Questions to Ministers
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill—Thrashing and Beating
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the
Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that those who oppose the legislation currently before the House to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 were “demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children”; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: What the Prime Minister actually said was: “… our rate of child death and injury from violence, including in the home, is appalling. It is a stain on our international reputation, and I cannot see how those who are demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children can possibly then turn around and profess concern about what is happening to our children.” The Prime Minister absolutely stands by that statement; it is self-evidently true.
Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that the 80 percent or so of New Zealanders who oppose this legislation want to beat and thrash children, or that they condone violence against children?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am aware of statements in the House such as “I spank my children and I am proud of it.” from the Opposition spokesperson on social welfare, Judith Collins.
Hon Phil Goff: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports about prominent people or groups that have supported or opposed the bill?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen reports that Judy Bailey, Paul Holmes,
Barnados, Save the Children, the Plunket Society, Women’s Refuge, and over 100,000
emailers all support the bill—company I am proud to keep. Groups leading opposition to the bill including followers of Dr James Dobson, who has said that women are biologically inferior to men and that he wants to cure people of being gay; Family Integrity from Palmerston North, which says that smacking may be a 10 to 15-minute process with a smacking rod; Family Life International, which opposes a woman’s right to choose the use of contraception; and Brian
Tāmaki, who opposes having multiple
sanctioned religions in New Zealand and says that not having a State religion is “religious treason”.
Hon Bill English: Is it therefore the case that the Prime Minister is pushing this legislation through in defiance of overwhelming public opinion because she believes that 80 percent of New Zealanders are religious fanatics and extremists?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, clearly not. But clearly some of those in the vanguard of the opposition to this bill do fall into that category, as well as other various forms of strange people, including those responsible for the
Cyfswatch website.
Hon David Benson-Pope: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what action the Government has taken to alleviate fears about prosecutions under this bill?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Last night a Supplementary Order Paper was introduced providing for a review of the legislation 2 years after its enactment to ensure the bill works as intended and does not criminalise good parents. I can point concerned New Zealanders to the
New Zealand Herald
editorial of 18 February, which states: “ … the repeal of the parental defence to assault will be hotly debated until the day it is enacted. Thereafter it will seem so right and sensible we will forget the issue.” No parent will be prosecuted for a normal smack but abusers will lose legal protection, exactly as happened with the abolition of corporal punishment in schools, which nobody now proposes going back to, except those who marched on Parliament yesterday.
Hon Bill English: Why is it that the Prime Minister believes that she is right about how people should carry out their parental rights and obligations, and that thousands of normal New Zealanders who are not religious fanatics, who are not asking for the right to thrash and beat their children, are wrong; and why should they believe her?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because I have noticed in my own emails that those supporting the bill adopt a moderate and reasonable tone, while those opposing it seem to have a violent tone in many of their messages. I note the question the member referred to in the poll actually mis-states what the bill does. Wrong question, wrong answer.
Hon Bill English: Would the Prime Minister now care to repeat for the benefit of the public the list of those characteristics that she believes 80 percent of New Zealanders who oppose this legislation have—namely, that they are asking for the right to thrash and beat children, that their emails are violent, that they are religious fanatics, and that they do not know the right way to parent their children?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What the Prime Minister quite clearly said was that those who are leading the opposition to this bill fall into this category, and that member should be ashamed to be amongst them.
Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister believes that those who are leading the opposition to this bill are wanting the right to thrash and beat their children and are religious fanatics, what does she say to the other 79 percent of New Zealanders who are opposed to this bill, many of whom vote for her party, many of whom are in this Parliament?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: One thing she might say is: “Look at members of the National Party—such as Katherine Rich and others—who are supporting this bill, who are not themselves foolish people.”
Hon Bill English: Why is it that the Prime Minister has told the public that this is not an anti-smacking bill, when the clause debated by the Committee last night quite explicitly abolishes the defence of any use of force for correction—which cannot be described in any other way than as an anti-smacking provision?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The current law provides that smacking is an assault. The current law does that. Section 59 provides a defence that recent cases have
demonstrated can be used to justify beating people with pieces of wood, whips, and other matter.
Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the law that Parliament is debating will mean there is no defence for a parent who lightly smacks his or her child for the purposes of, for instance, preventing that child putting his or her hand on a hot element?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The best way to prevent a child putting his or her hand on a hot element is not to hit the child while he or she is doing it, but to grab the child and take him or her away.
Hon Bill English: Why does the Prime Minister not answer the question I asked, which was whether she understood that the bill before the House, if passed, will mean there is no defence for a parent who lightly smacks his or her child for the purposes of correction?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member has to take account of the other provisions—
Hon Bill English: Answer the question.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am answering the question, but note the aggressiveness, yet again, from the member on an issue around smacking. He is condemned out of his own behaviour in this House.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have asked the Prime Minister a direct question on a matter on which the Prime Minister has made a number of statements, and a matter that is a matter of fact, which is the provisions in the bill, and I have now asked it twice, but the Prime Minister has not answered. Of course, as you know, I have run out of supplementary questions and cannot continue to keep asking the same question. Given the public interest in this matter, I seek that you direct the Prime Minister to answer the question that has now been asked twice.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Speaking to the point of order, I say that the member has not run out of supplementary questions. The National Party may allocate its supplementary questions however it wants to, on any question. It is a matter of that party’s internal arrangements if the member has run out of supplementary questions. I have clearly addressed the question.
Hon Bill English: Dr Cullen, on behalf of the Prime Minister, is clearly showing contempt for the procedures of the House. It is quite evident now that without your direction it would not matter if I asked that supplementary question 10 times. He does not intend to answer it, because he knows that if the Prime Minister answered it correctly, it would contradict all her public statements. That might be a political concern for him, but for the House it is a legitimate question to ask whether the Prime Minister understands the legislation we are debating. I suggest that you require him to answer it.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Speaking to the point of order, I say that it is quite clear from the debate that has occurred in this House so far, and from the advice that has been received, that the bill as it stands at the moment is not going to lead to the outcomes the member argues for, and no amount of bluff and bluster will lead to that conclusion.
Madam SPEAKER: I think I have had enough debate on this particular point of order, and I will rule on it. By my count there have been eight supplementary questions and National, today, has 33. It is a matter for the party, so that people are aware of the number of supplementary questions. The second point is that the Minister did address the question. As members know, they cannot always get the answer they want. They can ask the question, but as long as the Minister has addressed the question, that is all that is required.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister did answer the question more directly, but he did it in the form of a point of order that was not actually a point of order. I would be happy for him to give the answer as an answer to the question, so that it appears correctly in
Hansard.
Madam SPEAKER: I think we have had enough. We want to move on to a supplementary question.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on this. I ruled that the Minister addressed the question. If, in fact—
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated while I am on my feet. You will get your turn—I will make sure of that. I am being constantly interrupted by members, at times when I am on my feet trying to give a ruling. As members know, the Standing Orders require only that questions be addressed. As I have said on numerous occasions, if members wish to change that, I will be very grateful. There is a procedure for doing that—it is called the Standing Orders. Members cannot require a specific answer to a question. I have ruled on the point of order. In terms of what was raised in the point of order, the member is probably correct. Matters were raised on both sides that were not strictly within the point of order, but I consider that the matter has been addressed. We will have a supplementary question from Sue Bradford.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During that exchange, when it came to the answer part, my recollection is that Dr Cullen was about to give an answer but then broke from it to say that he was about to answer it but noted some aggression in the tone coming from this side of the House. He then sat down. Subsequent to that there was an exchange of points of order, no longer between the Prime Minister and the Hon Bill English, but between Dr Michael Cullen and Bill English. In that exchange he gave an answer that should have been given as an answer by the Prime Minister to this House. I think that is the issue we have here. Dr Cullen, of course, is a very skilful politician. Everyone knows how clever he is. Everyone knows how he is able to use the Standing Orders very, very effectively. But in this case he is using them quite inappropriately. He should be required to stand, give the answer he gave in the point of order, and answer the question as if he were the Prime Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that, and I note that there are experienced members both asking and answering the questions. I also note that further supplementary questions could be asked. I also note that it is quite possible that interjections will result in a diversion from the answer, and that risk is always taken when an interjection is made.
Sue Bradford: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in fact, the bill as amended by the select committee and brought back to the House has a new section 4 that explicitly provides for a defence of reasonable force when parents do things like remove their child, with some force, from a burning element, a power point, or something like that?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is entirely correct. In the instance that was given, that of children who are about to place their hands on a hot element, the bill as reported back specifically provides that parents can use force, as required, to ensure that their children do not place their hands on it. I suggest that the alternative, of smacking children possibly across the back, and thereby forcing them to put their hands on the element, is a particularly stupid example for Mr English to use.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is not free to misrepresent what I said to the House. I never said or implied that a child should be hit across the back in a way that would force his or her hand on to a hot element. I take offence at that misrepresentation, and ask him to withdraw and apologise.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Speaking to the point of order, I say that the member said a child putting his or her hand on an element should be given a smack. I do not know how good the member has been at smacking, and how much practice he has had, but the notion that he will direct the smack so well that it might not actually impel the child towards the heating element beggars belief.
Madam SPEAKER: Because the member has taken offence at the comment, I ask the member to withdraw the comment and apologise.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I withdraw.
Schools—Health Promotion
2.
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the
Minister of Education: What is the Government doing in schools to promote healthy, active children and reduce obesity?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education)
: On the subject of healthy, confident kids, which we have just been discussing, I am pleased to say that today the Government, along with Sue Kedgley from the Green Party, has launched the Food and Nutrition for Healthy Confident Kids guidelines for schools. The guidelines are in my hands and will be available to all members of the House who may want to use them personally, or who would like to make sure they are available in their local schools. This is part of the $67 million Mission-On campaign that will run over a number of years. In practice, these guidelines will influence what is eaten in the tuck shops in our schools and what children will bring to school, and it will impact on what they learn through the curriculum, because a number of learning units can be taken from these guidelines to be used in the curriculum, as well. So the campaign will have a substantial impact on what happens in our schools.
H V Ross Robertson: What else is the Government doing to encourage young New Zealanders to live healthy and confident lives?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The $67 million campaign I mentioned earlier covers not only nutrition but physical activity amongst younger New Zealanders. The programme, for example, will involve making use of high-profile New Zealanders, who will be setting an example to young New Zealanders; youth-focused websites; encouraging the advertising industry to decrease children’s exposure to unhealthy foods; the sponsorship of television and radio programmes that contain healthy choices within them; a television and computer free - time campaign; and an expansion of Green Prescription programmes such as the ones that encourage young people to get out and exercise rather than rely on other forms of prescription—say, medication—to resolve an issue. It is a very good campaign.
Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that a $12 million Nutrition Fund, secured by the Green Party in last year’s Budget, will help to implement the new nutrition guidelines; and does he hope that children’s ability to learn and concentrate in the classroom will improve as all schools move towards ensuring that only healthy food is sold?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I can confirm that. The $12 million Nutrition Fund runs over 4 years and is now available to schools. That funding was secured by the Green Party as part of its post-election agreement with the Government. As a first step, the Nutrition Fund will provide for two people from every school to be able to attend a workshop so that they can learn more about how to incorporate all of this into the school curriculum and the life of the school. From July, funding will be available to early childhood education services and schools to establish their own ideas or programmes to support sustainable healthy eating environments.
Resource Management Act—Meridian Energy
3.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the
Minister of
Energy:Does he agree with Meridian Energy’s Keith Turner who stated with regard to the consent process that “We have absent a critical design element of the RMA and that is I think what we would like to see if the Government wants renewable energy”; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy)
: I certainly agree with Keith Turner that renewables will play a critical role in New Zealand’s energy future. One of the solutions proposed in the New Zealand Energy Strategy is to use the call-in powers that we streamlined in 2005 to assess wind and geothermal applications. We are also considering whether a national policy statement or environmental standard is needed for renewables, and, of course, we are already advancing one for transmission. Finally, I was also pleased to hear from Dr Turner on radio today on the
Mākara wind farm, who said: “We are quite confident it will go ahead.”
Gerry Brownlee: Why did he trumpet in the House last week that an additional 1,500 megawatts of generation is currently in the consent process when, as Keith Turner pointed out today: “If you’ve got a lot of uncertainty about consents then you’ve got to lodge a lot of consents to get a few out the other end.”, and will he be so smug in 1 or 2 years’ time when the effects of the Resource Management Act in slowing renewable energy projects now is seen in the insecurity of New Zealand’s energy supply?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I do not accept that New Zealand’s energy supplies are insecure; neither do I accept that the Resource Management Act is as big a bugbear as the member pretends that it is.
Maryan Street: How does the Minister reconcile suggestions that the Resource Management Act is fundamentally flawed with currently consented renewable generation?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I cannot reconcile them because in my opinion those complaints by Opposition members are exaggerated, as evidenced by the 88 percent increase in wind capacity being built this year alone. Further evidence is found in the Mighty River Power geothermal projects being built. We have already amended the Resource Management Act, indeed, advancing the priority for renewables—National voted against that, of course—and we have signalled our intention to use the call-in powers, which we streamlined and which National also voted against. But we must remember that power projects do cause adverse environmental effects and the Resource Management Act provides a vital means for local concerns and national interests to be balanced.
Gordon Copeland: Will the Minister explore all avenues and take whatever action he can to ensure that Project West Wind at
Mākara proceeds on the best wind-energy site in the world and in the closest proximity to the demand for the electricity it will produce, namely right here in Wellington?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I am not going to interfere in the judicial process that is under way in respect of
Mākara. I am confident that the Environment Court, applying what I think are appropriate laws under the Resource Management Act, will consent a viable wind farm at
Mākara, which I agree would be an appropriate outcome. But the details of those issues are for the Environment Court and not for me.
Gerry Brownlee: Why can the Minister not see that far from being just around the corner, many of the projects that he trumpets about have yet to run the gauntlet of the Resource Management Act, and, even if they are successful there, may face up to 33 months in the Environment Court, and why does he think that such a slowing of a process will not cause security of supply issues for New Zealand in the very near future?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The normal process under the Resource Management Act is that an application is made to a local council, and if the decision of the council is opposed it goes on appeal to the Environment Court. We have said that there are instances where it is very obvious that these matters are going to go on appeal to the Environment Court and that in those cases it is appropriate for the Government to consider using the call-in processes that this Parliament enhanced but that the member’s party opposed a year and a half ago. But I would say that our proposal to use those call-in processes is not actually universally welcomed by some applicants, because some applicants say that the present process is cheaper and faster.
Peter Brown: Noting that he does agree with Keith Turner’s statement, does he agree with the statement made by David Baldwin of Contact Energy, who appears basically to want Huntly power station taxed to the hilt in order to force it to close down or convert totally to gas; if so, when will that happen?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Baldwin’s comments were that the cost of carbon affects most carbon-intensive generation. I did not read it as an attack on Genesis or Huntly; I saw it as stating a reality that in a carbon-constrained world the generation that is most affected by the cost of carbon is that which is most carbon intense, and, of course, that is coal-fired generation.
Gerry Brownlee: Has he chosen to ignore the recommendations of the reference group on electricity generation—a group set up by him—which has raised the concern that the Resource Management Act processes facilitate the building of fossil fuel generation stations far more readily than they do renewable energy generation stations; if so, why has he taken that position?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I take it that the member is referring to a draft report that I released in advance of the closing date for submissions on the New Zealand Energy Strategy—
Gerry Brownlee: No, but if you want the report I’ll give it to you.
Hon DAVID PARKER: There is a report from an industry working group that looked at the question of whether there should be national policy guidance or a national environment standard on generation. That report was not strongly in favour of an environment standard. I am addressing that issue through the New Zealand Energy Strategy, and it is likely that one of the outcomes from the strategy will be more guidance under the Resource Management Act.
Gerry Brownlee: How can the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality be taken seriously, when the only carbon-neutral power company in New Zealand, Meridian Energy, says that the Resource Management Act works against the Government’s objective; and why can he not see that?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I note the somewhat double standard whereby every time we actually introduce legislation to improve the plight of renewables this Government passes it despite opposition from the National Party—for example, the two pieces of legislation I quoted in response to another supplementary question. I also note that the industry players—the people developing new generation—are already changing course as a consequence of the draft New Zealand Energy Strategy, as indicated by, amongst others, Contact’s announcement that it will be spending $2 billion on geothermal and wind power and deferring its decision on
Ōtāhuhu C.
Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister keep saying that his Government has done something about the Resource Management Act, when as late as just a couple of weeks ago the New Zealand Wind Energy Association has said it is a problem and is preventing growth in that sector, when Dr Keith Turner this morning on Radio New Zealand National says that the Resource Management Act is the problem, and when the Contact people have said they will go ahead with their geothermal project if they can
get their consents within a particular time; and when will New Zealanders be able to stop having to swallow this carbon-neutral garbage while the Minister presides over a Resource Management Act that prefers fossil fuels ahead of renewable energy?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I am very confident that New Zealand’s future in electricity lies predominantly with renewables and that they will be consented and built. Indeed, I again remind members that this year wind capacity being built adds to existing capacity by 88 percent in 1 year.
Crimes Act—Child Abuse Charges
4.
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) to the
Minister of Police: How many parents or caregivers have been charged with child abuse under the Crimes Act 1961 in the last 5 years?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Police)
: There is no offence of child abuse as such under the Crimes Act. Child abuse is covered under a number of different offences, and the system does not currently identify statistically the percentage of the victims who are children. There is, however, a specific section—section 194(a) of the Crimes Act, which is assault on a child under the age of 14—under which 287 offenders were convicted in 2005. Again, the statistics do not identify how many of those offenders were parents or caregivers.
Taito Phillip Field: Does the Minister agree with this statement made by an experienced lawyer, Michele Wilkinson-Smith, in her excellent article in the
New Zealand Herald
on Tuesday: “I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that—unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59 … I’ve had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer, but I’ve never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: ‘Look, bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable.’ ”; and as there have been only about three cases where defendants have been acquitted on the basis of section 59, does that not reveal that the law is already working well, and that the police should be required to get on with the job of upholding the current law by prosecuting real child abusers and not the good parents who will be criminalised by Sue Bradford’s bill if section 59 of the Act is repealed?
Hon PHIL GOFF: The opinion of a legal media journalist is just that—an opinion. It is quite clear—and it has been debated in this House over the last couple of weeks—that there are examples of section 59 being used successfully when there would not be a member in this House who would regard the use of force, using implements, as being reasonable.
Jill Pettis: What discretion do the police have in respect of a decision as to whether to prosecute someone for a minor assault?
Hon PHIL GOFF: The police have considerable discretion. Very minor offending will not generally result in a decision to prosecute. The police have to, for example, weigh up whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, taking into account the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence. Offences of the latter type will hardly ever reach court.
Taito Phillip Field: Does the Minister hear the warning given by Michele Wilkinson-Smith, when she stated: “The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community—and their children.”—and that will mean many in the Pacific community, which explains its widespread opposition to the Sue Bradford bill—if not, what assurances can the Minister give that good parents who are working hard to raise and correct their children will not be unnecessarily investigated by the police and Child, Youth and Family?
Hon PHIL GOFF: I think we can say with quite strong confidence that good parents are not going to be prosecuted under the new section 59, as set out in the bill. The reason for that is that the police guidelines, which follow the Crown Law Office guidelines, make it absolutely clear that minor forms of offending will not be prosecuted. Further to that, there is case law—R v
Hende in 1996—where the Court of Appeal itself ruled that a light smack did not merit the stigma of a conviction or a fine. It is clear from Crown Law guidelines, police guidelines, and case law that good parents will not be so prosecuted.
Housing—Foreign Ownership
5.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the
Minister of Finance: Does he agree that having minimal restrictions on non-resident foreign ownership of residential property is increasing the demand for housing in New Zealand and contributing towards the crisis in housing affordability; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance)
: No. As I said last week, it seems that an increase in house prices has occurred across almost the entire country, and often in areas of previously quite low housing value and still relatively poor housing areas. There is little evidence that foreign owners are moving to these areas or, indeed, to many middle-class areas, and placing pressure on housing prices.
Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that the average wage in the UK, Germany, and Japan is about twice our average wage when converted into New Zealand dollars; and does he think it is fair that foreigners from those countries, who have twice the purchasing power of Kiwis, are gifted an unrestricted and irrefutable advantage in our housing market?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said before, there is no evidence that foreigners are actually entering the residential housing market in large numbers. Of course, some say that 7 years ago, when the New Zealand dollar was under US40c, those differentials in market value terms were very much higher than they are today. There is not a great deal of data on this issue. The only available data, from Quotable Value, shows that property purchased by those with overseas addresses is approximately 0.1 percent of residential dwelling purchases since 1990, and 0.3 percent of what are called residential vacant purchases—which everyone understands as sections. Some of those, of course, are sold back to New Zealanders for redevelopment purposes.
Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware of the survey by Britain’s National Savings and Investments, which found that a quarter of Britons are looking overseas, particularly to New Zealand, to buy their first house, as a stepping stone to buying property in the UK; and does he believe that practice will provide positive outcomes for young Kiwis trying to buy their first home?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not aware of that survey. I assume that Britons are starting to run out of Spanish houses to buy—there has been a strong trend to do that over recent years. We have not seen any evidence of that actually occurring in large amounts in New Zealand. The primary drivers of house price increases in New Zealand have been areas such as the growth in employment, the growth in real incomes, and the growth in population, combined. Of course, in terms of affordability, interest rates come into play, as well.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora
tātou. What response does the Minister make to the statement from the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa that foreign investment will boost house prices even more, making it far too expensive for the average New Zealander to buy a house; a situation fast reaching crisis point, given a study by Professor Bob
Hargreaves, the director of Massey University’s
property foundation, which shows that home affordability is at its lowest level since 1989?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said before, I do not believe that the response of the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa actually rests upon any solid evidence at all. These are not the factors driving house prices or the related—though other factors are also involved—housing affordability index. The Government is moving in terms of a shared equity scheme, and the KiwiSaver scheme, which starts on 1 July, provides very significant support for the accumulation of a deposit for a first home. These are potential answers. One answer I saw in that newspaper story was that we should engage in a massive house-building programme. That, of course, would be hugely inflationary, given our very tight labour market and very strong construction sector, which the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Alan Bollard, is actually trying to weaken at the present time.
Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware of any public comment on this issue, such as one on the
Stuff website, which states: “I have been living in Invercargill since 2002 and I know 5 Australians who have bought a combined total of 46 houses here since 2003.”; if not, does he not think his Government’s policy on this issue is out of step with public reality?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not think it is out of step with public reality. What is more out of step is the policy of some countries, such as Australia, to try to place very strong limits on people who are not Australian citizens owning property, to the point where, for example, the chief executive of one of their major banks was not allowed to buy a house in Sydney for a number of years. I think that is a rather daft kind of politics and policies.
Heather Roy: Is not the real crisis the fact that red tape is constraining housing supply and driving up prices, as was highlighted in yesterday’s www.interest.co.nz housing affordability study; and when will the Minister’s Government fix the Resource Management Act so that our kids can afford homes of their own?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the problem with what the member is proposing, in terms of open slather on the Resource Management Act, is that it would lead to uncontrolled urban growth, and, no doubt, further demand for construction of motorways, further demand for construction of public transport, and, therefore—contrary to what the member would like—further demand for tax increases to pay for all of that.
Peter Brown: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Point of order, Peter Brown.
Peter Brown: I was quicker this time than my colleague across the House!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you are doing well.
Peter Brown: I seek leave to table information showing that our average wage is half that of Germany, the UK, or Japan.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Peter Brown: I seek leave to table public feedback from the
Stuff website, to enable the Minister to come up to speed with public opinion and my assertions.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes.
Peter Brown: I seek leave to table a press release from Britain’s National Savings and Investments company, which states that a quarter of Britons are looking overseas, particularly to New Zealand, to buy their first home.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes.
Heather Roy: I seek leave to table David
Chaston’s www.interest.co.nz housing affordability study, which shows that housing supply is the real solution to the crisis in housing affordability.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Laboratory Testing—Waitematā and Counties Manukau District Health Boards
6.
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the
Minister of Health: What is it in the Auckland laboratory testing High Court judgment that prevents him from expressing confidence in Kay
McKelvie and Pat
Snedden, chairs of the
Waitematā and Counties Manukau district health boards?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Health: The judgment was critical of the Auckland regional district health boards in several respects. For example, in paragraph 330 of the judgment, the judge found not only that Dr
Bierre had breached two statutes but that the three district health boards had made “a serious procedural error”.
Hon Tony Ryall: Would the Minister now confirm that the Auckland district health boards have signed a new contract for laboratory services for another 18 months; and in light of that announcement and the Minister’s earlier statements that he would answer questions about his confidence in the district health board chairs once that contract was secured, does he have confidence in Wayne Brown, Kay
McKelvie, and Pat
Snedden?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that, contrary to the member’s best hopes, a contract has been secured from 1 July with Diagnostic
Medlab Ltd. It will have a term of 18 months. That will, clearly, give sufficient time to reopen—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question. Do you have confidence?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That was in answer to the first part of the question—if the member had listened. That will give sufficient time to do a proper re-tendering process. The Minister will consider the issue when he returns from a very quick visit to Australia at midnight tomorrow.
Hon Tony Ryall: When does the Minister expect that the Government will fulfil its undertaking to Parliament that when the contract is settled, then that is when someone will be held accountable for this fiasco?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The announcement of the settlement was made at 2.15 this afternoon. The Minister is on his way towards the airport to go to Australia. He will have a chance to consider this issue on his return from Australia.
Hon Tony Ryall: Is it acceptable that the Government’s appointees Wayne Brown, Pat
Snedden, and Kay
McKelvie were willing to sign a contract with someone whom they knew was using inside information, whom the Minister said broke two laws, whom Mr Mallard called lying and corrupt, and whom the Prime Minister described as “duplicitous”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As both the Minister and the Prime Minister have said, any suggestion from the Government of vetoing any tenderer for the new long-term tender process would itself invite judicial review at large expense and further uncertainty around the tendering process. Also, Mr Mallard actually said that Dr
Bierre was a corrupt and lying Tory.
Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister think that it was ethical behaviour for Government appointees such as Wayne Brown, Kay
McKelvie, and Pat
Snedden to sign a $500 million contract with a man whom they knew was an insider, who had been actively involved in setting up the terms and conditions of the whole process, and who, in fact, had briefed them only weeks before the tender began?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is possible, of course, that Mr Brown was influenced by a description by Dr Paul Hutchison of Dr
Bierre as a man “for whom I personally have great respect” and who “is well respected nationally.” However, putting all that, and the judgments of Dr Hutchison and Dr Blue in that respect, aside, I think the judgment does raise questions about the fact that clearly there was a conflict of interest. The Minister and the Prime Minister have both outlined that fact at some length.
Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister believe that Wayne Brown has handled the whole issue of conflict of interest involving Dr
Bierre and the Auckland District Health Board appropriately; and does he think that Mr Brown’s arrogance and abrasiveness may have been a strength in the past but now make him a liability, because he does not realise that the time for accountability has come for him?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sure that the Minister will give attention to matters involving the future of the Auckland district health boards on his return from Australia.
Holiday Pay—Changes
7.
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the
Minister of Labour: What recent announcements has she made concerning changes to how employees and employers can work out leave and pay entitlements?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour)
: I am happy to inform the House that my colleague Lianne Dalziel and I have recently launched a new online tool to help both employers and employees calculate their improved leave entitlement under the Holidays Act. It provides a simple one-stop shop to determine whether an employee is entitled to a paid public holiday, and, if so, what that entitlement should be.
Dave Hereora: What does the Minister expect that this tool will achieve?
Hon RUTH DYSON: The tool’s design recognises that not every worker has straightforward working arrangements, and it will make determining his or her pay and leave entitlements simple and straightforward. It will meet a core and significant aspect of one of the recommendations of the Small Business Advisory Group, as it will reduce business compliance costs—a reduction that, I am sure, will be welcomed by all, but, in particular, by small-business owners.
Kate Wilkinson: Does the Minister think it is fair that a worker is paid more to be sick than to be at work; how does that encourage productivity, or is a calculator needed to decide what is fair?
Hon RUTH DYSON: Perhaps I could recommend to the member that she actually use the online tool to determine the facts of the entitlement, rather than rely on her predecessor to continue reporting misinformation.
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Secondary Principals Association
8.
KATHERINE RICH (National) to the
Minister of Education: Does he agree with Peter Gall, president-elect of the Secondary Principals Association, that some schools are loading study programmes with easy subjects to help pupils pass the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education)
: Of course I listened closely to Mr Gall’s comments, but there is no evidence that schools are designing assessment programmes with anything other than the students’ best interests at heart. Secondary school students can earn credits in three ways. They can get achievement standards assessed internally or externally, and they can get unit standards assessed internally. There has been a slight increase in the percentage of students doing internally assessed
unit standards, so that issue is being looked at by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority as part of its review of design features. I should also note, and I take notice of this from Peter Gall as well, that he has said: “We are a pro-NCEA school and our staff, like many teachers around the country, have worked incredibly hard to make sure it does work.”
Katherine Rich: Why should New Zealanders trust the Minister’s opinion over that of a secondary school principal of many years’ experience who says that some schools are loading study programmes with easy subjects to help kids through NCEA?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am not asking anybody to trust anybody in this matter; I am just saying that I listen closely to Mr Gall and will carry on doing so because he is the incoming president of the Secondary Principals Association. I am simply pointing to the fact that there is no evidence at the moment that there is a shift of any extent to unit standards. So until we see that, I guess we will have to say it may be a one-off, isolated case. Of course, we would take a very dim view of it if it is a one-off, isolated case. If Mr Gall or the member bring it to our attention we will, of course, investigate it immediately.
Hon Marian Hobbs: What reports has the Minister heard about the potential of the NCEA system?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have heard numerous reports about NCEA, because most people agree that a standards-based assessment system is fit for the 21st century. I draw attention in particular to the remarks of Phil O’Reilly, Chief Executive of Business New Zealand, who said: “It gives employers news they can use, it tells you what a student is good at, and it delivers more about their capability.” I think that is the general view of people right round the country—that NCEA is the right direction for our assessment system. They want to focus on the process of constant improvement that is going on, not on trying to undermine our national qualification system.
Hon Brian Donnelly: What changes to NCEA have been initiated to overcome the de-motivating effects on students, which were unearthed by his ministry through research undertaken last year?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member is referring to the research led by Professor
Luanna Meyer from Victoria University, which was the major study done on motivation in NCEA. A number of things were suggested. In particular, a key finding was, firstly, that students predominantly choose subjects that interest them, and, secondly, that the subjects relate to their future job and career goals. So what we know from that research is that we need to work with students to ensure they make that link between where they want to go to further study and in their future job. That is being done through the Career Services. Senior subject advisers have been appointed to assist teachers to develop effective teaching and assessment techniques related to NCEA. We are looking at the proposal to endorse certificates so that there is a clearer idea of what the student has gained relative to other students. That is part of the design review going on at the present time.
Katherine Rich: Why are schools being urged by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to increase the use of internally assessed unit standards and easier subjects as a safety net, and does the Minister think that increasing the proportion of unit standards being sat each year since NCEA started is evidence of this directive being implemented?’
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There is actually no policy to increase the use of internal assessment. One of the strong features of NCEA that people would agree on is that it does allow for internal and external assessment, which is much more like a university kind of environment. That is why, for example, it is a better predictor of university success—as John Hattie’s research showed recently. It would interest the member to
know that there has been a slight increase in internal assessment at levels 1 and 3, but almost no noticeable increase at all at level 2.
Katherine Rich: When the Minister says it is not policy, what are New Zealand Qualifications Authority documents that urge schools to consider internally assessed unit standards as a safety net; and what does he think that advice from the authority to schools was if not a directive?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the member is referring to the frequent workshops that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority holds with schools, whereby the authority talks through the different styles of assessment with the school. One of the things that schools need to consider is the appropriate form of assessment for a student for a given subject. For example, it is obviously better to have students internally assessed if they are, say, part of a learning to be a chef course or if they are doing the speaking part of a unit standard.
Katherine Rich: Gift-wrapping.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member raises the notion of gift-wrapping. As I pointed out earlier in the Chamber, these are standards set only at level 1; they are not at levels 2 or 3. They were originally constructed for students who have less ability. The member—and Mr Power with his law degree—may not want students who have lesser ability to leave school with anything at all. But I think that for students leaving, say, after getting level 1 and a unit standard that shows they can, for example, wrap gifts, then they could work in a store somewhere and it could be a useful part of their job. That is a useful thing for them to do and it may get them a job.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Has the Minister read the scoping report for Te
Kotahitanga which states: “This deficit theorising by teachers is the major impediment to
Māori students’ educational achievement for it results in teachers having low expectations of
Māori students.”, which I would suggest explains why 53 percent of
Māori boys and 45 percent of
Māori girls leave school without gaining level 1 NCEA qualifications; and what initiatives will he be pursuing with colleges of education to ensure they address such matters in their programmes?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I have read that and I agree absolutely with it. I think Russell Bishop is right. Actually he is right not just for
Māori students, by the way, but for working-class kids like me, for example. I can look back on my own history and see that the same notion of deficit theorising, as Russell Bishop calls it, has been part of the educational system to the detriment of students from those kinds of groups. A change in that attitude, as his research shows, makes a huge difference to those kids. What can we do? As the member knows, we are about to release a discussion paper on initial teacher education. One of the major features of that discussion will be the way initial teacher education addresses the needs of
Māori, which have not been addressed properly in teachers colleges until now, and now in the university setting. I am looking for a real change in that area.
Katherine Rich: When the Prime Minister says that she is “at somewhat of a loss” to explain why the recording of failure has not happened when this was agreed by the Government 2 years ago, why was the Minister still saying last September: “There is no place on such a list for the things that people have not yet attained or perhaps not even attempted.”?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I mentioned to the member before, these issues are under consideration as part of the design changes going on around the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. It might be useful just to walk through what is available now, because it is clear that is not widely understood by the member. Student results notices are different from the record of learning. There are two things that students get—a record of learning and a results notice. The results notice carries a “not achieved” for
externally assessed standards. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority does not deliver that information around internally assessed statements because, of course, the school has that. The record of learning does not carry any information about “not achieved”. That is the question that is being considered—should “not achieved” be on the record of learning, should it be on the results notice. Most of the members on the National side of the House, such as Mr English, will have a university degree. His failures will not be shown on his degree, only his successes in getting that degree, at the end of the day.
Katherine Rich: When the Prime Minister says that the Government agreed 2 years ago to return to recording failure on students’ records of learning and has said that she is “somewhat at a loss” as to why it has not happened, why did the Minister not do that?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: One of the reasons is that I was not in this portfolio 2 years ago, as the member knows, so I suppose she wants to point to someone else. But she does not need to; I am fully happy to take responsibility for it. At the risk of repetition of what I said yesterday, as I told the member this is the State Services Commission report, which reported in 2005. We focused on operational issues because they were urgent to make sure the system worked. The system now does. We have made design changes in a range of areas and we are about to do the last part of those changes. The member will be so relieved to see them, I am sure.
Methyl Bromide—Nelson Medical Officer of Health
9.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the
Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with Dr
Kiddle, Nelson medical officer of health, that: “Methyl bromide is a hazardous substance and it needs to be used carefully and it needs to be used with appropriate risk management.”; if so, why?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment)
: Yes, I can confirm that methyl bromide is a hazardous substance and as such is regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I can also confirm that, as a potential hazard to workers and the general public, those who are permitted to use it also have obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. I agree that its use must be managed very carefully so as not to put anyone at the risk of harm.
Sue Kedgley: Given the finding in an until very recently secret report that residents living nearby to a methyl bromide fumigation facility in Nelson may have been exposed to the highly toxic gas at twice the level allowed under workplace safety exposure standards, does the Minister agree that fumigation with the gas should not be permitted in residential areas; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am aware of the issues raised in the report. I think it is important to note that those conclusions have been drawn as possibilities on the basis of modelling only and that they are contested. In that respect, I think the article in today’s
New Zealand Herald
is not helpful. The direct contradiction internally between what is, in the box, claimed as reality and what is referred to in the article as modelling is obvious. But I would add that if that level of exposure were the case, it would be the cause for very serious concern. I would also like to add the words of Dr
Kiddle when talking about this matter. He cautions that these reports go only part of the way towards building an accurate picture of the effects of methyl bromide, that more work is required before firm conclusions can be drawn, and, further, that measures have been taken over the last 6 years to reduce any risk of health impacts. Dr
Kiddle states: “We are currently in mediation, and while this is proceeding the court has requested that all parties to the mediation refrain from public comment on issues discussed by the parties in mediation and issues arising from the reports.” I think that is very sound advice.
Lesley Soper: Can the Minister confirm that the use of methyl bromide is being phased out?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, I can. Even if used safely, methyl bromide is an ozone-depleting substance. As such, it is being phased out globally, in terms of the Montreal Protocol—the international agreement under which ozone-depleting substances are managed. I can further advise that the Government has already informed the strawberry industry that it will no longer be given any further critical use exemptions for the use of methyl bromide as a fumigant. I can advise further that Government agencies in Australia and New Zealand are actively investigating alternative fumigants for use in the timber industry.
Sue Kedgley: In view of the Minister’s last answer, why does his Government allow methyl bromide fumigation to take place in specified locations all around New Zealand, including in residential areas, without any monitoring to ensure that the amount of methyl bromide being released into the atmosphere is at a level that is, allegedly, safe or any requirement to inform local residents; and why does his Government allow fumigation operators simply to open container doors and release this toxic and ozone-depleting gas directly into the atmosphere?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am advised that officials do support investigating different ways of monitoring gas discharge, and discharge and exposure rates, over time; that they also support the idea of using a recovery and destruction method, where possible, for fumigations; and that they support options to reduce gases discharged into the air. However, decisions on permitted or non-permitted activities in urban or regional areas are made by the relevant local authority under the Resource Management Act. In Nelson, for example, the use of methyl bromide in fumigation is subject to an ongoing case, as I have referred to. It is before the Environment Court and in mediation, and, therefore, it is inappropriate to comment further.
Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that, contrary to his earlier answer, our use of methyl bromide has steadily increased since we signed the Montreal Protocol and said we would phase it out; and does he further agree that there should be a requirement on all users of methyl bromide to recapture the gas, not release it into the atmosphere?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I certainly did not make a comment that the use of methyl bromide had decreased because of our trade and, in particular, increases in timber exports. It has consistently increased over recent years. But I confirm to the member that the issue of the use of methyl bromide is on the priority list of the Environmental Risk Management Authority for reassessment, and can I assist her by reading an extract from the authority’s reassessment evaluation form: “There are a number of steps underway to investigate a reduction in use and emissions of methyl bromide. These include discussions with trading partners to secure agreement on phytosanitary standards (on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide) that can be applied internationally, consideration of alternative treatments, a trial of recapture technology that will be run in the Nelson area this export log season and consideration of operational procedures including monitoring.”
Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee, in response to a petition by Claire
Gulman, that recommends, among other things—
Madam SPEAKER: I remind the member that the identification of the document is all that is required, not a reading out of it. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Early Childhood Education—20 Free Hours Policy
10.
PAULA BENNETT (National) to the
Minister of Education: How is the policy of 20 free hours of early childhood education consistent with the Government’s intention to increase the level of quality in early childhood education?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education)
: The 20 free hours policy is designed to do two things: boost participation in early childhood education for 3 to 4-year-olds, and lower costs to parents. The policy is part of the Government’s 10-year early childhood quality education strategy, which aims to improve quality, boost participation, and promote collaboration. Other initiatives that are relevant include having registered and qualified teachers; curriculum materials innovation and professional development; a better regulation system; higher funding; and better adult-child ratios.
Paula Bennett: How does that fit with the Ministry of Education’s recommendation to centres that in order to make the 20 free hours policy work, they reduce quality, reduce staffing, or charge more for children aged zero to 2 years?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Those are not recommendations of the ministry.
Dianne Yates: What reports has the Minister seen about alternative policies that are consistent with raising the quality?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am speaking to a lot of early childhood groups at the moment, and I am aware that they are very aware that the National Party is now supporting the 20 hours’ free policy. National’s leader, John Key, has stated: “We want these young kids to be able to have 20 hours free.” However, early childhood groups are confused by the fact that on National’s website it still says National will scrap 20 hours’ free early childhood education, and those groups are wondering when the National Party will come clean and say what its actual policy is.
Paula Bennett: In light of the Minister speaking to so many centres, what is his response to the newsletter of the Building Blocks Childcare and Preschool, which recently stated: “The centre has decided that we will not be offering the 20 hours free, as we want to provide you and your child the same high-quality care without any compromise.”?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have not read the particular information that the member has read out, but I will take her word that that is actually what has been said by the Building Blocks Childcare and Preschool. But I would urge that centre to take advantage of the workshops that are being run by the Ministry of Education, because in my experience many people who are looking through their budgets at this time change their mind when they have had the opportunity to work the issue through with the ministry.
Paula Bennett: How does the 20 free hours policy increase the level of quality of early childhood education, when, for example, Mark Finlay, the managing director of Lollipops
Educare, said that if he signed up to the policy: “We would have to cut back on costs, teachers, nappies, and food, etc.”; and how does cutting back on teachers increase the quality of early childhood education?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I am sure the member knows, the funding rates were based on information provided by the early childhood sector through the 2006 operating costs survey. Centres that qualify for the funding, of course, qualify because they employ registered teachers—the higher the number, the more money they get. The rates are therefore tailored to reflect the costs of early childhood centres, particularly in the area of their two major cost drivers, which are employing qualified teachers and the length of the session they provide. I will be making it clear, of course, to centres around the country that the next operating costs survey will be completed in 2008. It will
capture any of the anomalies that might arise in their centres, and we will be able to deal with those going forward.
Pasifika People—Employment
11.
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports, if any, has she received on the number of Pasifika people in employment?
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment)
: Talofa lava. I can advise the House that employment growth for Pacific people rose by 3.8 percent per annum from 2001 to 2006, compared with 1.6 percent for Europeans—palagi. At the same time, the Pasifika unemployment rate dropped by more than a third, from almost 10 percent in 2001 to a near record low of 6.4 percent last year. O nisi
na o
talafiafia mo tagata Pasifika o
lo’oalala ma
soifua Niu
Silanei—this is more great news for our Pasifika communities.
Hon Mark Gosche: How many Pasifika people in the workforce are participating in industry training?
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: Pacific people make up 5.6 percent of all industry trainees, compared with the 4.3 percent share of the total workforce. I also add that 15.7 percent of Pacific people are now enrolled in tertiary education, compared with 14.2 percent for the general population. I congratulate my colleague the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, as Minister for Tertiary Education, on his sterling work in this area.
Judith Collins: If everything is going so well for Pasifika New Zealanders—and I am sure we all hope it is—why does the Government’s
Social Report 2006 show that 54 percent of Pasifika families live in poverty, which is an increase of 10 percent under her Government?
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: To add a bit of context to that question, during the 1990s, when National was in Government and undertook major economic restructuring, the community that fared the worst in terms of unemployment, market rents, and psychological and emotional harm was the Pacific community. My response to the first question showed clearly that we have made enormous changes to the economic and social position of our people.
Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am trying to hear the Associate Minister’s answer at the back of the House, and it is impossible to hear her give this information on Pacific Island communities through the screaming and yelling of the National Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: I must say that there was screaming and yelling on both sides of the House. Would the Minister please continue with her answer.
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: As I said before, the community that suffered the most from economic restructuring under the National Government of the 1990s was the Pacific community. Enormous progress has been made in the economic and social position of our peoples and our children, and our Labour-led Government will continue that good work.
Hon Brian Donnelly: What is the total number of Pacific people reliant on an unemployment benefit?
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: I can advise the House that at the end of February there were fewer than 2,900 Pacific people reliant on an unemployment benefit in the whole of New Zealand. This is an astounding 76 percent reduction from 12,300 in 1999, when National was last in Government. This Labour-led Government is clearly making real progress at improving outcomes for our Pacific families and communities. There is still much to be done, and we are committed to getting on and doing it.
Judith Collins: Did this Minister not know that in 2000, 49 percent of Pasifika families lived in poverty, and in 2004, after 4 years of her Government, that figure had increased to 54 percent; if not, why not?
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: As the member of Parliament for Mana also, I would like to share with members a story about the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) where Porirua College is leading NCEA. Eighty percent of the children are Pacific. They come from families where their parents are now in employment and they are receiving the Working for Families package, income-related rents, and affordable housing and health. That is why our children in Porirua are leading NCEA.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister did not address the question, which was “did she know”. All we got was something about NCEA. This question was about whether she knew that 54 percent of Pacific people are now living in poverty.
Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, no member can, in fact, require a yes or no answer to a question. The Minister did address the question generally.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that the data used by Judith Collins is from 2004, before the introduction of the Working for Families package, that that package is reducing child poverty by 70 percent, that the last stage occurs on 1 April this year, and that the National Party voted against it?
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN: Yes, I can confirm that.
Judith Collins: I seek the leave of the House to table page 65 of the Government’s
Social Report 2006, which has these figures in it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
School Boards of Trustees—Criteria for Candidates
12.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the
Minister of Education: Is he satisfied with the criteria for candidates for election to school boards of trustees under the Education Act 1989?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education)
: The Act does not determine eligibility to stand, but it does list numerous criteria that make a person ineligible. Those criteria include—and I do not want anybody to take this personally—being mentally disordered; being an undischarged bankrupt; not being a New Zealand citizen; being a permanently appointed member of the board’s staff, other than the principal or the elected staff representative on the board; having contracts with the board worth more than $25,000 a year; or having not yet served a sentence for a crime for which that person has been convicted, and which is punishable by imprisonment. I just tell the member, because I am sure he was not here at the time, that those criteria were endorsed by Parliament when the Education and Science Committee unanimously reported back that Gerry Brownlee’s Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill not proceed.
John Hayes: How does this law and its criteria protect the children of a Wairarapa school where a person with 25 convictions, including sexual offences with a minor, is currently a candidate for election to the board of trustees, and could be elected without anyone ever knowing about his or her past?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the select committee pointed out, the powers that are available to the Minister of the day are quite sufficient, I think, to deal with anybody who feels that the safety of a child is at risk. For example, if this person was elected to the board, and was considered to be a safety risk—and it could be that I consider that person to be a safety risk—I can require, under law, that the board deals with that matter. If the board does not deal with it to a satisfactory level, I can suspend—sack—the entire board and deal with it myself. That is what the select committee unanimously concluded was the best way forward, and that is what I would intend to do.
Darien Fenton: What is the Minister doing to ensure that boards of trustees have the skills and attributes needed to govern schools?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I indicated last year, following the outcome of the boards of trustees elections I will be asking the ministry to have a look at matters of governance. I would like the ministry to look at such issues as whether we have the right mix of skills on boards, whether there is some more support that we could give them, and whether there could be better arrangements—for example, the clustering of boards. I am pleased to see that currently 17,000 people are standing for the 13,000 places on boards around the country, and that only two boards do not have enough candidates to fill their vacancies. I am sure they will fill them by co-opting, because in those cases it was a procedural hiccup that had led to the problem.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that National’s current deputy leader, Bill English, was a member of the Education and Science Committee that unanimously agreed to recommend that Gerry Brownlee’s bill to prevent those with sex offence convictions from becoming school trustees should not proceed?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I not only can confirm that the Hon Bill English was a member of that committee; I can confirm that so was Colin King and so was Mr Allan Peachey, who, of course, was the leader of one of the largest schools, if not the largest school, in the country. The report back unanimously concluded that such a bill would not make children safer, given that those in the trustee role had limited contact with children. The committee also concluded that the Minister of the day has the power to ensure students’ safety by requiring a board, if there is a difficulty, to deal with it; if it does not deal with it, the Minister can sack it.
John Hayes: Clearly, the Minister is satisfied with the legislation for which he is responsible, and he is also satisfied—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that Mr Hayes is a relatively new member, but I think it is important that he learn that members should start a question with a question word. He had two clauses out and had not got there yet.
Madam SPEAKER: As a general rule, we are trying now not to start questions with comments, statements, or imputations. Just go straight to the question, please.
John Hayes: Is the Minister satisfied with the legislation—particularly section 103 of the Education Act 1989—for which he is responsible as Minister, and with the advice from his ministry on the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill that the Education Act as it currently stands already sufficiently protects children’s safety?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Not only am I satisfied that we have that protection but, as I have said, that was the unanimous opinion of the select committee. I have the report here, if the member would like it. Membership of the committee included the deputy leader of his party, plus a former leader of one of the largest schools—if not the largest school—in the country, and Mr Colin King, as well. Yes, I think we are in a position at the present time where members across the House—Ms Bennett shakes her head—have agreed that the legislation is currently adequate.
John Hayes: Can the Minister confirm that any person may stand for election to a school board of trustees, irrespective of the number of convictions he or she has, which is unlike the position of contractors, who must be vetted by the police before entering school-grounds; and given that this situation could be replicated in every school in New Zealand, will the Minister take immediate action to protect our children by requiring all elected school trustees to submit to the principal the details of any convictions they
have, thereby lifting the veil of suspicion and creating a safe environment for our children?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: [Interruption] As my colleague here says, it is not within my competence to just ignore the law. The law already states who is ineligible to stand. As I mentioned before, the unanimous opinion of this House was—although members seem to have changed their mind in the last year—that currently existing law, which allows me as the present Minister of Education, or any Minister of Education, to sack a board if it does not look after the safety of children, was right. I just say to the member that if he seriously thinks the police should now be vetting 17,000 New Zealanders in the 5-day period between nominations closing and the elections, I invite him to tell the police exactly how they might do it.
Gerry Brownlee: With regard to the issues raised by my colleague John Hayes, I would seek leave to table a short note from my book of prophesies called
I Told You So.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
John Hayes: Why is it acceptable to the Minister that a person with 25 convictions, including for sexual offences with a minor, can make himself available for election to a board in the first place, and that, now that this person is a candidate, no one can expose that person because to do so may lead to the identification of the victim?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Of course it is not acceptable to a single person in this House that someone with a record such as the member has described stands for election. But the law states which people are ineligible, and the law states—and I want to make this clear to the member; he needs to go home and explain this—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Please, members, a question has been asked. We would all like to hear the Minister address the question. We will listen in silence.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member needs to know that the law supported by this House protects children’s safety. They come first. If such people were to be elected to boards anywhere in the country, and if I understood that that had happened and that children’s safety was at risk, the law empowers me to require boards to remove them, or I will do it for them and take the whole board with them.
