island States are all committed to making this work. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that this initiative builds on a policy announced by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in October last year that allows Pacific workers to fill seasonal labour shortages and can he assure the House that the system is not being abused and rorted as has been reported recently; if the report is true what is the Minister doing to address that problem? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This initiative was announced by the Prime Minister Helen Clark at last year’s Pacific leaders’ forum and follows on from work that had been done with forum leaders—in part by the Minister of Foreign Affairs—over the preceding year. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a report that states that this system is being abused. That was a very important part of my question to the Minister. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I apologise; I missed that. Would he like to repeat the second half of the question? 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the system is not being abused; if the abuse that is alleged in this  
New Zealand Herald  
report—which I will table—is occurring what is he doing to address it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I think he did address the question but I call the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The system cannot be being abused yet because it has not actually started. But I can tell the member that Pacific States are working extremely closely with our Government and with employers to ensure that workers will go home at the end of their time. Quite simply if they do not go home the employer will be deregistered and the workers will not come back the next year. 
Craig Foss 
: Why should growers who have followed all of the rules stand to lose thousands of dollars of repatriation bond because the Minister’s department has not followed its own rules—for example amending a seasonal labour worker’s visa thus allowing the worker to abscond? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Quite simply employers who follow all the rules will lose nothing. One of the rules is that the workers need to go back home at the end of the season. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a letter from myself to the Minister dated 7 March where I outline the situation of an employer suffering exactly what I have just described. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can the member confirm whether that matter relates to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme which was the subject of the primary question or to another scheme such as the old Seasonal Work Permit scheme which employers in his district would no doubt like to see continue? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure whether that is relevant. We are tabling some documents here. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table another document concerning a Government initiative for seasonal labour which is the Minister’s response to me referring me to the Palmerston North office— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Craig Foss 
: Finally I seek leave to table a document dated 23 April which is the letter I wrote to the Palmerston North office to which I am still awaiting a reply. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table a report from the  
New Zealand Herald  
that refers to syndicates smuggling in illegal workers to work— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Te PuniKokiri—Confidence 
10.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he have confidence in Te PuniKokiri; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes I have confidence in Te PuniKokiri because its employees are hard-working and conscientious. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why does Te PuniKokiri spend its staff development budget on expensive overseas training courses for staff members on the basis that these courses will allow Te PuniKokiri staff to develop their own skills and strengthen their ability to acquire positions elsewhere in the public and private sector? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I do not know all the details about that and I will get further information but one thing that is important to note is that it is hard for the Maori ministry to hold staff because as Maori organisations and iwi are developing and their assets are becoming a whole lot larger staff are poached. In order to compete in this market in relation to human resources it is important that the ministry gets the best skills wherever it can. 
Dave Hereora 
: Why does the Minister have confidence in Te PuniKokiri? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The ministry is a key part of incredibly positive results that are now emerging for Maori. More Maori are working more Maori are moving into semi-higher-skilled occupations and more Maori are earning more. Maori are also involved in the negative areas; we are trying to address issues like poverty and violence which do run rampant amongst some of our people. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Given that Te PuniKokiri’s 2006-07 statement of intent states that Te PuniKokiri has the lead policy role in supporting the revitalisation of te reo Maori and given that the data provided from Te PuniKokiri in 2006 confirmed that only one person out of a staff of 270 was receiving recognition for attestation of level 5 fluency in te reo does the Minister consider that that is sufficient for it to perform this lead role; if not what will he do about it? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am quite certain that in the sense of that high level as that doctor knows the bar is so high that people struggle to get there. But what we are serious about—and today I launched the Maori medium literacy strategy for schools—is that it is important that everybody gets the opportunity. As that member knows we funded Maori Television and we continue to fund the Ma Te Reo aspects in this country. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Would not a ministry like Te PuniKokiri with a history of problems with staff turnover be better off spending its staff development budget on staff retention than on strengthening their ability to get a better job somewhere else? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is the mix of where Maori people are going in this contemporary time. I tell the member that when Labour came to office at the end of 1999 after the National Party had been in Government the turnover rate was running at 23 to 25 percent. The ministry now has the turnover rate down to just under 12 percent. On average staff members have worked there for between 5 and 6 years. That member was in charge then when the turnover was dramatic. I finish by saying that the level is below the public service average for turnover. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tenatatou. Can the Minister tell me what is meant by the importance of social dialogue to the quality of life as outlined in Te PuniKokiri’s diversity research programme and how will it be measured? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Te PuniKokiri has reprioritised its efforts to reflect the Maori Potential Approach and that is part of it. The priorities are building knowledge and skills—[ 
Interruption 
] Is Pansy all right? 
Pansy Wong 
: I’m fine thank you. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: OK. The priorities also include strengthening leadership and decision making and the development and use of resources. It is about using Maori organisations and making sure that practices like mauri ora are imbued that we follow and recognise that there is a Maori way to do things and that we fund it. The framework for measuring and monitoring it is something we will work on with all Maori colleagues in this House. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Does the Minister agree with the Maori Affairs Committee of which Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui and Dave Hereora are members when it questioned whether sending ministry staff on expensive overseas training courses constituted realising Maori potential? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Maori do go global. The members of the select committee have vigorous debates and discussions. They question everybody on every issue that is relevant to the topic of the day. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. In the light of Te PuniKokiri’s role to facilitate Treaty settlements what action will the Minister be instructing it to take to respond to the people of Te Roroa who have indicated massive dissatisfaction with the process of addressing longstanding grievances? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As the member knows there are tensions and challenging opinions in relation to settlements. In relation to Te Roroa I am more than happy to make officials available to talk to Dr Sharples. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave of the House to table the 2005-06 financial review of Te PuniKokiri which shows the spending of extraordinary amounts of money on— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Kimberley Residents—Assault on Former Resident 
11.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Has she received any reports regarding an incident involving an assault on an intellectually disabled former Kimberley resident and will she restate her assurance to families of former Kimberley residents that they will receive the same if not better care in the community than they did at Kimberley? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister for Disability Issues 
: Yes I have. This has been described as an appalling cowardly act and is currently under police investigation after NZCare contacted the police that same day. Yes I am confident that care in the community in general is as good as or better than care in Kimberley. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Has the Minister read the reported comments of a mother of a former Kimberley resident that adequate systems were not in place when her daughter was moved into a community house last year and that “There have been a lot of incidents that would not have happened if the patients had remained at Kimberley.”; if so what is the Minister’s response to those comments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have read the reported comments on the front page of Tuesday’s  
Dominion Post 
 and wish to advise the House that in respect of that case the report is in part simply factually wrong—that is to say the adequate systems which were allegedly not in place refer to the availability of registered nurses. A registered nurse was in place from the outset of the establishment of that particular home. 
Darren Hughes 
: Despite the alleged disgraceful incident under discussion have successive Governments pursued deinstitutionalisation and in general does the Minister think the policy has worked? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is exactly right; deinstitutionalisation has been the policy of many successive Governments. It was—for indeed we do not have it any more—about ensuring that people with disabilities are living in the community and doing the day-to-day things such as most of us take for granted. This is a key aim of the disability strategy. As to whether it has worked I would say that I have yet to meet any New Zealander who used to live in an institution who wants to go back. They simply do not want to go back. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What action is planned if research by the Donald Beasley Institute establishes that the outcomes for former Kimberley patients are worse in the community than they were at Kimberley? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Very considerable action because it would be the first time that that had happened. I repeat: I have yet to meet a person who has been in an institution who wants to go back. Sometimes I have met family members who on behalf of a client or a patient want them to go back but I have never met a patient who wants to return. The closure of the Kimberley institution is the last project of its kind in our history. It was the most complex it was the most expensive and it remains the most closely monitored which is why we have the Donald Beasley Institute an independent outfit based in Dunedin keeping an eye on us. We are determined to get this right. 
Kimberley Residents—Community Care 
12.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Does she stand by her assurance to the families of Kimberley residents that residents would receive the same if not better care in the community? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister for Disability Issues 
: My answer is as I am sure the member will understand the same as I have just given to the primary question No. 11. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can the Minister explain to the New Zealand public or to the family of the intellectually disabled man who was dragged out of bed and kicked on the floor by drunk staff at a Levin community home that he received better care in the community? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Self-evidently I cannot. That was a disgraceful act. Let us now rehearse the facts. As soon as it happened a doctor was called. Then soon after the police were advised. Then soon after that the four people involved were given the boot. Three of them happened to be people who used to work as it happens in the Kimberley Centre. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question of how he can explain that that particular person received better care in the community than at the centre. The Minister failed to address it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did not; he actually quite specifically addressed the question. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that the majority of former Kimberley Centre residents require general anaesthetic in order for dental treatment to be performed and can she assure us that all former residents are in fact receiving adequate oral health care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret to advise that I am not up to speed on the dental therapy for residents who are out of the Kimberley Centre. I would be very happy to answer the question if the member would like to put down an oral or a written question around that to the Minister for Disability Issues or to the Minister of Health. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why has the Minister failed to act on the concerns of the Kimberley Residents Support Group (Hawke’s Bay) who are worried not only by the lack of quality support but also by the unusually high number of deaths of disabled people who have left the Kimberley Centre including at least one where there remains a coroner’s inquiry? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a matter of fact that a number of former Kimberley Centre residents are elderly. It is also a matter of fact that a change in circumstances can be disturbing to people which is why this process has been managed extremely carefully over a very long time. It may interest the member to know that just over a hundred families were surveyed on how they thought the transition process had gone. Those survey results were made available to me the Minister of Health in January of this year. Seventy-two percent of the families who responded said they thought the management of the transition was “excellent”. A further 26 percent said it was good. When we add 72 and 26 together we have 98 percent of the people who are involved saying we are doing not badly. 
Nathan Guy 
: What has the Minister learnt from four incidents involving carers and residents in Kapiti homes in 2006 and now this horrific drunken attack on a vulnerable disabled resident in Levin; and what assurances can the Minister give to the residents and their families that they will be safely cared for? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This was a cowardly act. It is indefensible. It is something that should not have happened. I hope the cops find the carers I hope they decide to prosecute them and I hope the prosecution is successful at least on the basis of what I know about what happened. It is not defensible. I do not seek to defend it but it has happened. I will just say again in case it has not sunk in that three of the four people who were sacked used to work in the Kimberley Centre which some people in this House seem to want to revisit. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can he be so confident that care in the community is better than care at the Kimberley Centre as he just told this House given the drunken staff incident where a resident was beaten up in a community home in Levin incidents at Kapiti unusually high death rates in the Hawke’s Bay and the United Nations investigation into a shocking case of a resident placed far away from his family? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure what the member refers to— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can the member be so confident? That is what the member told the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure what the member refers to regarding a United Nations inquiry so let me not attempt to answer that part of his question. I am sure about care in the community for these two reasons. Let me repeat them. I have never found anyone who has been in a New Zealand institution—any patient or client with an intellectual disability a physical disability a mental disability or more than one disability—who wants to go back not one. So those people have voted to say that institutions are no good. But what is more I have had the results of a survey of just over 100 families reported to me in January of this year. I am sorry that I find myself repeating myself but 72 percent of those families said the transition was excellent 26 percent said the transition was good and 2 percent offered neither of those accolades. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table three papers. The first from the  
Dominion Post 
 of 1 May “Disabled patient kicked at party”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second is from the  
Dominion Post 
 of 2 April “ ‘Shocking’ disabled case referred to UN”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The third is a Kimberley residents’ support group paper “How many Kimberley residents died during the process of closing this centre?”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.