Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8038] 
Questions to Ministers 
Corrections Minister—Murder Victim’s Family 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Did he apologise for the actions or failings of his Department of Corrections when he met privately with the family of murder victim Karl Kuchenbecker; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 As I have already stated publicly I have expressed my regrets to the Kuchenbecker family. However as I realise this meeting pre-dated the report’s release I have now initiated contact with the family and extended an invitation to meet them at any time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can he explain then why the Prime Minister told this House yesterday that the Minister and local member of Parliament had met with the family and said that they were very sorry for what had happened when today we hear from Paul Kuchenbecker that he did not take what was said in the meeting with two Government Ministers as being an apology for the death of his son? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: In checking with the transcript today I see Paul Kuchenbecker stated: “I took on board this as a personal apology from himself.” I offered that apology in a personal setting and I stand by that. 
Jill Pettis 
: Given that the Minister has acknowledged that mistakes were made could he please advise what steps he is taking to improve the system? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As I have already said probation officers have been issued with new instructions so that firstly parolees will have to report more frequently secondly probation officers will take quicker action following breaches and thirdly the Department of Corrections will provide better information to the Parole Board before parole is granted. Also the Government has legislation before the House that will include options for the police to have greater powers to recall parolees. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that both he and the Prime Minister yesterday thought that they would get away with a low-key private meeting before the Department of Corrections’ failings were evident to the public and that the only reason that he has organised—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members should allow the member to complete his question. Could the member please start again. 
Hon Bill English 
: I will start again. Can the Minister confirm that he and the Prime Minister yesterday thought that they would get away with a low-key private visit and apology before the failings of the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Justice were known and that the only reason he has organised another meeting is that—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister of Justice who was involved in this horrendous mess is sitting there consistently abusing me through the process of my asking the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did not hear that as abuse. I heard comment as is not unusual when members ask questions. The member could be clearly heard when asking his question so I would ask him to continue please. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please. 
Hon Bill English 
: —that he and the Prime Minister yesterday believed that they would get away with a low-key private apology before the failings of the Department of Corrections were publicly known that the only reason he has organised another meeting with the Kuchenbecker family is that Mr Kuchenbecker went to the media to say that he was not happy with the apology he received at the private meeting and that if Mr Kuchenbecker had not gone public nothing would have happened? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Prime Minister was not aware until yesterday that I had offered a personal apology. I had never been asked whether I had apologised to the family and I was not prepared to politicise the family’s personal grief. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Minister aware of a case where a dangerous inmate was released on parole against the advice of the police and without even notifying the police or in fact the victims of that dangerous offender and when the Minister was asked to explain that not only did he fail to apologise but also he said that he would not even comment because he was on holiday—and that Minister was a former Minister of Corrections Nick Smith in 1998? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s not true; you’re making it up. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes I am aware of that situation and of many other situations where mistakes occurred through the 1990s. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I have been accused of making an untrue statement. I therefore seek leave to table the media statement from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 of 4 January 1998 which points out that when Nick Smith was asked to talk about the case he said that he would not do so because he was on holiday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Now he’s just on medication. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That member will leave the Chamber if he intervenes again. [ 
Interruption 
] I always give a warning; members have had it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why would the Kuchenbecker family accept any further apology from the Government as genuine when the Minister has said Mr Burton’s parole was “well managed” when Barry Matthews of the Department of Corrections has said there is no blood on his hands and when the Prime Minister has said it is fine overall but there are just one or two little things to fix; why would the family think the Minister was at all sincere given that the Government has denied all responsibility for this death? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am prepared to meet with Mr Kuchenbecker in good faith. I am not prepared to judge what he may or may not think. However as I have said several times before regarding the situation—and I will say this again now—I do not consider the way the department managed Mr Burton to be good enough. Mistakes were made and must be rectified. That is why I and Barry Matthews have moved swiftly to tighten up the way probation is managed. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister accept that tragedies like the deaths of Mr Kuchenbecker and Liam Ashley and the other deaths either in custody or as a result of the Department of Corrections’ decisions will continue to be regular occurrences until we have in this country a genuine independent prison inspectorate with the ability and function to proactively investigate the policies and practices of the Department of Corrections and make binding recommendations to the Government? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We have to work to make sure these are not regular occurrences. I acknowledge that the Ombudsman is doing a large amount of work in the area of corrections—investigating on his own motion in a number of areas such as transportation. He has previously looked into the area of prison management. We take on board all of his recommendations and will continue to do so. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister make a formal public apology for the many failings of his department as documented in his own department’s report in terms of actions that culminated in the murder of Karl Kuchenbecker; yes or no? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I will meet with Mr Kuchenbecker and his wife. I will not tell that member what I might be prepared to say to them. 
Benefits—Transition to Work 
2.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports if any has he received on the Government’s further progress at supporting New Zealanders into work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I can advise the House that this Government continues to have great success in supporting New Zealanders into work. As members will be aware unemployment benefit numbers have fallen from 161000 under National to just under 40000 last year. I advise the House today that with further job-search support services provided through Work and Income unemployment benefit numbers have fallen even further—reducing by 5000 in the last month alone. The number of people on the unemployment benefit has now been further reduced to 32000 which is the lowest level since 1982. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How are total benefit numbers tracking? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In the last year the number of working-age benefit recipients has fallen from 293000 to 269000. That is a fall in 1 year of 24000. That equates to 66 people a day every day who are no longer reliant on a benefit. In the last month alone all benefit categories saw a reduction. Sickness and invalids benefit numbers fell by 40 domestic purposes benefit numbers fell by 850 and unemployment benefit numbers fell by 5200. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatoui te Whare. Is the Minister aware of the comments of one of his predecessors the Hon Rick Barker who said in December 2003: “Of the 8055 Maori unemployed for more than 6 months who achieved stable employment outcomes in the year ending June 2003 3556 had re-enrolled by November 2003.” and does he agree that nearly 50 percent of the unemployed going back on the dole within 6 months confirms the widely held view that this Government’s grand plans to get Maori into work have been an abject and miserable disaster; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am certainly aware of the excellent efforts of my predecessor in part of this portfolio—and I compliment him on his timely arrival in the House. I say to that member that he seems to have missed one important fact which is that Maori unemployment reduced by 70 percent from January 1999 to January this year—from 15174 people to just 4525. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is the Minister planning to bring in thousands of unskilled foreign seasonal workers to pick fruit when thousands of able-bodied working-age people are sitting on the unemployment benefit in Hawke’s Bay and the Bay of Plenty right now? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am sure the member is only too aware of the fact that New Zealanders especially the unemployed have first call on those jobs. I will read to her the words of Peter Silcock from Horticulture New Zealand in a press release dated 7 March: “The industry and government have been working together on ensuring enough seasonal labour is available in Hawke’s Bay and around the country for a number of years. The industry is very pleased with the effort government has made to help industry meet its expanding labour needs.” 
Russell Fairbrother 
: In addition to the reports the Minister has already told us about what other reports has he seen concerning benefit numbers? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have recently seen an extraordinary report that inflates the number of people on a benefit by 10 percent by sourcing the statement from old 2005 data; that pretends there has been no change to the number of long-term unemployed when in fact that number has reduced from 70000 under a National Government to 13000 today which is an 80 percent reduction; and that claims that New Zealand unemployment and incapacity benefits are tracking in the same way as those of Australia and the UK when in fact New Zealand numbers are reducing at least four times as quickly as those of those jurisdictions. Those comments were made by John Key on the  
Agenda 
 programme on Saturday and show his now characteristic disregard for the facts. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatoui te Whare. I thank the Minister for his positive remarks about Maori unemployment. Does the Minister agree that unemployment rates for Maori still being three times higher than those for non-Maori highlights a massive and ongoing failure in the Government’s ability to support Maori into work; and is the Government willing to admit its mistake in shutting down the closing the gaps policy just as the Ministry of Education admitted yesterday that it had made a mistake in removing the Treaty from the curriculum? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No and no. What it shows is the good sense of the high priority this Government has given in the past and continues to give to unemployment issues. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Could the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When a member of the Opposition was asking a question he sought silence. When a member on the other side of the House is asking a question that member should not be shouted down. So would the Minister please ask his question. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Can the Minister confirm that Maori are going into work five to six times more quickly than any other race in this country? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I can confirm that success. Of course when one starts from a higher percentage of unemployment even greater success takes a long time to benchmark out. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table a report headed “Fruit left to rot as growers face major pickers shortage”; it is in relation to the Hawke’s Bay and fruit pickers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I seek leave of the House to table a release dated 7 March this year from Horticulture New Zealand in relation to Hawke’s Bay’s seasonal labour needs that says exactly the opposite. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
3.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: How can there be any credibility to his claim that corruption amongst prison guards is not a widespread problem when in addition to the current investigations at Rimutaka Prison and Christchurch Prison four guards assisted convicted rapist Trevor Robinson to have a conjugal visit with his girlfriend while on a hospital visit; or is it now acceptable for guards to provide this service? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I take these allegations extremely seriously. Four Department of Corrections officers have been placed on leave and are likely to be suspended today. The prisoner had to be taken to hospital for medical reasons and the officers were given a very clear set of instructions on how the prisoner was to be supervised including how to manage visits. It appears these instructions were not followed. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Minister have greater trust and confidence in his department today because prison escapes have fallen by 78 percent in the last 10 years and because he does not need to make the excuse that his National predecessor did in 1999 that people were in prison simply on trust? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can confirm that escape rates have dropped by 78 percent since 1998 and that I have far more confidence in the Department of Corrections. However there is always room for improvement and we will continue to make changes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister tell the House which party was in Government when the Department of Corrections was split from the Department of Justice and which party privatised by contract the movement of prisoners in New Zealand; and has he received any reports from that party as to the monumental mistakes they themselves have made? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can confirm that in 1997 the National Government split the Department of Corrections away from the Department of Justice in an attempt to continue the privatisation of every Government department—in the same way they privatised the railways attempted to privatise housing and anything else they could lay their hands on. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that prison staff assisted convicted rapist Peter McNamara to father a child by smuggling out his semen from jail; and does he stand by the comments from his own managers who simply shrugged it off and said that it was not illegal? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not accept those comments that it was not illegal. However the doctor implicated in the case has actually denied participating in any such procedure. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister agree that a transparent process is important when dealing with corruption and does he now agree with New Zealand First that the only way to deal effectively with corruption in his department is to ensure that officers found to be corrupt not only lose their jobs but are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and if found guilty sentenced even if that means going to jail where they can occupy the same cells they have been supervising for the last few years? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I treat any claims or accusations of corruption with the most serious of efforts. That member has assisted and brought information to me. We have passed that on and we will work with the police to identify catch and prosecute anyone in the corrections system who may in any way be conducting inappropriate or illegal behaviour. 
Simon Power 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement: “I think the deprivation of liberty means precisely that”; if so how can the public believe that he or his Government is really in touch with what is going on in our prisons when prisoners get access to R18 movies KFC P PlayStation games and LCD TVs and when they can even get guards to help them with conjugal visits? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We take very seriously all areas of responsibility within corrections and we will continue to make changes to improve the system to provide a higher level of security and better outcomes from corrections than ever occurred under the National Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Have improvements been made to security in prisons such as in the prison in Simon Power’s electorate Manawatu Prison from the days under a National Government in 1997 when the  
Evening Standard 
 reported that a typical week would see 20 to 30 nocturnal visitors making deliveries to inmates usually by striding over a farm fence and walking up to the cell block windows? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As a measure of the illegal activity taking place in prisons a random drug test is usually fairly accurate. When the National Government was in power random drug tests identified over 30 percent of people using drugs in prison. That level is now down to 13 percent—a huge improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Can he tell the House today exactly how many inquiries into corruption are going on in his department given that he initially told Radio New Zealand National that he did not know then he said there were three investigations only to have his staff call Radio New Zealand National to say that actually there were only two investigations—how many investigations are there today? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I cannot provide the exact number but any allegations of corruption will be given the highest level of priority and investigated thoroughly. 
Ron Mark 
: How does the Minister explain conflicting comments from his department regarding recidivist sex offender John Clarke who is described by the Parole Board in its decision to release him as not presenting “an undue risk to the safety of the community” despite being described by the Department of Corrections as having a “high risk of reoffending”; and why is the Parole Board not being made to take heed of the advice of the department—or is that just another gap that this House needs to legislate to fill? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As has been publicly announced on a number of occasions we are looking to make law changes to ensure that the Parole Board is in receipt of all relevant information to assist it to make the right decisions. In this case I believe that the Department of Corrections analysis was indeed accurate. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister’s confidence in his department diminished at all by the review of the Parole Board when it states that the Burton case “raises a question as to whether the Board’s expectations were reasonably capable of being resourced by those responsible for supervision.”; and given the longstanding concerns around monitoring and enforcement of parole conditions what is the Minister doing to ensure that parole conditions mean more than a hill of beans? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We have recently issued clear instructions that any possible breaches of parole will be dealt with by immediate action and contact with that parolee within 24 hours and that the reporting times for people on life parole or the offender warning system will be weekly until all the terms and conditions of their parole have been met. It is always a challenging area for those probation officers; we will continue to support them to ensure they do the best job possible. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Minister seriously telling this House that he has no idea how many investigations there are into corruption in New Zealand’s prison system; indeed if he is not telling the House that will he please tell the House how many investigations are currently going on into corruption in New Zealand prisons? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of investigations at Christchurch Prison and at Rimutaka Prison. But I would expect that any claims or any suspicion would be dealt with immediately initially by the prison managers and that is why I am not in the position to identify the exact number at this moment. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister seen evidence and reports stating that Lesley Martin was denied parole by the Parole Board because of her failure to give an unqualified acceptance of the impropriety of her offending and reports that the Parole Board failed to parole Peter Ellis because he refused to accept the guilt of his crime and can he compare those decisions to the Parole Board’s decision to give back-end home detention to John Thomas Clarke despite the fact that in the Parole Board’s own decision it notes that he denied his offending—does that not concern the Minister? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: It is not in my role to comment on the decisions by the Parole Board. It is my responsibility to ensure that the corrections system is in a position to provide all the relevant information to the Parole Board. 
Question interrupted. 
Question No. 1 to Minister—Personal Explanation 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350 in respect of the claims made by Mr Phil Goff about my time as Minister of Corrections and the paroling of Mr Neil Swain. On 2 January 1998 I was approached as Minister of Corrections by the  
Sunday Star-Times  
to make comment in respect of the paroling of Neil Swain and I declined to comment saying I was on holiday. I note that at the time none of his parole conditions were breached no offence was committed by Mr Swain. I also note that the police superintendent said that he had no concerns about the paroling. I suggest that for Mr Goff to make the analogy with Mr Burton when he in fact— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that in a personal explanation he confines it to matters about the member himself. That is why— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: And I have made plain to the House the circumstances are totally different to those affecting Mr Burton. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is an occasion in which a member offers a sort of personal explanation and has gone well beyond the matter of personal explanation. The matter of personal explanation concerns whether he actually said that. He said he did; that was actually sufficient. Then he went on to matters that are not relevant to him personally in terms of his honour. I have to say that I will now be talking with Mr Brownlee as leader of the House for National about this issue of granting leave for personal explanations that are not personal explanations. It is a privilege in this House and one that needs to be guarded carefully. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 First of all I will certainly look forward to those discussions. I just ask you also Madam Speaker to consider the environment we are currently in. This is question time a time when the Opposition and other members of Parliament are supposed to hold the executive of Government to account. We are only three questions into today’s 12 questions and we have already had six supplementary questions asked of the executive by the executive. I wonder whether that is a reasonable sort of thing. I know that people like Mr Goff who has asked four of those six questions are probably rehearsing for Opposition— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point order Mr Brownlee. Please continue. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That comment is not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is. Well that comment was certainly a gratuitous comment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to apologise to Mr Goff for suggesting that he has ambition to be in Opposition. The point is that question time should be a time for members of Parliament and that the privilege of being in the executive is that generally one will be in the loop about what is going on. That may be an exception for some members of the executive but in general it is an environment for parliamentarians to find out what the executive is up to and what it is doing about issues of the day. I wonder whether you might look through  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and other such and consider whether you need to make a ruling about the appropriateness of the growing use of question time by members of the executive to get themselves out of trouble. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings on this are very clear that any member may put a question to a Minister or indeed a member in charge of a matter of parliamentary business. Furthermore Madam Speaker if you were to rule that questions should be asked only where a member does not know the answer to the question already very few questions in this House would be asked because the whole point usually is to elicit an answer; and then to proceed on from there—to engage in essentially political matters. Strangely enough this is a political body and question time is part of a political process. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. On the first point members must confine themselves to matters that are personal to the member who seeks leave. Failure to do so of course as has already been indicated will in fact prejudice leave being given to others. So I ask all members in the House to note that the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings are very clear on that point. 
On the different point there is of course no rule in the Standing Orders against Ministers being able to ask questions. I would note also that to some extent the point of holding the executive to account is taken to note in the number of supplementary questions that are accorded to members of the Opposition as opposed to the number accorded to the Government—a matter I have explained at some length previously. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Question resumed. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] I will continue when they have settled down over there; I know that being in Opposition is boring. Is the Minister aware of figures released by the then Minister of Corrections Dr Nick Smith that 42 percent of all samples taken from inmates in a new anti-drug regime showed that those inmates were in fact drug positive and can he assure this House that the situation in prisons has improved markedly since the failed regime in prisons of Dr Smith and the National Government? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can confirm that random drug testing now has identified a figure of 13 percent—not 42 percent as occurred under the National Government. I consider that progress. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Parole Board’s decision to grant recidivist sex offender John Clarke back-end home detention which states that he will not present an undue risk to the safety of the community. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a report where the Department of Corrections is reported to have stated that recidivist sex offender John Clarke has a high risk of reoffending. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 14 March 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Yesterday in the House the Minister of Health disputed that cancer patients in Auckland were waiting 14 to 16 weeks for their radiation treatment. He claimed it was 8 to 10 weeks. I seek leave to table a letter dated Tuesday to an Auckland woman Susan with a medical consultant Dr Benjamin advising that she must wait 14 to 16 weeks for her radiation treatment. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Auckland Issues Minister—Vibrancy of City 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: Does she support a vibrant Auckland City; if so what has she done to achieve this? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: Mention the word vibrant and I rise to the challenge. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There are a number of Auckland members in Cabinet who are available to answer this question. Would it not be appropriate— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has been here long enough to know that the Government determines who addresses a question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On behalf of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues I say that yes she continues to work with Auckland leaders and indeed leaders working with Auckland to ensure that Auckland succeeds as a vibrant and sustainable world-class city. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Minister’s work with the leaders of Auckland does she believe that the Auckland City Council’s plan to ban billboards from the central business district encourages Auckland to be a vibrant city; if so what is her advice to those who have invested in central Auckland buildings on the basis of existing-use rights for billboard sites and who will have those rights—and perhaps millions of dollars of value—wiped out overnight by the Auckland City Council? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister provides support for Auckland. She does not run a running commentary on every issue that arises in Auckland which is a matter for the local authority. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I ask a supplementary question to apparently the real Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just ask the question. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can the Leader of the House advise whether the Minister who holds the title of Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues is right now using her immense influence as Minister to ensure that there will in fact be legislation some time this year on regional governance for Auckland? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not aware of whether at this particular moment the Minister is doing that but I can assure the member that the Minister is taking a close interest and was present at the Auckland Mayoral Forum last Friday where these matters were discussed. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister accept that there is overcrowding on Auckland passenger trains that orders for new trains need to be put in urgently and that it would be a waste of money if the trains were diesel rather than electric because there is not yet an agreement on electrification; and when will there be an announcement on a timetable for electrification and on appropriate funding? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If I could explain trains consist of locomotives and carriages; one can run more passengers in more carriages with the same locomotive. Secondly it is possible for more trains to not necessarily be electric. Even if a decision was taken right now at 17 minutes to 3 it would be some years before the Auckland rail line was electrified. It is not just a matter of putting wires over the top. There is a lot more to electrification than that. There would probably still be some requirement for replacement locomotives before electrics could be run. 
Rodney Hide 
: Noting the Minister’s judicious use of her powers of commentary is she concerned that the actions of the Auckland City Council to ban businesses from advertising in the central business district will overturn property rights and cost the local economy hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars; and is she satisfied that the “vibrancy” of Auckland City will be enhanced so greatly—by exposing the buildings behind the billboards—as to justify such a cost? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I am sure the Minister is aware of is that later this year the electors of Auckland will be able to cast their own judgment on these matters which is a proper part of a democratic process. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister accept that what the Auckland Regional Transport Authority needs is a timetable established for electrification so that the authority can make advance orders and that otherwise it will have to make advance orders for diesel locomotives whereas if a timetable for electrification were announced now the authority could advance-order electric locomotives? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member heard what I said previously given the pressure on rail transport it is perfectly possible that there will need to be diesel locomotives even if a decision were taken now. I might note that if full ordinary Resource Management Act processes are used and a decision was announced at this time to electrify it would probably be something like 6 years before electrification was complete. 
Parole Board—Application of Parole Act 2002 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that section 28(2) of the Parole Act 2002 which states that the Parole Board may parole an offender “only if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the offender … will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community” has been consistently applied by the board? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I agree that the member’s selective quote is among the provisions of section 28(2) of the Parole Act. I can tell the member that in the Criminal Justice Reform Bill which is in my name and currently referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee the Government is moving to further strengthen the community safety provisions of that Act. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How could the release of a prisoner who had 91 convictions for burglary and violence had at that stage committed one murder had escaped from prison had committed 15 violent acts inside prison had already been declined parole three times and had six psychological reports describing his risk of reoffending as “high to very high” suggesting he was a nutter who should not be released as was the case with Graeme Burton be consistent with the Minister’s Parole Act? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member is referring to cases and problems that have been widely canvassed. The important point is that this Government has taken and is continuing to take decisive action. I refer to the Criminal Justice Reform Bill which is before the House. The Government is making further moves now to ensure that parole is a privilege not a right. It will ensure the Parole Board can deal with all information and will receive all information in making its decision and it will strengthen generally the board’s ability to hear and see all the information that it should when making its deliberations. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he find it disturbing that the Parole Board now admits that it needs training to interpret the psychological reports of prisoners; and what is so hard to understand about an offender who had 91 convictions for burglary or violence had at that stage committed one murder had escaped from prison had committed 15 violent acts inside prison at that point had already been declined parole three times and had six psychological reports describing him as a nutter who should not be released; and just how much training will the board need to understand that people like Graeme Burton with records like that should not be released? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: What I do find encouraging is that the Government is moving to take all the necessary action to ensure that the information and resources are available for the Parole Board to make fully informed decisions. Frankly I invite that member to advise the House whether his party would simply continue to criticise without ever coming up with a single solution. If that member is so concerned he has the opportunity to support the legislation that is currently before the select committee. Finally if the Parole Board seeks to further its capability I would have thought the member would applaud that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that nothing in the Parole Act guarantees that an offender will be paroled and that Graeme Burton who had 91 convictions for violence and burglary had one murder conviction at that stage had committed 15 violent incidents inside had failed at that point three attempts at parole and at that point also had five psychological reports saying he was dangerous was promised on 20 March 2006 by the Parole Board that he would be released subject to a psychological report—that despite its clarity the board says now it could not read and simply went ahead and honoured the promise to Graeme Burton? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In addressing the matter for which I have responsibility I absolutely can confirm that there is no right to parole. What is more this Government is moving to further clarify to remove anyone’s possible doubt that parole in this country at law is a matter of privilege not a matter of right. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Parole Board’s view that it would be wrong to take allegations of Burton’s offending in prison into account when assessing risk be consistent with ensuring public safety when any reasonable person would have thought that if a prisoner is violent in prison he or she is likely to be violent outside of prison; or is it the case that the Department of Corrections is in such a hopeless mess that it simply wanted to get him out of prison because it could not handle him in prison? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that this Government is moving to further ensure that the Parole Board will be possessed of all relevant information when it is making its deliberations. It then makes as an independent statutory body its deliberations. We will ensure that the Parole Board is possessed of all relevant information whatever the level of evidential quality and that it then makes the judgment as to the relative merits of the information. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What makes him so confident that changes in the law will make the people on the Parole Board any more competent in the exercise of their duties when it is clear they did not have to promise release to Graeme Burton they did not take account of his violence inside the prison when they should have and they completely ignored the record of 91 convictions for burglary and violence his 15 violent acts inside prison the murder he had previously been convicted of and six psychological reports that stated: “Do not let this man out. He is a nutter. He will reoffend.”; and why are those people still sitting on the Parole Board? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is clear that the member paid no attention to the various responsibilities that resulted from the changes his party made in Government as to the lines of responsibility for appointments to the Parole Board and so on. That said— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Pass the buck! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well that is a bit rich from a member who was part of the Government that made the provision. But I can tell that member that this Government is moving to ensure that all the information all the resources and all the statutory provisions will be in place to arm the Parole Board with all the tools it needs to do the job. I invite that member to indicate to the House that his party will give support to ensure those measures can be passed. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—2006 Examination Results 
6.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the results of the 2006 NCEA examinations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has released the 2006 National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)# national statistics which demonstrate that student achievement has continued to improve. The results show that more students are getting NCEA qualifications at all levels and that proportionally more students in 2006 passed the NCEA levels 1 to 3 than in previous years continuing the trend of the past 4 years. Achievement of the literacy requirements for NCEA level 1 in year 11 went up to 75 percent and numeracy achievement rose 6 percentage points to 82 percent. I would like to say therefore that I congratulate all the students and teachers in schools who have managed to carry on lifting that performance. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Can he tell this House what those results tell us about how the NCEA system is working? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: These latest statistics highlight the success of the NCEA system. As Dr John Langley has stated: “we are being more accurate with what we measure and how we do it.” He said that in today’s newspaper. The NCEA provides students with an opportunity to perform to their potential. That means that the brightest can stretch themselves and the others can achieve their potential across a much wider range of subjects and create a record of learning that they can use for future learning or for an employer. Therefore it is a mystery as to why the National Party would want to continue to attack the system and threaten to replace it with a return to the old pass/fail way of doing things. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister concerned about the gap between male and female achievement that the latest results show; if he is concerned about that can he advise the House when the initiatives to address achievement gaps that he referred to in a written answer to my colleague Judy Turner last July will start to produce a more even balance between male and female achievement? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes of course I am concerned about the performance of boys against girls. I still have a reference group working on this particular area but it has identified at this time that the major cause seems to be the drop-off in reading particularly as boys move into adolescence. Given that we are now enjoying increasing success in the reading programmes that we have in place in schools I would hope that those successes will start to feed through into NCEA results from now on. 
Parole—Corrections Department Investigation 
7.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Why did his department’s investigation into its handling of Graeme Burton’s parole include the term of reference to “Note any areas in which particularly good practice has been demonstrated”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 It was essential that this investigation look at all aspects of the management of Graeme Burton’s parole. 
Simon Power 
: How can he state that the department’s inquiry into its handling of Graeme Burton’s parole is “technically and legally correct in [its] conclusions” when it has glossed over the fact that under the zero tolerance guidelines the department should have recalled Burton immediately rather than a week later and the fact that it neglected to conduct a scheduled home visit when Burton had already gone; or does the direction to look for “particularly good practice” simply confirm that the report was a whitewash from the outset? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As I have said several times and will say again I do not consider the way that the department managed Mr Burton to be good enough. Zero tolerance requires that immediate action be taken. It was taken. The action in fact was proved not to be sufficient. That is the issue. 
Simon Power 
: Why does the internal report into Burton’s parole also gloss over the fact that probation service managers checked Burton’s computer file which contained all of his numerous failures to comply with his conditions only twice in the 6 months that he was on parole when the zero tolerance guidelines state that that should have occurred every week for the first 3 months then every fortnight—or is this just another attempt to cover up a horrendous set of circumstances that his department presided over? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I have acknowledged and the report identifies where mistakes have been made and where practices could be improved. Instructions have been issued to ensure that service managers oversee probation officers on a regular basis. 
Simon Power 
: How does the Minister explain the difference between Barry Matthews’ assessment that Burton’s parole was well managed based on the internal report and the Minister’s statements and those of the Prime Minister this week that it could have been managed better; and how can he claim to have confidence in the Department of Corrections’ report when the Prime Minister went so far as to seek independent advice from the Law Commission to challenge the findings of his own department? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Barry Matthews is a good chief executive officer. He is not perfect. I do not agree with his description of Graeme Burton’s parole management. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister recall the words of the Acting Minister of Corrections the Hon Margaret Wilson in 2003 when she publicly acknowledged and deeply regretted that there had been a number of mistakes in the way that mass murderer William Duane Bell’s parole had been managed including the fact that as with Burton his probation officer had gone on leave and home checks had not been completed; in light of the standard set by the Hon Margaret Wilson will the Minister take the opportunity right now to make a public apology in the House this afternoon? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I cannot remember the particular words said by the Acting Minister at the time but I understand the situation. We will move to ensure that when probation officers go on holiday there is adequate cover and that the service managers oversee the proper transfer of responsibilities. 
Simon Power 
: Why did the Department of Corrections Chief Executive Barry Matthews claim after the Prime Minister’s statement to the House that opened this year’s sitting that he was not aware of any changes to the Parole Act and why was his department which has to administer the probation service not consulted; has the situation simply got to the point where the entire department—even in terms of seeking the department’s advice on issues like changes to parole—no longer has the confidence of the Prime Minister? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The process of consultation with Mr Matthews and the department is taking place at this moment to ensure that changes to parole will in fact improve the situation and provide better security for the community. 
Disability Strategy—Achievements 
8.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What has the Government’s New Zealand Disability Strategy achieved since its release 6 years ago? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 As the House will well know the list is long. But today I am very pleased to announce that my colleague Steve Maharey and I have launched the New Zealand Sign Language curriculum for New Zealand schools. Introducing sign language into the school curriculum to support its being made an official language is another world first for New Zealand and one we should all be very proud of. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister therefore tell the House what she expects the sign language curriculum to achieve? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The curriculum is another huge step forward in the recognition of sign language as an official language of our country and will contribute to this Government’s effort towards a more inclusive society. The curriculum will promote sign language as a choice alongside other languages offered in schools while creating greater access to sign language for both deaf and hearing students as well as increasing the pool of learners and users of this unique language. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why has the Minister used such blatant bullying tactics on the disability sector to get her way to the extent that the chief executive officer of IHC New Zealand said it had become too politically correct in some areas and that the $140 million comes with a cost and as a result 2000 disabled people lost their choice of job as IHC New Zealand closed all the sheltered workshops? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I remain very proud of my advocacy on behalf of disabled people in New Zealand. Nobody has been denied anything other than improved opportunities in vocational services under our Government’s leadership. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a letter from Ralph Jones Chief Executive Officer of IHC New Zealand. He writes: “Yes the IHC has become too politically correct in some areas.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second is from an article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 dated 10 February which states: “Today 2000 disabled people most of them from IHC … have lost their jobs.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Number of Recipients 
9.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many 3 and 4-year-olds will receive 20 free hours of early childhood education on 1 July 2007? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As has been explained to the member on more occasions than I care to count based on current enrolments up to 92000 3 and 4-year-olds will be eligible to receive 20 hours’ free early childhood education in teacher-led centres from 1 July this year. 
Paula Bennett 
: Will the Minister be making any amendments to the rules for 20 free hours before 1 July 2007? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in February after hearing concerns from the early childhood sector that he will “amend some rules to make it work”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In meeting with the sector at that time—all 12 parts of the sector—I made it clear to the people involved that the Ministry of Education would do what it is currently doing. It is travelling the country and talking face to face with providers because it may become clear during that process that the way we interpret the rules in different parts of the sector may have to be clarified. At the time I used the example of home-based education services which of course differ greatly from institutionally based services. The need may be to clarify the rules in relation to the different parts of the sector. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on alternatives to the very popular policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen many reports. The first one said that the 20-hour entitlement would be welcomed by families. The second said that the scheme should be scrapped. The third said that the scheme should be replaced by a tax deduction system where parents save up their receipts and take them to the Inland Revenue Department at the end of the year and get repaid for the year just passed. The next report advocated spending over $1 billion to extend the scheme to every early childhood education centre in the country. In a further statement objection was raised to any funding at all being spent on informing parents about the policy. All of those statements came from different spokespeople within the National Party who seem not to know about this policy at all. But I will bet a large amount of money that by the next election they will agree with it. 
Paula Bennett 
: Which is correct—the sector needs to know—is it the Prime Minister’ statement on Tuesday in this House that “changes are not likely”; the Minister’s statement in February which was very clear that he would “amend some rules”; or his wishy-washy statement today? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That question was heard in near silence so courtesy will be shown in order that the reply can be heard in silence. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It was a multi-choice question but I will add a fourth option which is actually what was said. We met with all parts of the early childhood sector. During that discussion I made it very clear that during the time those groups would spend talking with the Ministry of Education prior to the roll-out of this scheme we would make sure that all of the rules applied in a way that was fair to each of the 12 sectors of the early childhood sector. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister agree with the written statement of his colleague Shane Jones that attention around 20 hours’ free education is “being driven by a minority of commercial providers more concerned with profits than educating our younger generations” and how does that statement reconcile with the Auckland Kindergarten Association which declared just last week that it would not be opting in? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In relation to the last comment by Ms Bennett who always misrepresents the sector I say that the Auckland Kindergarten Association said it was still considering the policy—whereas for example the Waikato Kindergarten Association has already announced that it is opting in saying that it is a wonderful initiative by the Government. I say to the member that Mr Shane Jones says a lot of very sensible things. There is a debate going on about this policy as anybody would expect at the present time—all big policies have debates. As I mentioned to the House yesterday over 90 percent of the people who go to the discussions with the Ministry of Education are leaving those discussions saying they understand the policy and know how to apply it. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister agree with Shane Jones that the sector has too long been treated as something that anyone can do; if so what about the 94 non-teacher-led services north of Auckland that will not get access to this Government’s hoax of 20 free hours? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is always good to get policy from the National Party. Ms Bennett has again promised to extend this policy to all early childhood centres for $1 billion—that from a tax-cutting party! National cannot spend more and cut taxes at the same time and that is why Mrs Bennett will be remaining on the Opposition benches. 
Paula Bennett 
: It is not Mrs Bennett; it is Miss Bennett. I seek leave to table a document from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that very clearly states that the Minister of Education Steve Maharey has conceded that he will amend some rules in order to make the policy work. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the document concerning Shane Jones who states very clearly that early childhood education has been driven by a minority of commercial providers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the list of those providers that are north of Auckland and will not have access to this hoax of a scheme. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Question Time 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I notice that the Government benches are looking particularly empty at this point in time and I ask you— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. To comment on that is not appropriate. It will create disorder if we raise issues about who is in the House and who is not. There is a longstanding convention that that is not done. [ 
Interruption 
] There we go! 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could we be assured that the Government is abiding by Standing Order 156 which requires that leave can be granted for only 25 percent of a caucus? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a party vote issue. I suggest the member read the Standing Orders clearly. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that a few weeks ago there was quite an extensive discussion in this House about how the House could verify whether Taito Phillip Field’s proxy vote was being exercised in line with his intentions. What came out of that discussion was that it is quite difficult for the rest of Parliament to ascertain whether the voting rules are being kept. In this case throughout question time 19 Labour members have been absent. The House generally accepts that because we are familiar with the traditional practice of parliamentarians that if they are in the building they are present at question time and if they are not present at question time it is highly likely they are out of the building. We have drawn the reasonable assumption that for voting purposes Labour has 19 members away when it should have only 12 members away. I think it is fair for parliamentarians to infer from what is the normal behaviour whether Labour is complying with the Standing Order. Madam Speaker we would appreciate your assistance on what assurance we can have that given that 19 Labour members are absent from question time Labour is complying with the Standing Order that limits it to 12 absences. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Of course the point you made in your previous ruling Madam Speaker was that the 25 percent issue applies when a vote is taken not at any other time in the House. Secondly I note that 14 members of the National Party are away at this precise moment. National is entitled to only 12 proxies. [ 
Interruption 
] I invite the member to count her membership around the House; she is missing 14 at the present time. Thirdly this matter has been dealt with in many previous rulings. It is for the whips to deal with the issue of the absence of members and proxies. If members wish to get into that area then we will start raising questions about where Mr Key is and where other members of the National Party are. Mr Key has asked only about seven questions in the House since he became the Leader of the Opposition. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker as the Hon Bill English has asked you to reflect upon the situation that he has quite clearly outlined could you for the benefit of the rest of us at this end of the House—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Who intervened? 
Rodney Hide 
: It was the first time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes and I believe in fairies! This is a serious point and I think all members should be here to hear it so I ask members to please restrain themselves. It is an important matter. It is a fundamental matter to trust relationships in this House. 
RON MARK 
: Madam Speaker could you please advise the House as to what the situation currently is with Mr Brian Connell. Mr Connell is a member of this House. Mr Connell has been expelled from the National Party caucus. Mr Connell’s vote is still being cast—or is it not? Under what authority and what jurisdiction is that vote being cast? What proof and evidence does the House have to see that Mr Connell actually is—or is not—a member of Parliament or a member of the National caucus and is being accorded the due rights and privileges given to him his having been elected as the member of Parliament for Rakaia? We from this end of the House would hate to see Mr English advocate one position against one party whilst he displays a completely contrary view within his own team of which he is the deputy leader. 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am perfectly happy to reassure the House that the National Party is complying with Standing Order 156 and that I hold the proxies. We have less than one-quarter of our members absent from the precincts of Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Right I will rule on it. That is not the question. The question is that Standing Order 156 can arise only when a party vote is held. There is no party vote being held at this moment to my knowledge. Also there is no rule as to general attendance in this House so it is not relevant at this time as to how many are here or not here. 
On the point that Ron Mark raised I have not been notified of Mr Connell’s change of membership and therefore he is still a member of the National Party as far as I am concerned. 
Modern Apprenticeships Scheme—Reports 
10.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports has he received on the success of the Modern Apprenticeships scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Last week I had the pleasure of personally congratulating Mr Phillip Newport the 3000th Modern Apprentice to complete training under this scheme. The 3000 Modern Apprentices who have now completed their training prove that the Labour-led Government’s revitalisation of trades training is continuing to bear fruit. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister tell the House how many Modern Apprentices are currently in training and contributing to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The latest statistics show that at 31 December 2006 there were 9466 Modern Apprentices in training—up 13 percent from December 2005. Total industry training numbers increased 5 percent over the same period to just under 124000. This is in marked contrast to the destruction of apprenticeship in the 1990s which was particularly marked by the repeal of the Apprenticeship Act by the Rt Hon Bill Birch. 
Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960—Repeal 
11.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Is she prepared to extend the transition period for the repeal of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960 given that New Zealand’s largest sheltered workshop says her proposed replacement contains “serious flaws”; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 If the member had had the opportunity to read my Supplementary Order Paper to the bill which has been tabled and circulated to all members of the House he would realise that in fact I am proposing that the bill’s commencement date be amended from 30 June 2007 to 30 November 2007. This suggestion was made by Peter Brown who has actually made a constructive contribution towards this legislation—unlike the member asking the question who as usual has not. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why is the Minister cutting the incomes of New Zealand’s most vulnerable workers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As has been explained carefully to the member on a number of occasions I am not. I am happy to—again—table the figures showing that the proposal he consistently makes is factually inaccurate. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister repeat her answer because I am not sure the member over there Paul Hutchison really got it; can she confirm that it was New Zealand First that pressed for the extension of the transition period from 30 June to 30 November as a means of addressing the concerns the member has raised; and will she also confirm that this is yet another example of the success of a party that does as opposed to one that merely says? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The amendment of the commencement date to 30 November 2007 was not made after one brief discussion with the member who asked that supplementary question Peter Brown but after a long series of very detailed information points on which I was able to confidently assure the member of a smooth transition period between now and that time. 
Dave Hereora 
: What other reports has the Minister received on the repeal of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Aside from the very selectively quoted press statement mentioned in the primary question I have received the same report from that workshop which goes on to say that it actually supported the repeal but wanted more time—exactly what we are giving. I have also received a report from the Disabled Persons Assembly which states: “National spokesman on disability issues Dr Paul Hutchison appears to be out of touch in his support of this continued injustice.” After receiving Paul Hutchison’s question today I have to admit I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the Disabled Persons Assembly; that member is certainly out of touch. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does she not understand that she is cutting the incomes of vulnerable workers given the description of her flawed tax benefit arrangements by a leading sheltered workshop chief executive officer who says: “It is morally unacceptable for a Government to siphon these funds out of the disability sector.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Given her partial backdown why does she not for once be sensible and accept the excellent practical amendment proposed by Dr Paul Hutchison which allows the bill to be enacted as soon as the serious flaws are removed given that the sector does not trust her to meet her extended deadline because of her—to quote—“dismal record over the last 3 years”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Should the extraordinarily modest member ever make a sensible suggestion I guarantee I will give it adequate consideration. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why did she tell the  
Weekend Herald 
: “If I wanted the sheltered workshops closed I would’ve closed them. But I don’t.” when she told a meeting of the Disabled Persons Assembly that she wanted all sheltered workshops closed and the sooner the better? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is not true and the member knows it. I have never said that and if I had wanted them closed that would have been the proposal I would have put to Cabinet and it would have been the proposal in the legislation before the House. The member should withdraw that because it is a lie about me and a slur on my integrity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the Minister asking for a withdrawal? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am asking for a withdrawal. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is very hard to see how the Minister can be taking an offence from a stated comment made by Dr Hutchison. There is nothing offensive in it. If there is a mistake in it then I think that should be corrected by the Minister. I do not think she can get out of it just by saying someone is lying. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I withdraw and apologise for calling the member a liar. The statement is incorrect and I take offence at it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Can she guarantee that no disabled employees or sheltered workshops will be worse off after 30 November as a result of her bill; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No because I do not administer every single sheltered workshop and there may be instances of incompetence or fraud under which circumstances—or a range of others—a sheltered workshop may close. Therefore disabled people may be worse off. But the member knows that despite no additional funding throughout the entire 9 years of his party’s Government and an additional $44 million from our Government over 5 years the sector has been considerably strengthened. He knows that to be the truth. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What will she do about the major practical flaws in her legislation given that one highly respected sheltered workshop chief executive said that as a result of her bill paper shuffling will quadruple and disabled workers will be little better off? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The aim of the repeal of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill is to ensure that individuals who are employed in sheltered workshops are assessed for their entitlement to the minimum wage on the basis of their capacity to do the job they are employed to do rather than on where they are employed to do that job. 
I seek leave to table again for the member’s benefit a graph showing the increase in total income for people receiving an invalids benefit and a range of wage payments that shows they actually increase their income rather than decrease it. 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two reports. The first is a release from Auckland Workforce Industries which states: “We cannot be confident that the flaws in the Minister’s bill given the dismal lack of progress in the last 3 years”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second report is from the ability group to a member of one of the Minister’s coalition partners which states that it is morally unacceptable for a Government to siphon these funds out of the disability sector. 
Document not tabled. 
Zimbabwe Residence Policy—Eligible Non-applicants 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is the Immigration Service taking any action to find the 98 eligible Zimbabwean nationals at large who did not apply under the Special Residence for Zimbabweans Policy before 28 February 2007; if so how many have they found to date? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Acting Minister of Immigration) 
: I am advised that the department has made a considerable effort to contact people to encourage them to apply under the special policy for residence. I have been advised that the number of eligible applicants who have not applied has now been reduced to 70 from the 98 the member was aware of. The Government’s policy on this matter is clear: anyone who fails to apply by the deadline does not have a guarantee of residence. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Associate Minister of Immigration aware of the Minister’s statement: “Any Zimbabwean national illegally in New Zealand would be subject to removal processes.”; if so why is the Immigration Service not vigorously searching out these people with a view to their leaving this country? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The department always actively seeks to locate persons unlawfully in New Zealand. Such persons have their cases dealt with on a case by case basis taking into account their personal situation. The member should note that I have been advised that not all of the 70 individuals are in New Zealand unlawfully. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the last point the Minister made what does he have to say to the hundreds of people waiting for residency with no guarantees of success after having applied legally who see a group of people who have been rejected for guaranteed entry yet are still able to apply through other channels—does he think that is fair and is it a reflection of Labour’s attitude to immigration? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I can say to that member—and I am sure he is aware of it—that all cases in respect of individual applications are dealt with on their merits and fairly on a case by case basis and that is as it should be.