Thursday, 9 August 2007
Volume 641
Sitting date: 9 August 2007
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill, which is a 3-hour debate. The Government will also seek to make progress on the remaining stages of the Major Events Management Bill, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Income Tax Bill, and the first readings of the Limited Partnerships Bill, the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Immigration Bill. Wednesday, of course, is a members’ day.
Points of Order
Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 26 July I raised with you a point of order relating to the Public Audit Act, the role of the Auditor-General, and the oversight of his work programme by the Officers of Parliament Committee. You undertook to come back with a report. I was wondering when that report might be available and whether it will also include questions as to the accountability of the Auditor-General to Parliament for his actions, and just how that accountability is exercised.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I was considering that this morning and hope to have a report to the House next week.
Select Committees—Official Business
RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before I commence my point of order, can I say to you that I have a slightly long point of order and I ask for your indulgence in the House if I am to get to the core of this matter.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, as long as the point of order is consistent with the Standing Orders that is fine.
RON MARK: My question, Madam Speaker, is to you, and asks you to consider whether it is appropriate, and what the implications are, for a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee currently visiting Australia on an official select committee tour on official select committee business to go AWOL from that committee to the point where not even the party the member belongs to is sure exactly where he is, to take a film crew with him to the Northern Territory, and then to proceed to unleash a tirade of abuse on the Australian authorities for the second time, particularly at a time when New Zealand Māori MPs are back here trying to deal with child abuse in this nation.
I ask whether you will investigate this matter in respect of Mr Hone Harawira and report back to the House. We have issues that must be addressed. He is away on official select committee business, and on that basis his vote counts—his proxy counts. The question has to be: how many times has his vote been cast in this House improperly? The second question has to be the financial implications of a member being away on select committee business funded by the House but using that opportunity to do other business; whether that, ‘financially’, is or is not appropriate, and where the adjustments need to be made. This is a serious issue. It impacts on select committees, on how they operate, and on how members operate in this House. I ask you to look at it.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand the point, and I can inform the member and the House that the matter is already under consideration by the Clerk’s Office. Once there has been a full report then the suitable and recommended action will be taken, including a report to this House if that is required.
Tabling of Documents
Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I seek leave to table my signed copy of the code of conduct for members of Parliament. I was away at the time when our parties put this forward.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
State Services Commissioner—Investigation intoMinistry for the Environment Appointment
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of State Services: Does she have confidence in Dr Mark Prebble’s investigation into the Public Service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): Yes, I do.
Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware of a statement made by Dr Prebble last Friday, explaining why the article he published in the Dominion Post omitted the fact that David Benson-Pope had made comments, where Dr Prebble states: “The reason why I didn’t mention it is it didn’t at the time—it wasn’t the critical issue.”?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I am.
Hon Bill English: So which of Dr Prebble’s explanations does the Minister now believe: his explanation that he omitted that information because “I forgot”, or his explanation as given on Morning Report that “The reason why I didn’t mention it is” because “it wasn’t the critical issue.”?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I believe it is possible for both those statements to be correct.
Hon Bill English: Does the Minister believe that anyone else would regard those statements as both being right, where Dr Prebble gave as one explanation for leaving the information out that he “forgot”, and gave another explanation where he said he left the information out because it was not a “critical issue”—in fact, that he had made the judgment that it did not matter enough to put it in the article?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, it is true that some may believe that Dr Prebble set out to mislead the public of New Zealand. I do not believe that.
Hon Bill English: Does the Minister believe that Dr Prebble left the information out because “it wasn’t the critical issue.”?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I take Dr Prebble’s word for what he said, and said publicly—that he forgot. He also said that he did not—[Interruption]
Hon Bill English: How can the Public Service have confidence in an inquiry led by Dr Prebble, where he is investigating the facts, as he says, and coming to it with an open mind, when his own statements have contradicted each other—on the one hand he said he “forgot” to put it in, and on the other hand he said that he did not put it in because it was not “the critical issue”—how can the Public Service have confidence in an inquiry led by Dr Prebble, when one of the key elements of that inquiry is Dr Prebble’s contradictory statements?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I can have confidence because Dr Prebble has asked Mr Don Hunn to investigate independently the facts of this matter—the facts of this matter. He did that after seeking advice from the Solicitor-General. Dr Prebble has now added Mr Don Hunn to that inquiry. Mr Hunn has been brought in to look at the facts.
Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that that is not Dr Prebble’s view, because in this interview he says that he is going to gather the facts, saying: “I am entering into this process with an open mind, knowing that I don’t know all the facts, and I know that others don’t know all the facts.”; who is gathering the facts: Dr Prebble, who has given two contradictory versions of why he left a vital piece of information out of a published article, or Don Hunn, who is part of the inquiry that is still legally the responsibility of Dr Prebble?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Mr Don Hunn is investigating the facts. Under the State Sector Act the facts are being investigated.
Hon Bill English: Who will interview Dr Prebble about his contradictory statements over why he left critical information out of a published article; will it be the legally responsible lead investigator, Dr Prebble, or will it be Mr Hunn?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The facts of this case will be investigated by Mr Don Hunn, and, in looking at the facts, he will no doubt interview everybody whom it is appropriate to interview.
Hon Bill English: In this inquiry that 30,000 civil servants are meant to regard as credible, will it be the case that one of the appointed reviewers, Mr Don Hunn, will have to interview extensively the chief reviewer, Mr Mark Prebble, to ascertain the truthfulness of Mr Prebble’s statements?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Mr Don Hunn has been given the job of investigating the facts of this case, and no matter how Mr English wants to portray it and try to denigrate public servants, it will be done in a proper manner—as one would expect from a man of Mr Don Hunn’s calibre. I do not believe that there are many people in New Zealand—although I cannot account for some in the Opposition—who would find a problem with regard to a man who has had a long service in the Public Service and is considered to be the father of the State Service Commission, having been one of the people who set it up. I believe he is the right person, on the advice of the Solicitor-General, to help in this inquiry.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister think that Dr Prebble may be making rather too many mistakes for a senior and very experienced public servant, given his failure in 2003 to release critical documents that reflected badly on the Government in relation to the “corngate” incident, despite instructions that everything should be released?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The Government has been satisfied with the work of the State Services Commissioner. However, I have to say that everybody makes mistakes, and, as has been pointed out already this week, it is regrettable that Dr Prebble did forget an important piece of information. But I think it would unfair to say that in a lifetime of public service one would judge that person on one or two errors.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the statement by Mr Mark Prebble that he did not forget to release the document—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Immigration Act—Migrant Integration
2. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does the rewrite of the Immigration Act introduced yesterday include measures to ensure that would-be migrants are willing and able to integrate with the rest of society; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): The Government shares the member’s determination that migrants should be willing and able to integrate into New Zealand society. We already support that through our settlement strategy and a range of policies that allow us to choose those migrants who can best contribute to New Zealand.
Peter Brown: Has the Minister read any reports regarding the level of public support for the introduction of integration testing for migrants, such as the poll conducted by the New Zealand Herald last week, which overwhelmingly supported such a measure; and will the Government now consider a civics education scheme, as suggested by New Zealand First?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, I am well aware of that poll. I would warrant that of those who said that, yes, they would like such a test, many would disagree on the particular questions they would like included in it. The experience of other countries, some not far from here, is that such tests are difficult to design and even more difficult to administer.
Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What is the Government doing to support migrants to integrate into New Zealand society?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government is undertaking a range of actions in partnership with migrants, around the principle that integration is a two-way street. We inform migrants before they arrive here about living in New Zealand, and we follow up that information after they get here with more localised information. We have set up settlement support coordinators throughout the country for migrants to get advice from, and to help migrants learn the ropes of Kiwi society. We are working with local and non-governmental agencies, businesses, and communities all around New Zealand to improve their responsiveness, in turn, to new migrant communities.
Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree that the Australian Government’s mistreatment of Dr Haneef shows the need for more transparency in immigration cases; and does he agree that the Minister’s Immigration Bill, by making secret, or classifying, a greater array of evidence in immigration cases, and by withholding that information from the lawyers for the affected party, is a recipe for more mistakes and more denial of due process and natural justice?
Madam SPEAKER: I am just considering the issue of ministerial responsibility. Would the Minister address the question in terms of his responsibility.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have no responsibility for the first part of the question, and, indeed, would not comment on the internal politics of a friendly country. In respect of the second part, it seems to me that the more information, within bounds, that is available on a prospective migrant, the better the chance is that an appropriate and a sensible decision will be made about the person’s potential entry into New Zealand.
Peter Brown: Noting the answer given to my colleague Mr Choudhary, did the findings in the Labour Department report Skilled Migrants in New Zealand: A Study of Settlement Outcomes come as a surprise to the Minister, given that it indicates that more than 60 percent of migrants have had no contact with an immigration officer since their arrival, and that barely 60 percent of them rated the information provided by the Immigration Service as even useful; noting those findings, will he now give further consideration to some sort of formal civics education system?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Some important statistics about new migrant settlement include the following: skilled migrants are less than half as likely as a New Zealand - born person to be drawing a benefit or other form of social welfare; over 85 percent of employers of migrants are either “happy” or “very happy” with the outcome; and over 96 percent of migrant surveys state that migrants are either “happy” or “very happy” to be in New Zealand. I think those statistics are compelling evidence that our migration system is working, and although not perfect, as a result of this bill it will be made even better.
Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What other reports has the Minister seen on settlement?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regional representative has recently highly praised our settlement and integration approach, saying he was impressed by “the clear commitment held by all actors to maintaining the high standards for which New Zealand is known internationally.” That is but one of a number of very positive responses to the Government’s call to action for settlement, which has been well received since its launch on 23 July this year.
Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that several European countries have introduced civics education programmes, for want of a better term, and that Australia is looking at the idea with some seriousness, and that those countries compile various questions; surely, if other countries can do it, it cannot be too difficult for New Zealand to do?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have never said that I am opposed to the idea of civics education; indeed, our settlement programme already includes elements of that, as does our education system. But the complexity here, which has been amply demonstrated in other countries, is that although people might agree there should be a list of questions for incoming migrants, they disagree on what those questions should be. As an Aucklander, I would hope that new migrants would support the Blues. That member might disagree with that one.
State Services Commission—Briefing on Ministryfor the Environment Appointment
3. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: Does she stand by the briefing from the State Services Commission on issues surrounding an employment decision at the Ministry for the Environment, which she released on 20 July 2007; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): Since the 20 July briefing note was provided, both the State Services Commissioner and the Deputy State Services Commissioner have said they want further information on the handling of the employment issue relating to Ms Setchell. That is why there is now an investigation under the State Sector Act 1988.
Gerry Brownlee: What concerns, if any, does she have that a key piece of information was withheld from Iain Rennie by not only the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment but also the State Services Commissioner himself, Dr Mark Prebble?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I expressed concern yesterday and said I was disappointed that Dr Prebble had forgotten to pass that information on, first of all, to Mr Rennie.
Hon Bill English: The Minister is required, in answering questions in Parliament, to answer correctly to the best of her ability. I quoted directly from a transcript of Dr Prebble’s interview with Morning Report where he does not say he forgot but says he did not regard it as the critical issue. In that respect, and in order to assist the Minister so that she is clear that Dr Prebble did not say he forgot but just said he thought he would not, I seek leave to table the transcript of his interview with Geoff Robinson on Morning Report.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection. I would also note—ruling on the point of order—that that is obviously a debatable matter.
Gerry Brownlee: What confidence should the New Zealand public have in Dr Mark Prebble, who withheld key information from the first investigation into the communications manager’s employment, and is now conducting the second—and supposedly more comprehensive—investigation, particularly when he was also the man who withheld crucial official information in the “corngate” issue?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I believe that the public can have confidence in the inquiry that is being undertaken—first of all, because Dr Prebble has asked Mr Don Hunn to be involved in the investigation. He wrote a letter to him, which I tabled, but I did discover later that, in fact, the letter was attached to the press release that Dr Prebble put out and obviously had not been read by the Opposition spokesperson on the State services. If I could remind him, the letter to Mr Hunn says: “When you have completed the necessary investigation, I require you to provide me with a report on the following: the relevant facts, including the involvement of me or any State Service Commission staff, any assessment or comment you consider should be made in relation to the involvement of me or any State Service Commission staff, where any conflict of evidence arises your assessment of what the truth of the matter is.” That is in the letter to Mr Don Hunn written by Dr Prebble and released publicly.
Gerry Brownlee: When was the Minister first told that David Benson-Pope had expressed an opinion on the employment of Ms Setchell to Mr Logan?
Hon ANNETTE KING: If members could just wait one moment while I get the date when I was told—
Hon Bill English: Is this the Prime Minister’s department script?
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is endeavouring to answer the question, as the member reminded the House before, in the best possible way. Would the Minister now address the question.
Hon ANNETTE KING: I try to be accurate in what I say. I have written down here the dates and times, and so on, that I was going to refer to. I will take the opportunity later to provide the answer, because I will not take the time of the House by looking now.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may choose to accept that as addressing the question, but if the Minister of State Services does not know what day she was made aware of the most crucial fact in this case, then that Minister does not deserve to hold the warrant.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: This seems to be a peculiarly inappropriate week for the Opposition to climb on a high horse about who can remember what and when, about what was said. This week has been a week in which Mr Key cannot remember what he said about almost anything, and had various stories on everything. [Interruption] And the Opposition members do not like it when they are reminded of that fact—they do not like it at all. The fact is—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: We will now hear the point of order in silence. Anyone who makes a comment will leave this Chamber. I could not hear what Dr Cullen was saying.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The fact is the Minister was seeking to consult her notes on a matter of detail. It is a pity that Mr Key did not take the chance to do so on a large number of occasions.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you consider that the Minister saying: “I will choose to answer this later.” is addressing the question?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I agree. Yes, the Minister did address the question, and it was not a point of order. You were making an observation, which you are entitled to do, but not as a point of order.
Gerry Brownlee: When was the Minister told that David Benson-Pope had expressed an opinion on the employment of Madeleine Setchell to Mr Logan?
Hon ANNETTE KING: On 29 July.
Gerry Brownlee: Further to her response to oral questions yesterday, has she now asked Dr Mark Prebble whether he was telling the truth when he stated in the Dominion Post article: “Ministers ought not be involved, and I understand the environment Minister David Benson-Pope was not involved”; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING: No.
KiwiSaver—Enrolments
4. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on enrolments in the KiwiSaver scheme?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The latest data is that the total number of enrolments received by the Inland Revenue Department has reached nearly 92,000. Treasury’s forecast was that 345,000 would have enrolled by the end of the first year—that is, by 30 June 2008—an average of just under 30,000 per month. Although some further opt-outs from the cohorts who have already enrolled will still occur, the final take-up for that cohort seems very likely to be running well ahead of the forecast, contrary to a number of reports.
Shane Jones: Has he seen any other reports on support for the scheme?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a huge range of support for the scheme within the public arena and within this House. The one exception is the National Party, which simply cannot make up its mind. Indeed, I have in front of me a photograph of Mr Bill English, appropriately in Doubtful Sound, saying: “We will sit and watch KiwiSaver for a time.” So far the National members have voted against the original bill, the KiwiSaver Bill, voted against the extensions to KiwiSaver in the Budget legislation, and voted against the bill with the employer contributions, which is in front of the select committee.
Hon Peter Dunne: If the current rate of uptake continues to be ahead of the forecast and to be strong, will the Government in time give consideration to removing the voluntary opt-out provision of the scheme and making it a compulsory one for all New Zealanders?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. I think the compulsory opt-out provision is the best way to proceed. It does not raise further issues around the structure of New Zealand superannuation, which a fully compulsory scheme might. What it does mean is that we will have achieved a major shift in New Zealanders’ savings behaviour.
Question No. 3 to Minister
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In answer to the last supplementary question asked of the Minister to the previous question, the Minister told us that she first knew of David Benson-Pope’s expressing a view to Mr Logan about the employment of the new communications manager on 29 July. David Benson-Pope announced that to the House on 26 July and was out of his job on 27 July. Does the Minister want to correct her answer, or did she know about it a whole month earlier than that?
Madam SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister to reply, although that was not a point of order.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): My apologies, Madam Speaker. I thought—
Hon Bill English: Oh!
Hon ANNETTE KING: I thought this was a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the Minister is right. There will be no further interruptions during a point of order. The member raised a matter; the Minister was trying to be helpful. We will hear the answer in silence.
Hon ANNETTE KING: My apologies. I thought the member had asked me when Mark Prebble had remembered that Hugh Logan had mentioned it to him. That was on 29 July.
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s original point of order was not a point of order. It was, in fact, an observation, and it is a debating matter. It is not actually a point of order. However, I let it go for the sake of obtaining clarification for the House. That has been given.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was extremely specific, and it was asked of the Minister twice: on which date did she know? It may be that one can get up and give the sort of answer that skates around it, but that is deliberately misleading the House.
Madam SPEAKER: The member is again making a debating point, not a point of order.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a question of order, because, as you know, Madam Speaker, the Opposition is limited to a certain number of supplementary questions. It would clearly be unacceptable that those supplementary questions are used up by Ministers giving misleading answers in order to avoid actually answering questions. As my colleague has pointed out, we have had to use two supplementary questions to ask that particular question quite definitively. It was clearly stated and unambiguous; there was no doubt as to what it was about. The Minister has now created a situation where, by her having given a misleading answer, we lose the opportunity, because we are getting through our supplementary questions, to get her to answer the question that she was asked and still has not answered.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member’s point. I would point out also that when the Minister was attempting to answer that question the first time, there was an interruption. She then indicated that she wanted to give an accurate answer and, therefore, she would table it later. Then, when the question was asked again, she gave an answer. When it was then questioned as not being an accurate answer, she gave an explanation, which is why I allowed that explanation to be given even though it was not a point of order. So I think we are back at square one.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister’s explanation was that although I asked her twice very, very clearly about when she knew, she thought somehow that I wanted to know when Dr Prebble said that he knew. I do not know how one can get that out of a simple question like that. This Minister is avoiding answering an important question.
Madam SPEAKER: I will say this once more. The point the member raises is, of course, a point of debate or of discussion. Certainly, the member is entitled to criticise and comment, but it is not a point of order. That is the point I am making. I have been tolerant until we had clarification for the House, but the House has been interrupted on matters that are not valid points of order.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can one have any order in this House if, when a question is asked about a Minister’s own involvement in something, that Minister turns round and says he or she is giving an answer about someone else’s involvement? If Ministers are to treat question time like that, then we will have an enormous amount of disorder, simply because there is an entitlement for members to have their questions answered.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member himself is in danger of creating disorder. The matter has, in fact, been clarified, and even though I have ruled that it was not a point of order, I did enable the Minister to clarify the point that the member has raised. We shall now move on.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but if this is the same point of order, then I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber. I have ruled on this matter.
Gerry Brownlee: It will be your judgment, Madam Speaker, as to whether it is the same point of order. Have you now ruled that if we ask a very specific question and a Minister chooses to hear that in a way that does not relate at all to that question and chooses to give an answer that makes the Minister herself look quite ridiculous, we are supposed to just sit here and accept that? What is the point in having question time?
Madam SPEAKER: No, the point I have made, Mr Brownlee—and I will do this for the very last time—is that I have said that it was not a point of order. It was not a point of order. It was a matter of obvious importance, however, which is why I enabled the Minister to respond to it for the information of the House.
Election Advertising—Government Policy
5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Is it Government policy that issuing a press release, sending an email, or posting a letter should constitute publishing an election advertisement if those documents disagree or agree with anything any political party is associated with; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: No.
Hon Bill English: If it is not Government policy that a person sending an email, posting a letter, or issuing a press release would be caught by the Electoral Finance Bill and become a “promoter”, then why is that in the bill put forward by the Government?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member, as usual, has missed the fact that other elements of the bill have to be read in conjunction with that definition within clause 4. The intention of the bill is quite clear. The kind of outrageous advertising on behalf of a political party, involving huge sums of money and not attributable, that was done by the Exclusive Brethren should not be allowed to happen in that kind of volume. The select committee will consider, of course, whether the exact wording of the bill meets the intentions in that regard.
Hon Bill English: Does that mean that the Minister of Justice does not understand his own bill, and that Labour, in its obsession with dealing to its critics in election year so that it has a free run at multimillion-dollar taxpayer-funded campaigns, does not know that it has cast a drift-net that catches all political criticism in election year, and covers almost any political opinion?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The net that has been cast is designed to catch predatory species that prey upon the political and democratic system in this country, as the Exclusive Brethren did last time—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Like the children’s lobby!
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —at one point a group that Dr Smith used to attack rather than cuddle up to and get kissed by, as he was at the last election. The select committee will consider whether the exact wording of the bill conforms to the intention in that respect. I have never seen a major bill come out of a select committee with the wording exactly the same as it was when it went in.
Hon Bill English: Why has the Government cast such a drift-net to catch the criticism of every group—ranging from the Littlies Lobby to anti - child abuse campaigners, to teacher unions, to Greenpeace, to Amnesty International, to the ratepayers associations in any small town—that wants its voice to be heard in election year?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member may continue to promote that somewhat paranoid view of the intentions of the Electoral Finance Bill. The select committee will ensure that the bill meets its intentions. It is designed to stop hypocritical, extreme groups who are not even prepared to sign their advertisements with whom they actually are—
Madam SPEAKER: We will have the question in silence, because it is becoming impossible to hear, and all members are entitled to hear the answer.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —who use false and empty addresses as the means of contacting those groups, who claim not even to vote in the electoral system, and who spend hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars designed to secure the election of one political party, which claimed to know nothing about it at the time, and whose current leader knew so little that he claims to have remembered not opening the email that informed him about that campaign.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the people he is talking about broke the existing law; that the big problem with that was that the enforcement was left to the police, which failed to prosecute anyone; and that his Electoral Finance Bill repeats that weakness in our electoral law, in that there is no realistic enforcement of this drift-net against criticism?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Now the member is trying to have it the other way in saying that the bill will achieve nothing in this respect, and that anybody will be able to say whatever he or she likes. Classically, the National Party now has two completely opposing points of view on this particular legislation. This legislation is designed to catch people who mount extraordinarily expensive campaigns on behalf of a political party, and who are not prepared to front up about whom they are and why they are doing it—pretending, in one case last time, that they do not even participate in voting—all so that they can hasten the coming of Armageddon and the end of the world, which was their stated purpose for electoral intervention.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the paranoia and contradiction are actually in the legislation of the Minister of Justice, which sets out a large number of very detailed requirements, which have the effect, for instance, that a person forwarding an email on a political proposition who has not seen a statutory declaration from the sender of that email will be committing an offence by forwarding the email, and that the enforcement of this bizarre and paranoid set of rules still falls with the police, who failed utterly last time to enforce the law?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The New Zealand Police is the appropriate agency to enforce the law in any circumstance. That is absolutely clear. It is equally clear that this legislation is before the select committee, which will ensure that it meets its objectives. In this area, as I am sure the member is very well aware, many highly intelligent minds spend time trying to find ways round it. It is second only to tax law in that respect.
Question No. 3 to Minister
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 155/6. That particular ruling, issued by Speaker Hunt in 2001 and 2004, states very clearly with regard to answers from Ministers that the answer “cannot be on an unrelated matter that it suits the Minister to introduce.” Of course, the ruling goes on to say that that does not mean there has to be an answer or that it will be satisfactory. But our point in this case is that Annette King saying “I thought you were referring to when Dr Prebble knew”, even though his name was never mentioned and she was asked twice when she knew, fails that particular test.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): There can be no merit in that argument. The Minister stated clearly that she misunderstood the question. She cannot then be accused of trying to mislead the House in the nature of the answer she gave. It is quite unlike saying “I support the war in Iraq.” and then later saying “I didn’t support the war in Iraq.” That is a clear contradiction.
Madam SPEAKER: Maybe I can assist members here. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 19/1: “A point of order is a matter concerning the procedures of the House in which the Speaker can take action—”. It is not for the Speaker, however, to decide whether a Minister’s answer is correct. That is very clear in the Standing Orders and in Speakers’ rulings. The issue is obviously a matter for debate, which was the point I was endeavouring to make. It is for the House to consider, but it is not for the Speaker to consider, because it is not a point of order. The Speaker does not intervene in the debate.
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Twice during Dr Cullen speaking to that point of order, National MP David Bennett interjected on him. I thought you had now given two warnings that points of order are to be heard in silence.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, and I will reinforce that. Unfortunately for the member, however, members on his own side also interjected at the end. But I would remind members that I will not be tolerant in future. We are not going to have today the disorder we have had in the House this week.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to go back to the ruling you just made and suggest that it may be time for you to look at a number of Speakers’ rulings and come back to the House with a considered ruling, because on the face of it there are some contradictory Speakers’ rulings in regard to questions. There is, for instance, Speakers’ ruling 153/5, which states: “The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question and has no responsibility for the quality of the answer that is given …”. That ruling was by Mr Speaker Harrison and Mr Speaker Arthur. Then, over a couple of pages, there is Speaker’s ruling 155/6 by Mr Hunt, on two occasions, that: “Any answer must address the question asked.” It “must be a direct response; it cannot be on an unrelated matter …”, etc. We get ourselves into the position where on the one hand you rule, in accordance with the earlier set of rulings, that you are not responsible for the content or quality of an answer, but then there is this other Speaker’s ruling about Ministers having to address the question. It has seemed to me for some time that therein lies the conflict we get into trouble with at question time. It may be time for you to take some time to reflect upon the rulings of those various Speakers and give a more contemporary and considered ruling for the future, to guide us. Otherwise, I think the confusion is going to continue.
Madam SPEAKER: I am happy to do so.
Taxation—Thresholds
6. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What percentage of New Zealanders now pay the 39 percent tax rate his Government introduced, when he said on 23 December 1999 that: “Ninety-five percent of people will not be asked to pay more tax. Instead, only the top 5 percent of income earners will pay more.”, and what would the cost be of honouring that statement and restoring the threshold to the top 5 percent of income earners?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Latest figures show 10.6 percent of taxpayers are in the top bracket. It would cost around $273 million per annum to move the top threshold to 79,000, which would be the relevant point for 5 percent, on the latest estimates. This would give roughly $22 per week to everyone on over $79,000 a year, and nothing to the nearly 90 percent of New Zealanders who earn less than $60,000 per year. Of course, income earners in the top bracket now pay only 30 percent on a wide range of savings vehicles, compared with 33 percent in 1999.
Heather Roy: Can he confirm that the proceeds of this creeping taxation have never been spent, that they have only ever contributed to his burgeoning operating surpluses, and that they should have been given back to hard-working Kiwi taxpayers well before now?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot. I cannot claim to have run a cash surplus every year since 1999-2000. What is more, I remind the member that, along with a number of other people I am sure, she has criticised the Government in recent months for too loose a fiscal position. She has just asked for a looser one than the one we are operating. I remind the House again that this Government maintains the tightest fiscal stance of any political party in the Parliament.
H V Ross Robertson: What other changes to the financial position of New Zealanders have occurred since December 1999?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: First of all, of course, a hugely greater number of people are in work—some 300,000-odd New Zealanders; superannuitants get about $50 a week more, for a married couple, than they did in 1999; 70,000 children have been lifted above the income poverty threshold; and the annual cost of going to a doctor has fallen from about $940 a year on average, to $440 a year. These are the kinds of programmes the Government’s fiscal policies have enabled us to introduce, and of course we have massively increased spending on public transport, roading, and infrastructure in general.
R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that a flat tax rate has a greater impost on the less well-off than a graduated tax scale, and that a reduction in the top tax rate and adjustments to thresholds would provide greater tax equity?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are a number of ways in which the taxation system could be altered. Some of those have significant equity improvements, and some have significant equity reductions. I notice that the question implies the move that would have the largest equity reduction.
H V Ross Robertson: How much has the Government spent since 2004 on reducing taxation?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The total cost, as at the last financial year, of tax reduction initiatives since 2004 is $1.7 billion. This will rise to $4.5 billion by 2010-11, with no further changes.
Heather Roy: Does he deny that his secret agenda is to adjust the threshold in the next Budget so that only the top 5 percent of income earners will be required to pay the top rate of tax, as he originally promised in 1999, and does he truly believe that taxpayers are so naive that they are blind to the fact that he has been saving his surplus for years in order to deliver a massive election-year spending spree with which to coerce and bribe voters?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If it was a secret agenda I could neither confirm nor deny it, of course. What I can confirm to the member is that the Government will be announcing its long-term programme around taxation well before the election next year, and probably in the context of the Budget. But I tell the member not to hold her breath for the largest gains going to herself and a few others.
Heather Roy: I seek leave to table a speech made by Dr Michael Cullen on 23 December 1999 where he said that only the top 5 percent of income earners would be—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflict of Interest
7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Did the Ministry of Health, or anyone else, express any caution to the then Minister of Health, the Hon Annette King, on the appropriateness of her appointing Mr Hausmann to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board at a time when his company intended to put in a bid for a multimillion-dollar contract with that same board; if so, who?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): No, the then Minister of Health, the Hon Annette King, did not receive any such advice. I am told her office did receive advice from the chair of the board, Kevin Atkinson, that he would prefer a person from the Hawke’s Bay, and subsequent to the appointment the chair was quoted in the local paper, Hawke’s Bay Today, as saying that he was certain Mr Hausmann’s expertise in the health sector would be valuable to the board.
Hon Tony Ryall: Did any staff member of the Ministry of Health receive any expressions of concern about the appropriateness of appointing to the board a man who says his company intends to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts to be let by that board?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The member overlooks that almost certainly Mr Hausmann already had contracts with that board. I think Mr Hausmann’s company has contracts with most district health boards, and as I recall his conflict of interest declaration, in it he speaks of both existing and prospective contracts. So the issue is not, as is always the case, whether a conflict exists. Most boards have district health board members who have conflicts, and in some cases they are the majority of the board. The issue is how those conflicts are managed, and the long and short of it is that Mr Hausmann’s conflict of interest statement was full from the beginning.
Hon Tony Ryall: Why will the Minister not answer the question: did anyone in the Ministry of Health receive any expressions of concern about the appropriateness of appointing a man whose company intends to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts to the board of that district health board during consideration of that very process?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I am trying to tell the member that the issue of conflicts of interest was well known to the Ministry of Health, because everyone had been told about it by Mr Hausmann. That, I think, is really the essential point. He was straightforwardly saying he could well be interested in a tender if one went forward. The chair knew that, the Ministry of Health knew that, the Minister knew that, and Cabinet knew that. Everyone knew it.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: So it was a cover-up?
Hon PETE HODGSON: It was not a cover-up; no, it was an “open-up”. And I tell the guy who cannot stop interjecting that the reason we are having an inquiry is that Mr Hausmann wrote to me, asking whether we could please do so once more. He has already been looked into, but because people keep on coming up and saying untrue things about him, he asked whether we could please have another inquiry. I said that yes, we could.
Sue Moroney: What was the extent of the knowledge of the potential conflict of interest arising from this appointment?
Hon PETE HODGSON: It was considerable, and the main source of knowledge about Mr Hausmann’s conflict of interest came from Mr Hausmann. Mr Hausmann said on 18 May in a written conflict of interest statement, which has been made public more than once, long, long ago, that he had a conflict of interest. He was thinking that he might get himself some more conflicts of interest. He said how he might manage his conflicts of interest, and how he might confer with his chair, should he be appointed, in managing his conflicts of interest. All I can say is that the Tories’ mate Dr Bierre, from the Auckland District Health Board, did none of that, and a multimillion-dollar contract came tumbling down, taking Dr Bierre with it.
Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister explain why Mr Hausmann, when Annette King appointed him in 2005, did not declare an interest in Wellcare Education Ltd, which was subsequently awarded an untendered $1.1 million contract with the district health board; and how does the Minister justify his advice to Parliament that Mr Hausmann made a full declaration when Companies Office records will show that Mr Hausmann’s interest was not appropriately declared to the Ministry of Health?
Hon PETE HODGSON: That contract was primarily, and first and foremost, not with the district health board; it was with the Ministry of Social Development. Therefore, there was not a conflict. However, it is also the case that the Ministry of Social Development thinks that that contract was extremely well done and has rolled it out in other parts of the country, but not involving Mr Hausmann’s company all the time, as I understand it. And it is also possible that Mr Hausmann, when he put together his contract with the Ministry of Social Development, made it clear that he was a board member of the district health board. It would seem to me likely that he did that, because everyone else knew that he was a member of Hawke’s Bay’s District Health Board.
Hon Tony Ryall: Why did the Minister say that Mr Hausmann made a full disclosure, when it is clear that Mr Hausmann’s interests in Wellcare Education Ltd were never disclosed when his appointment was made in 2005; and does the Minister think that this might be covered in the investigation by the Auditor-General that has begun in Hawke’s Bay today?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The investigation that has been begun by the Auditor-General is, as the member may know, a preliminary investigation so that the Auditor-General can come to a view about whether a full investigation is a good idea. He will take a preliminary look, come to a view in 6 or 8 weeks, and tell us all. So that is good. We have an investigation already under way, the terms of reference for which are broad and include things like “any other matters”. If there is anything to uncover that has not been uncovered in relation to this Hawke’s Bay District Health Board issue, then we have three people who are pretty smart at uncovering such things.
Hon Tony Ryall: Will the Ministry of Health investigations include an investigation into allegations that the Hawke’s Bay whistleblower was bullied and subsequently pushed out of her job in an attempt to silence her; if not, why not?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not sure which part of “any other matters” the member does not get, because—
Hon Tony Ryall: Yes, or no?
Hon PETE HODGSON: He wants to know whether it is a yes or a no? You see, it includes everything; therefore, nothing is excluded. Everything can be included, and the member can draw his own conclusions as to whether that is a yes or a no answer.
Employment—Numbers in Paid Employment
8. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on the number of New Zealanders in paid employment?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have seen a major proposal to tackle unemployment by the reintroduction of a failed Work for the Dole scheme. Under this proposal, unemployment beneficiaries would be forced to work in make-work schemes, where they would earn nothing more than the dole, and where they would have their chances of getting a real job reduced. That major policy announcement came from National spokesperson Judith Collins, which suggests that Bill English is right and that she has been pushed beyond her capacity, because she does not realise that the policy has already proved to be a failure.
Russell Fairbrother: What further reports has the Minister received on the number of New Zealanders in paid employment; and will Ms Collins continue as such?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have received a report today that shows that we have the best employment and unemployment statistics ever. The latest household labour force survey shows that—and I will do these one at a time—there are fewer unemployed people than ever before, there are more people in paid employment than ever before, the New Zealand labour force is bigger than ever before, more women are employed than ever before, and more Māori are employed than ever before. The good news just keeps rolling out. Meanwhile, the National Party wants to bring back Work for the Dole.
Russell Fairbrother: What reports has he seen on the number of Māori in paid employment since Labour became the Government?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There is just more good news. I am delighted to report that there are more Māori in paid employment than ever before. Māori unemployment is down to just 7 percent. That is a huge improvement. When National was in Government, Māori unemployment was at 18.6 percent. That is another example of New Zealanders being better off under Labour.
Housing—Auckland Region
9. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Has he read the report Housing Supply in the Auckland Region 2000-2005 prepared for Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Centre for Housing Research; if so, what is his Government’s response to its observation that “A number of factors have constrained supply. One of these has been a limited supply of land. Another contributor has been difficulties in the consents process, especially its time consuming nature”?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes, I was briefed on the report by its author, Dr Grimes, prior to its publication, and I noted its support for our Hobsonville project, which is opposed, of course, by John Key and the National Party. The Auckland metropolitan urban limit has already been moved five times since 1999. I am also advised by the Ministry for the Environment that it is currently working with a number of councils to help improve the speed of their consent processes. As I have stated a number of times, the Government is not opposed to adjustments to the urban metropolitan limit, but these must be well planned and should not lead to endless, sprawling suburbs with their inherent transport and infrastructure costs.
Phil Heatley: What changes to the Resource Management Act is he promoting to the Minister for the Environment in order to improve housing supply, given that his own report states: “The RMA process needs a revamp.”?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Ministry for the Environment has staff working at the moment with a number of territorial authorities around New Zealand to improve the processes under the Resource Management Act. It is really simplistic to say that gutting the Resource Management Act will solve the problem. It will not. It is about the capacity of local government, and this Government is helping.
Dave Hereora: What reports has the Minister seen about reactions to proposals floated at the weekend to gut the Resource Management Act and abolish metropolitan urban limits?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have received uniformly negative reports. The Taranaki Daily News said that Mr Key had “offered platitudes and vagaries, political smoke and mirrors. And you can’t buy a house with that.” A Christchurch city councillor, Bob Parker, said that scrapping city limits is simplistic and short-term thinking. The Nelson Mail asked how Mr Key could square gutting the Resource Management Act with his supposed new commitment to the environment. And, more of the same, the National Party’s housing policies were recently described in the Waikato Times as mischievous and illogical.
Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that in order to address the current housing affordability crisis both the supply of, and demand for, housing must be addressed; if so, has he had any discussions with the Minister of Immigration regarding the issue of housing affordability, given the huge impact that immigration has had on the demand for housing, especially in the Auckland region?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I agree that the Government needs to provide leadership, and we are doing so with a number of initiatives. I continue to talk with my colleagues to see how we can enhance issues like the Welcome Home Loan scheme and the development of greenfield sites, like those at Hobsonville and Weymouth, in order to provide affordable homes for people to rent.
Sue Bradford: Has the Minister read the submissions from Local Government New Zealand and the Wellington City Council to the housing affordability inquiry this morning, which state that there actually is enough land within our major urban areas for our growing housing needs for at least the next 15 years; and does he agree that encouraging urban sprawl will only create higher costs in infrastructure, without necessarily ensuring that new housing is any more affordable?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have not yet read the Wellington submission, but I agree with the member when I think about what happens in Auckland. In Auckland, the current metropolitan urban limit contains 1,500 hectares that currently are not in housing development, and if current applications that are being put in are successful, we will have housing supply available until 2022, based on current demand.
Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Is the Minister aware of the conclusions in the Housing Supply in the Auckland Region 2000-2005 report that South Auckland housing stress is likely to be a continuing feature, with high occupancy rates staying at around 3.6; and when can the mainly Māori and Pasifika families in the greater Manukau community expect to see a specific plan that responds to their desperate need for housing?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I certainly agree with the member that Auckland is suffering housing distress, as is every large urban centre in similar circumstances in countries such as Australia, the UK, Canada, and elsewhere. But this Government is committed to providing affordable housing for ordinary people. We are not interested in simplistic slogans and clichés. What we are looking at is providing opportunities for people. We have already had almost 3,000 people access the Welcome Home Loan scheme. We are doing major developments like that at Hobsonville, which will provide 3,000 homes, with 15 percent being for first home buyers. There are lots of initiatives going on. Most of all, of course, we did not sell 13,000 State houses like National did.
Dr Pita Sharples: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question related to the Manukau community, not the communities he talked about.
Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister addressed the question, but if he wants to add anything, he has an opportunity to do so.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: One of the major areas where the Housing New Zealand Corporation has been developing its rental stock, making up for the 13,000 houses that were sold under National—7,000 have been built since we came back into Government—is the South Auckland area. Many are in that area. One-third of our tenants are of Māori origin, and one-third are Pacific peoples. As far as providing affordable rental accommodation in Manukau City is concerned, we have a proud record.
Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister said the Government had built 7,000 State houses. He might like to correct that figure, because I have answers to my written questions that state he has leased at least half of those houses. So that figure is misleading.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not want to go through previous rulings. That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Has the Minister read the research on Māori housing trends, which states that despite low and declining homeownership rates of less than 50 percent, most Māori have a strong desire to own their homes, but that “housing policy responses have been inconsistent and uncoordinated between delivery agencies.”; and when will a Māori housing strategy be implemented?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes, I have read the report, and am working closely with my Associate Minister of Housing, the Hon Dover Samuels. We are looking at ways in which we can speed up the delivery of housing for Māori people in rural areas. One of the big issues is the provision of skilled people; builders, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and so on. Figures that Mr Maharey just gave to the House during the previous question showed that many New Zealanders are in work. That has created an absolute skills shortage in rural areas, and that is something we are trying to address.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he recall his answer in the House of 27 June 2007, when he said: “I have been concerned for some time that progress on Māori housing has not been as rapid as it could have been. Some very significant announcements to speed this up will be made in the next few weeks.”; and given that it has been 7 weeks since that statement, on what date will he make those “significant” announcements?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I do recall those words, and an announcement is coming very soon.
Phil Heatley: What streamlining of the Building Act is he promoting to the Minister of Building and Construction to improve housing supply, given that today’s Local Government New Zealand submission to the affordability inquiry states: “Requirements for councils under the Building Act add increased complexity and requirements to the consent process, increase costs and potentially lengthen the processing times. Councils expect the situation to worsen.”?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: What a fascinating question from a representative of a political party that deregulated the building code and created leaky homes! I am working closely with my colleague the Minister for Building and Construction to ensure that New Zealand consumers never again have leaky homes, which were caused by the National Government.
Phil Heatley: Does the Minister agree with his own report, and with the submission of the Reserve Bank to the affordability inquiry, which states: “Land availability, planning regulations, and construction prices have influenced the cost of supplying houses in recent years.”; if so, what is he doing about land availability, planning regulations, and construction prices?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I agree that a whole range of issues affect housing prices, but I stand in the House proud to be a member of a Government that is ensuring that consumers never again have leaky homes, which is what happens when one guts regulations.
Phil Heatley: Why is he steadfastly refusing to promote fixing the Resource Management Act, refusing to promote streamlining the Building Act, not freeing up more land, and not boosting trade training in schools, when everyone else agrees with John Key that these initiatives would help those families struggling to buy their first home?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: That is an interesting question from a member of a party that abolished apprenticeships! The Labour Government is committed to providing—
Madam SPEAKER: Be seated. Would the House please settle. Would the Minister now address the question.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Labour-led Government is committed to providing affordable and decent homes for all Kiwis. That is why we brought in income-related rents, that is why we created initiatives like the Welcome Home Loan scheme, that is why we are providing greenfield sites like that at Hobsonville, and that is why we brought in Modern Apprenticeships—so that we can create craftspeople to build those houses. This Government has a proud record in housing.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Government’s own report criticising the Resource Management Act and recommending sensible land—
Document not tabled.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Local Government New Zealand submission criticising the Building Act—just like John Key suggests.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Council of Trade Unions report demanding more trade training in schools.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Reserve Bank’s submission agreeing with all this, as well.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table John Key’s speech, which appears to have the backing of everyone.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On another matter, which we canvassed before, I want to know from you the avenues that I can pursue. I know that Chris Carter has not built 7,000 State houses; I know for a fact that he has leased up to at least one-half of them. How do I address that, because that is misleading the House?
Madam SPEAKER: The member is asking the Speaker to rule on matters that, obviously, she cannot do under the Standing Orders. The member has many avenues available: doing research, writing letters, asking written questions, and asking oral questions.
Outdoor Recreation—Families
10. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Conservation: What is the Government doing to encourage Kiwi families to enjoy the great outdoors?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): Last Sunday, at the start of Conservation Week, I announced that it will be free for children and teenagers under 18 to stay in Department of Conservation huts and campsites on the eight Great Walks and the Whanganui Journey, fulfilling a key recommendation of the New Zealand Recreation Summit that I convened last September at Te Papa. For a family of four, this will bring the cost of a 3-day tramp on the Abel Tasman Coast Track down by a third, to around $180. The savings are even larger on the more expensive Great Walks like the Milford Track.
Steve Chadwick: What benefits does the Minister think will result from access for Kiwi families to these Great Walks?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: There are many benefits from greater recreational use of the conservation estate. We want to encourage young people to switch off the PlayStation and get active in the great outdoors, which will help to reduce the growing problem of childhood obesity and adult obesity. We want to provide affordable holiday homes for families to spend time together, especially now that workers will have an extra week of annual leave. We want to ensure that, as our country becomes more urbanised, young people continue to be able to experience our magnificent outdoors that helped to shape our national identity.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can he confirm that this Government put up the hut and camp fees in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, and in May 2007, so that in the example that he has just given, the cost for two adults and two children to do the Abel Tasman Coast Track was $126 in 1999, is $225 today, and will go up to $270 on 1 October this year, but, miraculously, 3 months before the election it will to drop to $180; is it not a symptom of electoral panic in the Government that it spends 8 years putting up the charges but 3 months prior to the election it drops them?
Madam SPEAKER: The member was given the courtesy of asking his question in silence. Now would the Minister please reply and would other members please enable the rest of us to hear.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can confirm that it will now be free for children under the age of 18, because this Government is absolutely committed to getting as many New Zealanders out as possible to enjoy the conservation estate. We are taking active steps to ensure that New Zealanders can access recreation. This week is Conservation Week, and the theme of Conservation Week this year is “recreation”.
Metiria Turei: Is it one of this Government’s initiatives for promoting the great outdoors to under 18-year-old Kiwis, for all the great reasons that he has talked of, to send them into conservation groups such as the Save Happy Valley Coalition as paid informants to spy on other under-18-year-olds as they and their great spotted brethren enjoy the great outdoors?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: The only people whom Department of Conservation staff will be spying on are people who are doing naughty things like fishing in marine reserves, and so on.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the report of 8 February 2001 in which the Government announced an increase in hut passes.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the report of 30 September 2002 announcing an increase in all mountain hut fees.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the report of 22 January 2003 announcing an increase in all Department of Conservation campsite fees.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the report of 17 August 2004 announcing an increase in fees on all Great Walks.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the report of 7 May 2007 announcing that all Department of Conservation fees on the Abel Tasman Coast Track would go up by 20 percent.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Question No. 3 to Minister
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I seek leave of the House to ask one further supplementary question of the Minister of State Services, regarding the question previously asked, in addition to our allocation.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Gerry Brownlee: When was the Minister of State Services told that David Benson-Pope had expressed an opinion to Mr Logan on the employment of the communications manager?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I was told on Wednesday, 25 July.
Work and Income Offices—Safety of Clients
11. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What actions, if any, are taken to protect Work and Income clients who visit Work and Income offices?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): All Work and Income sites have permanent security guards deployed and CCTV installed. Intruder and duress alarms have been installed, and all staff have received relevant security training. These measures overall are an attempt to create a safe environment for both staff and clients.
Judith Collins: Does the level of protection offered to clients of Work and Income extend to offering protection to fugitives fleeing from justice?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can only imagine that the member has a particular case in point, and if she puts that specifically perhaps I can try to answer it for her.
Judith Collins: Why, on 30 July this year, did the manager of Work and Income in Papatoetoe use Work and Income premises to hide a person who had smashed up property in the town centre, then let that same person out the back door to prevent his apprehension?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If the member has facts of that kind, I urge her to give them to me and I will investigate them immediately.
Judith Collins: Is the Minister now telling the House that he is not aware that at a meeting yesterday the manager of Work and Income in Papatoetoe refused to cooperate with the police and stated that anyone entering Work and Income premises is presumed to be a client and deserving of protection?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No. What I am confirming is that if the member has specific information that she wants to be followed up on, she should give it to me and I will do that immediately.
Jill Pettis: What is the Government doing to protect Work and Income clients from being forced into failed make-work schemes, being forced to pay market rentals for State housing, or having their benefits slashed so that they cannot afford to eat?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: An excellent question. If New Zealanders want to avoid those kinds of policies and at the same time see a continuation of the policies that have produced a lot of jobs, reduced the level of poverty in this country, and lowered the cost of rental properties, then they need to do just one thing, and that is to vote for Labour.
Judith Collins: What does the Minister say to the people of Hunters Corner, Papatoetoe who, when taking steps to protect their properties and apprehend perpetrators, then see a Government department actively assisting criminals to get away with that behaviour, and refusing to cooperate with the police?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: What I would say to the people of Hunters Corner is that on this side of the House we investigate such matters properly and make sure we get to the bottom of the situation rather than making insinuations of the kind the member has made. But if she has new information, she should give it to me and we will investigate it.
Judith Collins: Does the Minister not agree with me that what we have here is a public servant harbouring a criminal, facilitating that criminal’s escape, and turning a Work and Income office into some sort of Notre Dame type of sanctuary for criminals?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member, I know, has a legal background, I would imagine that what she actually knows is that there are allegations that need to be investigated. We will do that in the proper fashion and not in the kangaroo court that the member seems to want to create with her questions.
Great South Basin—Gas Exploration
12. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Associate Minister of Energy: When he told the House on 19 July this year that “a significant gas discovery in the Great South Basin … will actually help in terms of our thermal generation” and that he would “much rather have our existing thermal power stations fuelled by natural gas than by coal”, was he proposing that the gas from the Great South Basin be used at the Huntly Power Station; if so, how was he proposing it get there, given the lack of pipelines in the South Island and Southern Ocean?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy): It is unlikely that gas from the Great South Basin would ever be economic to use at Huntly for power generation.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister read the Government’s draft New Zealand Energy Strategy, which shows there is 4,500 megawatts of new renewable electricity generation available at less cost than liquefied natural gas; if so, why did he suggest to the House earlier that the main benefit of gas in the Great South Basin would be the replacing of coal at Huntly?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, of course I have. The answer to the second part of the question is that it is worth noting that the question put down on the Order Paper today was assembled from comments taken out of order and out of context from the ninth and sixth supplementary questions to question No. 4 on 19 July. The general thrust of what I was saying is that for the world environment it is much better to be using gas for generating electricity rather than either oil or coal.
Maryan Street: Can the Minister assure the House that appropriate environmental protections are in place in the development of the Great South Basin?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Yes. Under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 the operator of an offshore installation, such as a drilling rig or a production platform, will be responsible for the full costs of any oil spill response, clean up, and/or restoration activities.
Peter Brown: Does the Minister agree with me that if there is a sufficient find of gas in the Great South Basin—and it is recovered, of course—then it makes very good sense to establish a gas-fired power station down there for New Zealanders rather than to export the gas to some other country so that it can have a gas-fired power station?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: It is likely that if there were a significant gas find in the Great South Basin, it would be of such a scale that liquefied natural gas would be the most likely outcome, in which case any gas or oil found in the Great South Basin would be sold at world prices. We are much better to concentrate on the direct use of gas than on converting gas to electricity. I have to agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons that thermal electricity is vastly less preferable for the planet than the use of renewable resources. I remind the member that New Zealand is ranked third in the world in terms of the use of renewable resources for electricity generation.
Peter Brown: I thank the Minister for that answer, and ask whether he will agree with me that if there is a gas find of a sufficient quantity in the Great South Basin, then we can expect pipes to be installed and at least South Island New Zealanders to have gas-fired fires and cooking facilities; can we expect that?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: It is early days yet. The prospectivity of the Great South Basin is, apparently, very high by world standards, but it is also a very expensive field to develop. We will have to wait and see what the outcomes are, but I look forward to the developments, as I am sure the member does.
Bills
Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I move, That the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill be now read a third time. It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak to the third reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. This bill, which proposes to retain the commission until 2015, and revises its functions to support the future direction of the mental health sector, is a good indication of the Government’s wish to promote and protect the health and well-being of New Zealanders.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member trying to address the House. Courtesy is contagious, and we will all prosper if we keep within the Standing Orders.
Hon PETE HODGSON: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The bill is another positive step forward in the ongoing development of an efficient, innovative, and exciting mental health sector. In formulating the new functions of the Mental Health Commission the Government has been guided by public submissions, a desire to ensure clarity of roles between key agencies, and the need to establish a role for the commission that supports the Government’s objectives for mental health over the next 10 years. The commission’s focus has been tailored to ensure that the investment in the commission provides real benefits for the mental health sector. The commission will provide a voice for all stakeholders in this sector on the ongoing implementation of the mental health strategy, and it will provide an independent vehicle to ensure that that voice is heard by the Government.
The commission will be able to monitor the progress of the sector, facilitate dialogue, and work with service users, families and whānau, caregivers, providers, and key central government agencies to promote and support service development and best-practice models of care. To achieve this, the commission will consult with relevant stakeholders and will undertake and promote sound research, innovation, and best practice in mental health, consistent with the goals of Te Tāhuhu and the roles of other stakeholders.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Could members having conversations please have them quietly.
Hon PETE HODGSON: Although an important focus of the commission will be to identify the needs and aspirations of mental health service users and their families, it is important that the commission engage collaboratively with all relevant interest groups and endeavour to reflect a broad range of perspectives in its work. Balancing the risks of stakeholders will be a difficult act. Not all interests will align smoothly all of the time. However, the Government considers that it is vital to the future cohesion of this sector that the commission works to promote unity and collaboration in this sector.
Considering the support expressed by stakeholders in the mental health sector for the retention of the Mental Health Commission, and the important role the commission has played in supporting development in the mental health sector, the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill is important legislation that will allow the commission to continue to serve the mental health sector well into the future.
Finally, yesterday the Committee of the whole House approved a Supplementary Order Paper that amended the provisions for the appointment of commissioners in order to give the Minister the necessary flexibility to change commissioners in the next 6-month period for which incumbents are initially appointed by this legislation. This will ensure that there is a smooth transition in the governance of the new organisation, and I thank the House for its indulgence.
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): The National Party is of the view that the membership of the Mental Health Commission should not be rolled over for as long as is being proposed in this legislation, and we think its performance needs to remain under the close scrutiny of the Government and of Parliament.
As we travel around the country, it is becoming clear to us that all is not well in the provision of mental health services for families and those in need of mental health care. Even though the Government is spending $1 billion a year on mental health, many of those people are hard-pressed to tell us that the services for them, their family, and their family member with a mental health issue are any better, at all. It strikes us that in many parts of the mental health sector, there is not the drive to improve the services for families and individuals that we would like to see.
We think that so much more could be done for mental health in primary care. International survey after international survey has found that New Zealand general practitioners consider themselves among the least prepared to deal with mental health issues at a community, primary-care level. We think that so much could be done with the huge resources we have in the health sector to get those services improved, so that people know they can go to their family health centre and get mental health issues and addiction issues dealt with well by general practitioners and their staff who feel confident to provide that service for them. The reliance on services provided by hospitals is failing many of the communities and many of the families and individuals who face mental health issues every day.
It is not just the person with a mental health issue who is vitally interested in mental health services. As we travel around the country, we see that it is, in fact, the family members—the mums and dads, the brothers and sisters, and the people who try to care for those suffering from mental health issues—who feel incredible frustration with the services being provided in mental health. It would be fair to say that there are those who believe that the Mental Health Commission has done a good job in presenting and advocating for those with mental illness. There are those who would say that the Government has made some effort in its recent media campaigns to raise the awareness of mental illness and what can be done. But raising awareness is only one part of the equation.
The future of quality mental health services in New Zealand rests in primary care. It rests with an integrated service that brings together not only the health care but also the social care that can be provided in our community to the sufferers of mental illness. The drive to bring those services into primary care, which Dr Jonathan Coleman and Jo Goodhew will expand on in their contributions to this debate, will deliver a quality-improved service for New Zealand families. People should not have to rely on the remoteness of so many hospital-based services to get the care and support that they need. Our general practitioners and our nurses should feel that they are being properly supported and trusted to provide mental health services much closer to home and much closer to the needs of the community.
That really is where this bill and this Government are so lacking: there is no sense of vision, purpose, or future direction for mental health services in New Zealand. It is great to have endless vision, hui, and plans, as this Government has for everything. But equipping, trusting, and valuing our health professionals to provide an improved, quality service for mental health at a primary-care level much closer to home, integrated with social care, is where the future lies. In the next few months, New Zealanders will see a much better plan for mental health services, which will integrate and bring together health and social care for New Zealanders at a community level. That will provide a much more exciting vision for mental health services in New Zealand. Members will be seeing that in the next few months.
So the National Party is very clear. We think the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill should not extend the life of the commission as far as is proposed. We have some issues about how that collaboration might work, and many people have expressed that to the select committee. We will be continuing to monitor the performance of the Mental Health Commission. But, more important, rather than talk about how much money has gone into the system or how much money is being spent on an advertising campaign, we will continue in our efforts to put the focus on what is being done to future-proof mental health services to get them down into the community at the primary-care level, thereby integrating them with social care, so that we can leverage off the resources that we are spending on our health services in order to provide a much better future for those with mental illness, and, very importantly, a much better future for the families of those with mental illness, who are the people who carry most of the care responsibility for these people.
MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. I wish to develop further, perhaps, some of the points made by the previous speaker, Tony Ryall.
This bill represents a further step forward in the development of the mental health sector. It recognises that the environment has changed since the national mental health strategy was first published in June 1994. When Looking Forward: Strategic Directions for the Mental Health Services was published, the sector was in some turmoil, as evidenced by the establishment of the Mason inquiry in late 1995. The mental health sector has matured since then, and the roles of the commission in the mid-1990s can safely be refocused. For example, there has been substantial progress made in the development of the mental health and addictions workforce, and I will make some comments about that workforce in the first instance, before moving on to a specific thing that I wish to cover.
Collectively, the ministry, district health boards, and non-governmental organisations are working towards developing a mental health and addictions workforce that has the knowledge, the skills, and the attitude required to deliver the services that New Zealanders need. The ministry is leading the implementation of Tauawhitia te Wero—Embracing the Challenge: National Mental Health and Addiction Workforce Development Plan 2006-2009. The ministry’s funding of workforce development initiatives is aligned with the District Health Boards New Zealand’s sector-wide workforce action plan. A nationwide structure has been established, through which workforce initiatives are delivered, and this structure is primarily based on four non-governmental organisations.
There is Te Pou, the National Centre of Mental Health Research and Workforce Development, which has a work programme that addresses areas such as worker competencies, national training needs, recruitment, and service development. There is Te Rau Matatini, which has a focus on increasing the responsiveness of services to the needs of Māori, while also promoting careers in health and mental health as rewarding careers for Māori. There is the Werry Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, which is located within the University of Auckland’s Department of Psychological Medicine, and which works to apply best practice to the skills development of providers of mental health services for New Zealand’s children and young people. There is Matua Raki, delivered by the National Addiction Centre at the Christchurch school of medicine and health sciences, which has a focus on the infrastructure for the development of a workforce for alcohol and other addictions. It has a commitment to research and evaluation, as well. The Ministry of Health also distributes funding for workforce training via the clinical training agency for post-entry clinical training and psychiatry training. Through its extension in this bill, the Mental Health Commission will be able to contribute to the workforce initiatives I have just referred to, and a statutory requirement for this is necessary.
I want to speak also about an issue that was raised in the course of the second reading of this bill. There was a degree of misinformation put forward by the Opposition about suicide and suicide statistics, and about efforts that have been made through the mental health workforce, and the mental health initiatives of this Government, to bring down the disturbing trend of suicides that we have seen in past years in this country. I would like to inform the debate with some facts, as opposed to the inaccurate assertions promulgated by the Opposition in this area, and a few facts will not go amiss.
The suicide rate in New Zealand for the years between 2002 and 2004, for example, for which we have the statistics, has decreased by nearly 20 percent from that of 1996 to 1998—by 19.6 percent, in fact, in case people think I am exaggerating by rounding the figure up to 20 percent. It is true that males continue to have a higher suicide rate than females, with approximately three male suicides to every female suicide. It is also true that Māori suicide rates for both males and females are significantly higher than for non-Māori. But it is important to note that Māori suicide rates have decreased by 17.9 percent—or by about 18 percent—in the early 2000s from those recorded in the late 1990s. Similarly, the very significant male suicide rate has decreased by nearly 23 percent since the late 1990s. The female rate of suicide also remains less than before, although there has been some levelling off of that rate of improvement.
The previous speaker referred to the need for mental health services to consider the needs of families. That is absolutely right, and that is a commitment and a direction for the Labour-led Government in the delivery of mental health services. So the kind of unsubstantiated nonsense that we have heard in this area from the other side of the House needs to be refuted not only by facts but by the spelling out of the initiatives taken in recent times—
Dr Jonathan Coleman: Like what?
MARYAN STREET: —as in workforce development, which I have just outlined, I say for those opposite who have not heard anything—that have been instrumental in delivering a wider range of mental health services to those people in need and their whānau in recent years. We now have a very committed workforce. I repeat a point I made earlier: at the opening of the acute unit at Waitakere Hospital recently, when I asked about the hospital’s staffing levels I was told that the hospital was at its lowest level of turnover ever, that it had the lowest number of vacancies in many, many years, and that the resources that had gone into producing that result—so that the hospital was able to care for people in our communities who had mental health issues and problems, and who needed assistance and support in an acute unit for some time—had increased almost immeasurably, certainly by comparison with previous years. I look forward to the participation of the Mental Health Commission in the continuing improvement of services for mental health service users and their families in this country. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki): I rise to join other National Party MPs in supporting the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. We have taken this opportunity, as has been brought up by the member opposite, to add our own particular views on the way mental illness is dealt with in this country. Although this bill gives the Mental Health Commission the opportunity to review the way it operates, given that we had submissions both for and against the continuation of the bill, now is a good time to reflect on just how well mental illness is addressed in this country.
We know that the commission’s role is now slightly altered. When we outline that role, we see that it is around advising and reporting to the Minister on the implementation of the national mental health strategy, promoting and facilitating collaboration and dialogue about mental health issues, and advocating for the interests of people with mental illness and for those of their families generally. That too is the role of a local constituency member within an electorate. I find that I speak with organisations that look to address not only the needs of those who are mentally ill and their families but also the needs of the organisations—the organisations and the families. I have had occasion to meet with groups in the last 20-odd months. I have also had occasion to talk to the families of those who believe they have not been well served by the health sector.
We know that about $1 billion is spent on mental health in this county. I was at a meeting recently where a large group of people asked: “Why is the district health board not funding some counselling services? Why is the district health board not funding some of the low-level services that may well stop people deteriorating into a higher level of mental illness?”. The district health board said, quite plainly: “Because we cannot. We are prohibited from using the blueprint funding for counselling services, because that is simply not what that money is for.” But that does not get around the heartache of the people who see their family members or loved ones descending into a state of desperation or suffering from depression.
I mentioned the rates of depression in the second reading debate, and I will mention again that up to one in four women and one in 10 men can expect to become clinically depressed at some point in their lives. I think that is an understanding that New Zealanders are coming to very gradually, and in understanding that particular fact we also increase, I believe, our understanding of those people. Hopefully, we will reduce the discrimination in the community against those with mental illnesses and those who suffer from depression. I am happy to say that there are fewer people out there now who say to someone suffering from depression: “Pull yourself together. Come on. Get a decent night’s sleep. Pull yourself together.”, because it is not like that.
There are a number of different forms of depression. I know that some district health boards are putting money into trying to monitor the occasions of post-natal depression in women who suffer from it. I know that that has been very much a hidden illness in society for many years. This is not just about third-day blues. It is not just about feeling a bit low because one is short of sleep. Post-natal depression is very, very real for those who suffer from it.
The World Health Organization has predicted that by 2020 depression will be the second-highest cause of ill health and disability in the world. That is a phenomenal statistic to hear. So what are we doing in this country? We are spending $1 billion or more on mental health, but we are actually doing that for roughly the top 3 percent of New Zealanders who suffer from significant mental illnesses. There are a lot of people who still feel that their needs are not being met—like the lady who came to my office and said that her husband had committed suicide after being in a unit at the local district health board. He was sent home, despite the fact that she pleaded with the staff and said he was not well enough to go home. Of course, the ultimate tragedy was that he went home and committed suicide.
All is not completely well within the mental health sector, but we know that it is a lot better than it used to be. The Health Committee made some comments about wanting to ensure that addictions were covered within the Mental Health Commission. We recommended that an addiction advisory group be established to provide expert advice to the commission. Certainly, as New Zealand’s number of addictions, or the types of addictions and the number of people suffering from them, continues to grow, this is an area that we must give the due interest and the due concern that it deserves.
In speaking in the second reading debate, I noted my concern about the number of masters that the Mental Health Commission has. Those masters include the Ministry of Health, the district health boards, the mental health service funders, the providers, those with mental illnesses, their families and caregivers, and also groups representing the interests of people with mental illness, their families and caregivers. There are not a lot of people who do not fit into one of those groups. They are quite a diverse bunch of masters, so I am sure the Mental Health Commission’s job is not a simple one. But I also hope the Mental Health Commission reflects on the submissions that we received that said they would rather the commission did not continue and that we did not renew or amend the bill to have a continuation of the Mental Health Commission. I hope it reflects on that and looks at why it was not meeting the needs of those people.
I will make just one other comment, and that is to talk about a group in my electorate that is working very, very hard and very, very well to meet the needs of those who have a severe mental illness. This is a group called the Victoria House Trust. It is a caring landlord service for those with mental illness. This caring landlord service helps people who experience mental illness to go into rental accommodation. The trust pays the rent on behalf of the person, and also the power and phone bills. Those are the sorts of things that can worry someone who has a mental illness—turning on the power, then having to pay the power bill. The trust supports those people very, very well within that particular arrangement—so well, in fact, that eventually some of these people are able to go into accommodation without having the caring landlord service. In speaking on this particular bill, I just wanted to put forward my thoughts about that organisation. It does a fabulous job in South Canterbury, in Aoraki, and I think that other areas of the country would be well served if it were happening there, too.
In conclusion, I just reiterate that this is a turning point for the Mental Health Commission. We have changed slightly the way it operates. We are now giving it an opportunity to continue to grow and to meet the needs more ably than it has done in the past, with those many masters, and now that opportunity has arrived as the commission looks forward to the future.
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the third reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. As others have outlined, the purpose of this bill is basically to extend the term of the commission to 2015 and to make some amendments to the commission’s role. New Zealand First believes that these are very positive steps forward for the mental health sector. There is a role in New Zealand for the Mental Health Commission, and it is a very valuable one.
We in New Zealand First are aware that the demand for mental health services increased dramatically after the very successful television campaign that starred John Kirwan. This campaign would not have occurred without the assistance or the support of the Mental Health Commission. More people now are aware of depression. They now know what they can do, and most important, who they can go to for assistance. That was outlined in an article in the New Zealand Herald. It reported that since the advertisements were run, a ministry helpline was fielding between 50 and 300 calls a day from people who were concerned about their mental health. That was a very significant step forward. It was an excellent initiative that has helped to destigmatise a condition that many New Zealanders suffer from.
In New Zealand First we were pleased to see that the life of the commission is to be extended to 2015. We believe that the commission will now be able to plan the most effective ways to get the greatest benefits for service users and the mental health sector. We believe that in 2015 there should be a thorough review of the commission so that we can be sure it has achieved the objectives it set. We know it is very difficult to implement anything of any great weight with a 3-year deadline looming over the head of any commission, and we know too that uncertainty does not produce a results-orientated culture or organisation.
The longer term the commission now has gives it an opportunity to liaise with parent groups and to solve the apparent conflict that has arisen between these two groups. We heard about that during the select committee process. The commission does need to work with parents if it is to be successful in its function, as stated in the bill, of advocating for the interests of people with mental illness and their families. It is not good enough for any commission to be at variance with parents, who are one of the most important interest groups.
It was a real concern that during the submission process, and afterwards, parents said they could get absolutely nowhere with the commission. They said the commission was ideologically captured to the extent that it believed everyone was able to recover from a mental illness, and that all mental health patients could live quite successfully in the community or at home with their families. We were given examples that were very sad. Some people were actually living in fear for their own safety. Their lives had been totally altered by a family member who had a mental illness. The commission’s statement to parents that recovery from severe mental illness is possible was not assisting them in any way. There are a lot of tragic examples, which we read about in the newspapers—fortunately, not regularly—of mental health patients who have created havoc in the community and at home, and are not aware of what they have done or even why they have done it. So it is sad.
We believe it is absolutely essential that the Mental Health Commission reassesses its role with this very important stakeholder group and realises that, really, parents are working at the forefront and coping every single day in a very stressful and quite lonely environment. We do not believe that parents’ views can be dismissed as lightly as they have been in the past, nor can their concerns. New Zealand First looks forward to the commission rectifying the situation that has developed, and we believe it should be a very high priority. It has time to put it right and it does need to do so.
Perhaps the commission could be proactive on this front and involve a parent representative. Other organisations have parent representatives, and there is no real reason why the Mental Health Commission should not. There does need to be somebody who can advocate for parent’s interests and who understand the stresses and strains parents have as they cope on a daily basis. We will be very interested to see what occurs, as the bottom line is that a Government commission cannot work in isolation and on a totally different tangent from one of its important stakeholder groups. So we will be looking forward to some improved feedback on this aspect of the commission’s work.
The growth of various addictions in the community is a challenge, and those issues are increasing. Along with the latest addiction of telephoning psychics to hear what the day may hold, there are gambling and alcohol issues, so the range of addictions is expanding quite rapidly. An addiction advisory group, and even, perhaps, an addiction commissioner, now may be able to be considered in light of the longer term that the commission actually has.
Like many others in this House I must say that I have appreciated the work the Mental Health Commission has assisted with: the confidential forum for former inpatients of psychiatric hospitals; its comments earlier in the year on acknowledging the high level of risk of electroconvulsive therapy as a treatment; its call to protect the rights of mental health service users; and the call for advanced directives where people can specify what treatments they do want and what they do not want to receive in the event that they become incompetent. So some good work has been completed.
We believe there is a very important role for the Mental Health Commission, and it is essential that it meets the many functions that are directly attributed to it, and, most important, that it does not isolate any of the stakeholder groups. It is only by working together that it will achieve the most for all its stakeholders. So New Zealand First is supporting this bill, and we look forward to further developments in this very important mental health area.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party, like other parties in the House, is extremely pleased to support this Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. I think it really is, in a sense, a testimony to the Mental Health Commission, and to our confidence in and support for it, that we are extending its term. The commission was originally set up in 1998 for 5 years, and we are now extending that term until 2015.
This is a brief bill, and we did not hear many submissions on it, but most of the submissions we heard were extremely positive about the Mental Health Commission. I think that in reviewing the performance of the commission—which the submissions involved—not many organisations could have come under the scrutiny that the Mental Health Commission had with such overwhelming support. The commission has performed an incredibly valuable role, and that role is widely acknowledged. Not only does the commission monitor the implementation of the national mental health strategy but it has played a very key role as an advocacy voice that speaks out on behalf of people with mental illness.
I think that the previous speaker was expressing concern, and the concern of some submitters, about the approach taken by the Mental Health Commission—namely, the assumption it makes that people can recover from mental illness. I am incredibly glad that the Mental Health Commission takes that approach. I do not wish to be Pollyanna-ish about this but to thank God the commission does that, because it would be very depressing if it took the other approach and assumed that people could not recover from mental illness. I think we need to reflect upon the not-so-recent treatment of people with mental illness, and the assumption not so long ago that people could not recover from it. The consequence of that approach was that we locked people away—we kept them under lock and key. We had them tied up, we administered electric shocks to them without anaesthetic, and we generally treated them almost as though they were animals. We locked them away, and we did not want to know about them. Any of us can read in Janet Frame’s compelling novels about the hideous treatment that was meted out to persons suffering from mental illness.
So I thank God that we have changed radically our attitudes to people with mental illness. I echo the sentiment of others about the incredibly valuable work the Mental Health Commission has done in its campaigns to reduce the stigma of mental illness, and I thank God, when we look back now at how persons with mental illness were treated, probably only a decade ago, that we can really recognise how much society has improved and how much our attitudes have changed in that respect.
We also need to recognise that the Government has poured a lot of money into mental health. The Opposition has said that we are not getting results from that, because one in five New Zealanders still suffer from mental illness. That is a very daunting figure—one in five New Zealanders suffer from mental illness.
Judy Turner: Over a lifetime.
SUE KEDGLEY: One in five over a lifetime; nevertheless, in my view that is still a very depressing or concerning figure. We need to think about what is causing such a relatively high degree of depression and mental illness in society, but we also need to recognise that we will not be able to change that figure overnight. If people have grown up in families where they have been abused—in dysfunctional families or violent families—and they suffer mental illness as a result, even with all the counselling and help in the world it may take them many years to recover. We need to acknowledge that, and we should not expect that somehow just throwing a bit of money at the problem will be like waving a magic wand and solving the problem of mental illness.
We also have to acknowledge the underlying issues, particularly the hopelessness and helplessness that many people feel, which are often exacerbated by poverty. Some of the parties in this House, such as the National Party, need to reflect upon the fact that poverty and the growing gap between rich and poor lead to feelings of hopelessness and helplessness, which in turn contribute to mental illness. There is a vicious cycle there. It is not just a matter of throwing more money at the blueprint; we really have to deal to the underlying causes of mental illness, particularly poverty, the growing gap between rich and poor, dysfunctional families, and violence in our society if we are to really try to reduce the very depressing figures about the number of us who have mental illness.
Finally, I also say that, yes, we have strengthened and slightly changed the role of the commission. I am particularly pleased that we have given the commission the power to be able to report, at any point that it wishes, on any issue relating to mental illness. That is the really valuable thing about independent commissioners like the mental health commissioners or the Children’s Commissioner. They can speak out, they can raise their voices, they can report to Parliament, and they can raise issues with an independence that is rarely found in the Government, for various reasons.
The Green Party is very, very supportive of the independent role of the commission. We see that as something of a role model, and would like to see more independent commissioners, because we think the Children’s Commissioner and the mental health commissioners—and in particular the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—have played an incredibly valuable role, especially in acting as advocates in their areas and in monitoring the implementation of strategies. We know that we have thousands of strategies, but if we do not have somebody who independently monitors the implementation of those strategies, they are worth little.
In summary, we strongly support the commission. We think the review that has taken place, which has resulted in our extending the term of the commission until 2015, is a vote of confidence in the commission. The staff and the commissioners can all feel very proud of the commission’s work, and of the fact that it has gained the overwhelming support of the community and this Parliament for its work. We look forward to its continuing successful work in changing attitudes and monitoring the implementation of the strategy until 2015. Thank you.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker; tēnā tātou katoa. Today is an extremely significant day to be passing the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill into law. Today, 9 August 2007, is the thirteenth commemoration of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People. It is an important day on which to acknowledge the clear link between mental health and well-being and the strength and resilience of indigenous families and communities—a link that our indigenous brothers and sisters acknowledged long before this bill came into the House.
As I thought about the significance of this bill on this day, I came across a passage from around 1,000 AD in a founding document of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy. Its statement is based upon the principles of peace, equity and justice, power, and the health of the good minds, so the founding authority has this to say: “When you sit and counsel for the welfare of the people, think not of yourself, your family, nor even your generation. Think of the future generation, so that they will enjoy what you enjoy today. This will ensure peace and health for your generation.” Those words are as relevant today as they were 1,000 years ago, and we cannot disconnect responsibilities to the present generation or future generations of our people. So the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill is an important measure towards supporting the mental health and well-being of peoples and their families generally.
The bill extends the expiry date of the commission from the end of this month to 31 August 2015. Like the Greens, we are delighted that the life of this commission has been given another reprieve. The commission has the unique capacity to be able to provide us with the objective report-card we need on mental health and well-being in Aotearoa. If one thinks of the demands that are made on the mental health status of this country, even just in this last month, one sees that there is no doubting the need for this watchdog body.
The roll call is rather staggering, actually. We have received the report of the confidential forum into the experience of former patients at psychiatric hospitals—a report that concluded there needs to be continued scrutiny of the mental health system. Just last week research was released indicating that work-related stress is a cause of clinical depression and anxiety amongst young adults. The latest findings from the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and developmental study, which has followed about 1,000 Dunedin-born people since their births in 1972, found that almost half of the cases of depression and generalised anxiety disorders newly diagnosed at age 32 were directly related to workplace stress and high job demands. Then there is the finding that 14 percent of the people whom the police have used Tasers on since the trial began in September last year had mental health issues or were suicidal.
These three entirely separate and distinct issues—psychiatric institutions, workplace stress, and Taser use—are but a taste of the full range of complex issues impacting on the mental health of New Zealand individuals and their families. I want to place a particular emphasis on whānau well-being and commend the fact that this amendment bill places a new priority on advocacy for service users and families. The voices of whānau in sharing their experiences of mental health services have often been lost from the record. The House may recall the John Kirwan scenario, in which a well-meaning friend told him to “just get over it”. I am told that at the Health Committee there were submitters who talked about the alienation they experienced and the sense of loneliness and desperation they felt, as it seemed that the health sector, or society in general, was telling them to “just get over it”. The Mental Health Commission has come right smack dead into this void. It has been able to look at and unpack what is happening in the mental health system—a quality that we desperately need.
I want to mention particularly the importance of quality services for tangata whaiora and their whānau. I believe it is critical that we do what we can to support the Mental Health Commission in providing leadership in the sector, and that the leadership will involve asking some very important questions for Māori. Why are Māori failing to access services? Why are there proportionately more Māori in acute services? What will this country do to address the high prevalence of mental illness and addictions amongst Māori? I understand that the commission has been prepared to tackle the hard issues before, and it must be supported to continue its vital monitoring role in guarding the mental health and well-being of Māori for this and future generations.
During the passage of this bill we have received a number of emails that underline the critical need for leadership in the recovery-based and whānau approach to mental health and addiction services. One consumer of mental health services highlighted the desperate association between poverty and well health. The email read: “I’m a chronic asthmatic sufferer, and when I look at the cost of my medication for both asthma and mental well-being it places me in a position of choosing whether I get my meds at $90 a fortnight each time or food for the fortnight.” How did we get to a position in this country where mental well-being and physical well-being are juggled and compromised by such basic needs as food for the table? Another person wrote in, reflecting on one of her kaumātua who had trained and worked as a nurse in a psychiatric hospital. She recalled: “You never ever believed Māori had mental illness. He said it became a stigma placed on people because no answers could be found at the time. My mind always goes to his whakairo when the word ‘mental’ is used for Māori.”
The comments are not just from people who can “just get over it”; they have come from users, from workers, from consumers, from whānau, and from tangata whaiora. The Mental Health Commission is ideally suited for being able to provide an independent voice that allows these concerns to be aired and for aspirations to be shared, as well. We are pleased, too, to recognise that the additional roles articulated in this legislation include the opportunity to nurture dialogue across the mental health sector.
I want to return to the examples I posed earlier in my speech in order to remind the House that a healthy environment for mental well-being is not just about psychiatric institutions and community care, vital as it is to ensure that these mental health services are supported to work together. A healthy environment is also about a mentally healthy workplace. The research from Dunedin reminds us that we all have a responsibility towards collective care. For example, employers should put in place support structures to ensure a positive, proactive workplace. We all have a role to play in supporting those who experience mental illness. The challenge of reducing stigma and discrimination is a key component in the journey to recovery and well-being—a challenge that the Mental Health Commission has played a vital role in promoting.
The Māori Party is proud to put its name to supporting legislation that will enable the voices of tangata whaiora and their whānau to be heard. We recognise the continuing need for an independent voice, and we support the Mental Health Commission in ensuring that people with experiences of mental illness can lead full and satisfying lives.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the third reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. I would like to support the comments of the speaker from New Zealand First, Barbara Stewart, and pick up on some of the issues she raised.
We need to make sure that all the stakeholders are catered for and all opinions are considered in this hugely important area. I recently heard this very interesting statement: “A just society should not just be measured by how it cares for the most vulnerable members but also how it attends to the concerns of those who support and care for vulnerable people.” I believe this is a challenge for the ongoing life of the Mental Health Commission. I am not on the Health Committee that heard the submissions, but I have certainly gathered that a number of submitters were family members of mental health patients, who were not happy with the performance of the Mental Health Commission. Parents spoke of their grave fears, during the process of deinstitutionalisation, concerning their children who were given to self-harm, or spoke of great fears about their children’s serious episodes where other people’s well-being was at risk.
I want to mention something historical, and it may be a challenge for the National Party, because in the last Parliament—
Hon Tau Henare: Oh, no!
JUDY TURNER: It is all right; just listen carefully. In the last Parliament a National member Dr Lynda Scott had a member’s bill that has not, to my knowledge, been picked up on by anybody in that caucus, and I think it should be found and looked at. Her amendment bill would have ensured the opinions of family members who were primary caregivers for mental health patients were listened to and considered in the treatment of patients. These people said they often felt they were used and abused in the system, yet were relied upon heavily. Lynda Scott had a very good proposal, which I would love to see somebody from the National side of the House recognise, pick up and advance, and put it into the ballot.
I believe that the commission needs to use this extension of time to better engage with families who feel both used and ignored, at times, by the health system. In fact, I suggest the commission needs to ensure that its representation reflects all those who are affected by mental health issues, and that includes families and support people. Although United Future is supporting this third reading, we believe that those who fear that the commission has been ideologically captured, and is a closed door to family stakeholders, need to be reassured that their voice, their expertise, and their contribution are valued and considered. Although moving to new models of care is positive, many families have fears and we should not be dismissive of their concerns or trivialise them.
After the second reading of the bill, a mother rang me and described her fears based on firsthand experience of being abused by her mentally unwell son. She feels she was not listened to, and is still not assured that her son is properly supervised and that other people are safe from harm by him. Speaking as someone who has personally supported mental health clients and has had them live in my home for extended periods of time, I know, firsthand, both the potential for a normal life that exists but also how quickly a person’s mental health can deteriorate and the carer can be desperate for back-up. I have also experienced firsthand being treated very badly by mental health professionals when trying to secure that help. I have been, at times, treated like the enemy in the situation; but the same people were very quick to ring me and ask me to come and pick the person up from hospital when he or she was ready to be discharged. My opinions, as the process deteriorated before my eyes, did not count one iota. This is the concern that people have. I believe it is something the Mental Health Commission needs to give more attention to.
United Future supports the work of the commission. It does some very fine work in an advocacy role, and we think this is a base that could be better covered. We encourage the commission with the extended time it has now been given to do such work.
SUE MORONEY (Labour): I am pleased to be able to speak to the Government’s commitment to the mental health sector at the third reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. I am very pleased that the bill has been dealt with in such a timely fashion by the House. The life of the Mental Health Commission was about to expire, so it was important that the Health Committee could progress the bill through all of its processes in a timely fashion. With the third reading of the bill today, the conclusion of that process is about to come about, and it is not before time.
The bill gives some certainty to the ongoing life of the commission, and it provides an opportunity for the commission to look at its functions as an important watchdog body and enhance those functions in this very important area of mental health. As many speakers have outlined already, mental health is an area in which the users are particularly vulnerable, so having a commission in both a watchdog role and an advocacy role is extremely important.
It is from that perspective that I raise concerns about the National’s Party’s view that the life of the commission should not be extended through to 2015. This Government thinks the role of the commission is very important, and we have no fear about having an independent watchdog body advocating for families and advocating for users of this service. We have no fear of that, but during the select committee process we detected that National was very nervous, perhaps, about the prospect of becoming the Government. That is a view that it holds—that it may well form the next Government. But there is good news for the rest of the country, though: National would not need to think about the issue until 2015, because this Government is extending the life of the commission until then. That change has been supported by the House, so it is just as well.
The National Party will probably not want to take over mental health services until 2015, at this rate. A party that stands on a platform of tax cuts, which must mean cuts to public spending, knows very well that that means the health sector will suffer the most from funding cuts. National members know that very well. They desperately would not want to be in the situation of cutting funding to health, which would therefore mean a cut to mental health funding, and having a watchdog body overseeing that so that it could report every single cut and its impact on users of those services and their families.
For people listening to this debate, that is a warning about the type of attitude that exists within the National Party in respect of the role it wants the commission to have. In fact, I think the first position National Party members came up with at the Health Committee was that of not wanting to see the commission exist beyond 2009; they wanted the life of the commission to expire at that point. They are supporting this bill, and I thank National members for doing so, but they did want to record their view in the report back from the select committee that the commission should not be in place for any longer than 3 years after the passing of this bill. But we are up to the third reading debate, and that means that, with the support of all the other parties in the House, this bill will become an Act. The commission will have its life extended and it will also have new functions.
I particularly want to speak on the new function of advocacy. The bill puts in place a position where the commission is going to have a function to discuss service user and family advocacy—that is one of the commission’s new functions. So giving a voice—
Hon Tau Henare: Stop reading your speech.
SUE MORONEY: Tau Henare seems to have taken exception to my view of the National Party and its intended cuts to mental health. I did not need to read anything about that, Mr Henare; I can see it written all over your face and your body language.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!
SUE MORONEY: I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do not mean your face, of course, but Mr Henare’s face. His body language says it all about his concern about what I have just exposed in respect of the National Party’s agenda.
Hon Tau Henare: Don’t expose yourself.
SUE MORONEY: No, no. The National Party has made it clear that it will cut taxes and it will, therefore, cut funding to the health sector. It is important, though, that the commission’s new functions allow a voice to be given to the views and concerns of the users of the mental health services, and that is a relatively recent phenomenon. In New Zealand the commission has articulated the voice of service users particularly well since its inception in 1996.
I take the opportunity to thank the commission for the good work it has done to date, even though there is a lot still to be done, particularly in this area of advocating for service users and their families. Even though the service user advocacy role that the commission has taken is not a function of the commission under the current Mental Health Commission Act, many submitters in the policy submission process raised this issue with us, and the Health Committee expressed strong support for this role. Many argued that the commission represented service users of mental health services in a way that had not occurred before the commission was established. They saw that as perhaps not giving the same value to the voice of families and whānau. But the wording in the bill is absolutely clear that it gives them equal status, so the commission is advocating for both the service user and his or her family or whānau.
The bill addresses the problem by extending the commission’s advocacy role to the families and whānau of mental health service users. So this is actually an advance in terms of responding to the issues that those submitters brought before us. This will often be a difficult balancing act, as not all the interests will align smoothly. However, the Government considers it to be vital to the future cohesion of the sector that the commission works to promote a balanced view of the issues facing the sector. The commission, in carrying out its advocacy roles, will identify and articulate the needs and aspirations of mental health service users as a whole, and of their families and whānau as a whole.
Notwithstanding the strongly held views of those who seek additional protection for the rights of service users, the commission will not act as an advocate for individuals or particular families. There are adequate mechanisms in place to discharge the individual advocacy function. The commission will have a valuable role in the mental health sector, to ensure that the voices of all of those who wish to be heard are heard. So it very important that we are able to extend the life of this commission through to 2015, not to expire it earlier as the National Party would have us do.
I thank all the parties in this House for supporting the third reading of this bill so that the life of the commission can be extended and we can continue to have a very strong watchdog and advocacy role in the mental health services. It is so important.
In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank not just those serving on the commission but those serving in our mental health services. It is a very difficult area for our workforce to be operating in, and I know that day-to-day dilemmas arise in those mental health service settings. By and large, people deal with those dilemmas professionally. They deal with those issues in the context of using the best resources that they have. We will always continue to have—and should continue to have—an ongoing debate in this country about the adequacy and the appropriateness of mental health services. It is my firm belief that the moment we do not have that debate is the moment we forget the people who need that service so desperately. Thank you.
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): Is that not disappointing? That was Labour’s last speaker on the third reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill, and all that speaker could do was talk about the National Party. She talked about the National Party for 7 minutes of a 10-minute speech. That was a great opportunity for Labour members to lay out what they are going to do in mental health, and I can say that that speech was enough to make a member want to read the Bills Digest for the second time in this session. It was very, very disappointing material. The first 7 minutes of that speech were about us, and the last 3 minutes were a recitation of what is in the bill, which we have heard again and again in this Chamber through the three readings and the Committee stage. There was no vision. There was a lot of talk about us, but what that member does not actually realise is that her own Minister of Finance will be cutting taxes well before the next election, and if she has not caught up with that yet, she really is well back on the backbenches.
We are supporting this bill. We have made that quite clear. There is some unanimity on this issue, and I think the select committee worked pretty well. But some real differences were exposed on the philosophy and the approach to mental health services. What we heard from Maryan Street before was an excuse for Labour’s poor performance in mental health over the past 8 years. It was a recitation of strategic plan, after hui, after workshop, after plan, and she said it was the answer in mental health. Well, we all know that this Government has spent a billion dollars a year on mental health. That is a 75 percent increase on what was being spent when it came into power. Has mental health got any better in that time? The answer, as Labour members actually admit, is no; it has not.
We now know that one New Zealander in five will experience symptoms of mental illness over the course of their lifetime. We know, according to the Ministry of Health, that people cannot get access to the services they need. We know that Māori cannot get access to the services they need. Young people, children, and older people are not getting access to those basic services. Were Labour members saying anything about this? No. All they had to say was that more and more money is going in, and they are very happy with the Mental Health Commission.
As I said yesterday, we know why that member did not agree with the idea of a 3-year review—because her own 3-year review within the Labour Party is coming up, and, basically, Labour members would be very happy to have their terms extended, with no review period. But that is not the reality of what we can do when we are spending public money. The Government is spending $1 billion a year, and the public needs to have some accountability.
We believe that the Mental Health Commission has a very real role to play—we have been quite upfront about that—but when we are spending massive amounts of public money we have to be able to review at regular periods how that money is being spent and whether the taxpayer is getting value for money. We are quite sure that if the Mental Health Commission continues to perform well it will have nothing to fear under a National Government, and that term will be extended. But it just seems natural and right that the Act should be reviewed at a date 3 years from the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent. So that is what we were in favour of. Unfortunately, we were not supported in that—be that as it may—and the term of the commission will be extended to 2015.
We want to see the commission hold this profligate spending Government to account. As in all other areas of the health sector, spending has gone up and up and the results have not improved at all. In fact, the whole health sector is in crisis. We have a Minister of Health who is on the ropes. He has no answers, and we are not hearing any answers at all from the Labour team. I hope the Associate Minister will take a call at the end of my speech and tell us what his team will do should, heaven forbid, they ever get another crack at power.
Hon Mita Ririnui: I’ll tell you something.
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I can tell Mr Ririnui what we are going to do. We are going to make sure that the money is spent in a way that delivers the services. We will actually deal with many more of these mental health problems within primary care. We will resource general practitioners properly, and we will give them access to specialists. The Commonwealth Fund health report, which Minister Hodgson constantly quotes at us—although, of course, he quotes selectively and only the good bits—said that New Zealand general practices do not feel equipped to deal with mental health problems. Fifty percent of them did not feel confident. We reckon that if we can give general practitioners the resources they need to do the job, a lot of these problems can be dealt with at the primary-care level.
Judy Turner from United Future made a very good point about the views of families, and that point came up again and again at the select committee. There was a great deal of concern amongst submitters that when they have a seriously ill family member, they are not part of the decision-making process. When we look at it, we see that 0.3 percent of the population suffer from a serious mental illness like schizophrenia, and, sad as it is, those illnesses have a very, very low recovery rate. What happens in our system now is that the burden falls back on the family, but the family is cut out of the loop. We heard stories about families who were never consulted about their family member’s treatment. They had no information. They felt positively excluded from the whole process, and we say that that is not good enough. We want to see the Mental Health Commission involving those families and making sure they are part of that decision-making process—that is what we want to see the commission do.
We heard from a number of submitters who wanted the commission disbanded because they did not feel it was serving the needs of families. The National Party says there is a role for that commission, but we want it to monitor the Government more closely and we want it to take the views of families into account. That will be absolutely vital.
So there are a number of areas in which the commission maybe could raise its game over the next few years, and that will be vital if we want to make some inroads into mental illness in New Zealand. The commission has done a very good job in helping destigmatise mental illness, as has been talked about before. The John Kirwan advertisements have gone a long way to bringing mental illness into the mainstream media and making people aware of a lot of those issues.
Hon Mita Ririnui: Good Government initiatives.
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: But one thing I wish the Labour members had taken the opportunity to speak on—and I am sure Mita Ririnui is absolutely bursting to get out of his seat to address this—is the issue of the Lake Alice Hospital patients and the 87 second-round claimants who secretly had $35,000 lopped off their compensation payment by a secret Cabinet decision. We caught Michael Cullen out on this in this House. He admitted that Cabinet had actually docked that money. We think that this Government, which is led by a party that professes to be the party of social justice and the party of the disadvantaged, should pay up. The Government has admitted that it owes $3 million. It has decided that it would not appeal the High Court judgment. It is time to pay up, I say to Mr Ririnui. I know that he is a man with a conscience and he is an honourable member. He has to tell the Attorney-General to get out the cheque book and sign that cheque.
We heard Labour members saying earlier that they were doing heaps for Māori mental health. I would like Mita Ririnui to get up and tell members what exactly this Labour Government has done for Māori mental health, because I can say that it is pretty much zero. The statistics are absolutely appalling. The Ministry of Health will tell us that Māori just cannot get access to the services they need. This Labour Government, which is under severe threat from the Māori Party, needs to raise its game for Māori, because nothing ever got better for Māori under a Labour Government. I know that the Māori Party will agree with that. I think that Te Ururoa Flavell made some very good points about Māori mental health earlier. It is an issue that needs attention.
Sue Kedgley’s contribution was interesting. She said that we need to look at issues of poverty and that the National Party, especially, needs to consider them. Well, I tell Ms Kedgley she might note that Labour has been in power for 8 years, and it is Labour’s economic mismanagement that has got us into the situation we are in now. So one can safely assume that as long as Labour holds those Treasury benches, nothing will improve.
In summary, National supports this bill. We feel we need to have accountability for spending. The amendment to review the legislation 3 years from the date of the Royal assent would have gone quite some way towards doing that, but as it is, the commission will continue. We will support its work, but we want it to keep on the back of Mita Ririnui and his Minister of Health. These guys are not doing the job for the mental health sector, and I can tell members that they are not doing the job for Māori in the mental health sector, either. The member needs to go back, speak to his Minister, and address some of these very real issues.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 8 August.
Clause 3 Principal Act amended (recommitted) (continued)
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to remind the Committee of the debacle we are in. In 2002, under urgency and with a Supplementary Order Paper, the Government set up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service to try to deal with the plight of thousands of New Zealanders stuck with leaky homes, a problem that the Prime Minister described as being paramount. Labour messed it up. It got it wrong. So in 2005 Clayton Cosgrove came into the House in a hurry and put a second bill through the House in order to fix the stuff-up that the Government had made in 2002. But the Government made a stuff-up in the fix-up on the stuff-up, and that is what we are trying to fix up with this bill.
Shane Jones: Boring!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, it is absolutely true. Mr Jones says it is boring, but I think that it is not boring. It is not boring for those 10,000 homeowners with leaky homes for whom, 5 years after this Government first said that it would fix their problem, the Government has solved only 15 percent of it—less than one in six cases. If Mr Jones is so heartless to think that it is boring, then I say that it is not good enough. I also say that it is not good enough that the Government tried once to fix it and stuffed it up, tried a second time to fix it and stuffed it up, and is now trying for a third time.
Let us remind ourselves of what we are actually doing here. We have already had a Committee of the whole House stage on this bill, and it went through to the third reading. But then the Government said: “Oops! We have made another stuff-up, so we will have to go back to the Committee stage to change the bill.” Not only did the Government do that but also it has had to suspend the Standing Orders—the rules of Parliament—to try to do this latest patch-up job. That is an extraordinary move. It is years since this Parliament has had to suspend its own Standing Orders, its own rules about how we process legislation, and we are doing it to try to correct this latest stuff-up.
Shane Jones: Parliamentary sovereignty.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Shane Jones says: “Parliamentary sovereignty.” Let me remind that member of Sir Geoffrey Palmer. This is what Sir Geoffrey Palmer calls unbridled power—that is, the Government tabled new legislation outside the scope of a bill only yesterday and it wants to bang it through as law today. Opposition members say that the Government told them that it had got the legislation right the first time, and it had got it wrong. Then the Government told them it had got the legislation right the second time, in a hurry, and it had got it wrong. The Government told Opposition members a third time that it had got the legislation right, and to trust it as it rushed it through. Opposition members say that as the Government has got it wrong three times, it does not deserve another chance. Members on this side of the Chamber say that owners of leaky homes deserve better.
Let me just point out to the Committee that the Government has spent $85 million of public money on the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. That works out at $111,000 per case that has been resolved. Do members know what the average settlement is for each case? The average settlement is $70,000. Hang on a moment, the Government is spending $111,000 on the bureaucracy of the process of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, only to provide the homeowner with an average settlement of $70,000. It would be cheaper, frankly, to write the cheque out and send it to the homeowner. I say to the Minister that rather than waiting for 5 years to get a resolution, we would have had some of these homes fixed.
I have to say that I do not know of any area that has resulted in as big a mess and as many bungles as we have seen from this Government, both on the issues with the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and with the building law. Of course, the Government has got right to the end of this process and said: “Oops, we’ve got another mess-up.” The Minister, having only just assured all the councils that they would be accredited by 30 November this year, suddenly changed his mind yesterday and said: “Oops, they are not going to make it.” What he wants to do is rush through an extra amendment to extend that through to 30 June next year.
Well, we simply say to the Minister that his bullying will not work. You see, it was a stupid provision to put in the law to say that no building consents could be issued until such time as a local authority was accredited. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui—who, I understand, is also an Associate Minister of Health—why it is, in respect of councils’ health responsibilities, that to try to get higher health standards they are not threatened with a withdrawal of their capacity to do their health functions if they do not do what the Minister says. We do not do it in health, we do not do it in resource management, and we do not do it in any other area, so why is it that Clayton Cosgrove, in the area of building law, wants to have this bullying power to say to councils that consents cannot be issued in their area? Is that a practical mechanism for driving quality?
Well, let us think of the consequence. Let us say that any council in New Zealand—for example, my own Nelson City Council—is prohibited from issuing consents. That would bring about absolute chaos, and so too for any other area. Over 80,000 building consents are processed each year. It should never have been in the law that councils could be stopped from being able to issue consents; that is punishing the community, not the councils. It should never have been at 30 November—that date will not be met.
The irony is this. I have been speaking just this morning to the Building Officials Institute of New Zealand. It has said that to meet the bureaucracy of this law and the Department of Building and Housing, all of the council building officials have had to respond to the demands of the department, rather than processing building consents. That means we have had record levels of building consents not being processed on time, with all the grief that that is causing.
Why does all this matter? Well, we are in the middle of a debate about record high home costs. With record high interest rates and record building costs, we are seeing homeownership rates deteriorate under Labour to their lowest level. Homeownership rates are at the lowest level for 50 years. They have dropped by 1 percent for every year that Labour has been in Government.
That is why John Key is right. In the keynote speech that he gave on the weekend, he said we need to sort out our building laws so that we are driving quality by the lowest-cost method, because—
Shane Jones: You created this problem.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Jones, the new member, says this is National’s fault. Well, I ask Mr Jones to explain this to me. Why is it that interest rates went down from 15 percent under National in 1990 to 6 percent, and since Labour has been in Government, from 1999 to now, interest rates have gone up to 10 percent? Does the Minister in the chair know that for the average house the cost of servicing a mortgage has increased threefold under this Government? This problem needs resolving, and not by these sorts of juggernaut techniques.
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I find it intriguing that we are talking about clause 3, “Principal Act amended”. We have seen in the course of this debate the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper that does not affect the principal Act, the Weathertight Homes Resolutions Services Act 2006, but the Building Act, which was passed in 2004. It is interesting to us that this Labour Government would introduce legislation to this Parliament that is right outside the Standing Orders, so that Parliament has to set aside its normal rules to deal with something that would normally go before a select committee and be well considered. Why has the Labour Government, in dealing with the leaky homes issue and the issue of hundreds and thousands of families across the country now being unable to afford their first home, dealt with that by rushing legislation through this Parliament without due consideration? I ask the Committee whether that is good process.
Hon Members: No.
PHIL HEATLEY: Committee members say that, no, that is not good process, at all. It is not good process, at all.
We have a situation here where some New Zealanders were so distraught, in 2001 and 2002, because their homes were leaking like sieves, that the Government rushed legislation through this Parliament. It gave them no practical help at all, so in 2004 the Government rushed through more legislation to fix what was wrong with its previous legislation from 2002. It rushed through a fix-up job in 2004. We are now debating another fix-up job in 2007, and the Minister sneaks in a Supplementary Order Paper—amendments that have not been considered by the Social Services Committee or the wider public—to fix up the fix-up that fixed up the fix-up. That is a sad state of affairs, indeed. If only the Government had considered the views of the building industry, of house owners themselves, of district councils right across this country, and of everyone who has been affected by the leaky homes crisis and the home affordability crisis, then today we would be considering good legislation.
I am going to say hello to the members of the House again next year, in 2008. I can almost guarantee that National will be here to fix this legislation, which is being rushed through the House. That is my concern. This is the third time that National members have stood here and challenged the Government to put up decent legislation that will help families in leaky homes and help families to buy their first home. We have been here three times now, and we will be here again next year. At least the Labour Party members are guaranteeing themselves a job. If they keep stuffing up, they will keep having legislation to fix, and they will keep turning up in their LTDs and collecting their pay.
But it is with distress that the National Party members are here, because we would really love to see solutions from Labour rather than see legislation piled upon legislation, piled upon legislation, piled upon legislation. District councils and city councils themselves have asked the Government not to accredit them and give them more regulations. They have asked the Labour Government not to stuff up the time frames that they have for giving resource consents and building consents to those who want to build their homes, because what then happens is that district councils have to pass the costs associated with that on to first home buyers. They have to pass tens of thousands of dollars of costs on to first home buyers, and first home buyers resent that. The legislation that the Government is passing forces district councils to raise the prices on first home buyers, and district councils do not like to do that.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I have a very important point of order, which I ask for your considered ruling on. The Minister has tabled not just Supplementary Order Paper 133 but also Supplementary Order Paper 134. I want you to reflect on the motion that was passed by the House to overrule the Standing Orders. The motion is to “permit the Committee of the whole House … to consider Supplementary Order Paper 133 relating to that bill …” . That motion relates to the suspension of the Standing Orders. The suspension of the Standing Orders is an extraordinary power of the Government. It says that the Government is going to throw out the normal rules of the House.
But the House agreed to throw out the rules of the House for the consideration of Supplementary Order Paper 133 only. The motion is quite specifically about Supplementary Order Paper 133. Then, early in the Committee stage, a ruling from Mr Robertson, a very competent Chair, said that in debating the recommittal of this bill we needed to debate Supplementary Order Paper 133, because in the motion that was moved by the Minister he said that we needed to recommit the bill for the purposes of considering that Supplementary Order Paper.
The ruling I seek from you, Mr Chair, is that it is not proper, within the instructions that we have from the House, for any consideration to be given to Supplementary Order Paper 134, and that it would be a breach of the processes of the House for us to consider any motions in respect of that Supplementary Order Paper.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If I could address the issues you have raised, Dr Smith, we have been dealing with two motions. The first, of course, was that in notice of motion No. 1 on the Order Paper. Then we moved to the motion to recommit, which dealt with the division of the bill. It dealt with Supplementary Order Paper 133 and the dividing of the bill, which is on Supplementary Order Paper 134, albeit the motion did not mention Supplementary Order Paper 134.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): If the Government wishes to suspend the Standing Orders in order for us to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134, that should have been in the Minister’s motion. The Minister’s motion is quite explicit; it refers only to Supplementary Order Paper 133. I cannot see that the Government has any wiggle room to now claim that we have to consider another Supplementary Order Paper of amendments, when the specific instruction from the House was that Standing Order 261 was suspended only for the purposes of considering Supplementary Order Paper 133.
I further point out to you that the suspension of Standing Order 261 is with regard to considering matters outside the scope of a bill. The matters covered on Supplementary Order Paper 134 are specifically outside the scope of the bill. That Supplementary Order Paper deals with issues that are now to be in the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill.
I think there has been an error by the Government. The proper process for the Government is to go back to the full House. If the Government wishes to continue to pursue this matter, we would need to consider a new motion from the Government to suspend the Standing Orders for the purposes of Supplementary Order Papers 133 and 134.
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour): In response to that, I make a couple of points. Firstly, my understanding is that the Committee of the whole House, which we are now in, has an inherent power to divide legislation. That is the first point I would like to make. Regardless of whatever the motion said that brings us to the point we are at now, that inherent power is held by the Committee of the whole House. Secondly, the recommittal motion does refer to the splitting of the bill, albeit it does not refer to the number of the Supplementary Order Paper, which is 134, and to which Dr Smith referred.
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National): We had considerable debate in this Chamber last night at the beginning of the Committee stage about exactly what we were able to debate in the Committee of the whole House. It was made very clear to us that we could debate only what was set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. Hence there was no wide-ranging debate on Part 1; we were confined to the clauses on Supplementary Order Paper 133. We were not allowed any debate on Part 2, and moved straight into Part 3—again, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. At no stage during that whole process was Supplementary Order Paper 134 and the dividing of the bill referred to. We were instructed by the Chair to stick to Supplementary Order Paper 133. He did say that he would listen carefully to our debate, and that if we erred beyond that slightly he would make a judgment call. But his direction to us was quite specific: that we were to be focused on Supplementary Order Paper 133 only.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for contributing to the point of order raised. My recollection is that the House agreed to two motions yesterday. The first was the motion to suspend Standing Order 261, and, when that was agreed to, the House went on to recommit the bill by motion to consider the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and to divide the bill.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Those words were never used.
Hon CLEM SIMICH: That is my recollection of what Mr Cosgrove moved. We proceeded from there. Of course, we are now on clause 3, which is a separate question altogether.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. How is it possible for the Committee to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134, when the House has given no direction to enable us to do that? It is simply dancing on the head of a pin to say we should assume that we were going to divide the bill, and that to divide the bill we need Supplementary Order Paper 134, so on that basis we can do what we like. I am sorry, but if the Government wanted the House to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134 it needed to record that in its additional motion, because it is absolutely clear that the provisions on Supplementary Order Paper 134 would breach Standing Order 261 in going outside the scope of the bill.
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour): Further to that point of order, I very much appreciated your comments just now, Mr Chairman, but I would maybe invite you to address the couple of the points that I made. One is the understanding that the Committee of the whole House has the inherent power to divide a bill. That is inherent to the Committee; it does not need any particular permission to do that. I say, firstly, it is an inherent power of the Committee of the whole House to divide a bill and, secondly, the recommittal motion refers to that process but does not refer to Supplementary Order Paper 134. By dealing with Supplementary Order Paper 134, we are carrying out the intention of the motion.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It seems fairly clear that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove moved that the order of the day for the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be discharged, and that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. So notice was given to the House of that intention. I assume that is what the Minister said.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I was here in the Chamber. I want a clear ruling from you, Mr Chairman. I have to say that when we suspend the Standing Orders of the House it is a very serious and very rare provision, particularly if it is done by a plain majority of the House. If, despite the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 134 was never mentioned in the motion before the House, it is your intention to rule that Supplementary Order Paper 134 will be considered, then I have no choice but to recall the Speaker if you go down that track.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): You may do that of course, Dr Smith, but there were two motions agreed to by the House.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.
Hon CLEM SIMICH: That was yesterday. One was to consider Supplementary Order Paper 133—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: And the second was to recommit.
Hon CLEM SIMICH: No—and the other was to divide the bill. The other one was to consider—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Can I read, for the benefit of the Committee, the exact motion: “That Standing Order 261 be suspended to permit the Committee of the whole House on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to consider Supplementary Order Paper 133 relating to that bill, and for the committee in its consideration of the bill to have the power to adopt, if it thinks fit, the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper.” There is no mention in that motion of the subsequent Supplementary Order Paper 134 tabled in the name of the Minister. I simply say that I cannot find any interpretation that will allow our Standing Orders to be suspended for a different Supplementary Order Paper. For instance, if I tabled a Supplementary Order Paper right now to do A, B, C, or D, then you, Mr Chairman, would rightly say I cannot do that because it is outside the instructions from the House.
Now there was a second resolution that the House considered as well, which was that the bill not proceed with its third reading and be recommitted. That is perfectly proper, but it was recommitted for the purpose—and the motion was quite explicit; the Minister quite explicitly said that the bill was to be recommitted for the purpose of considering Supplementary Order Paper 133, not Supplementary Order Paper 134. That is why I think the Government, again, has got itself into a mess. The only proper course to take is for us to come out of Committee and for a Minister, if he or she wants to further dig a hole, to move that Standing Order 261 be suspended so that the new Supplementary Order Paper can also be considered.
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour): I thought I would offer some further helpful advice. This is really to reiterate in a different way what I said previously. Once a bill has been recommitted to the Committee of the whole House, which is the situation we are now in, it is within the power of the Committee of the whole House to consider amendments within the scope of the bill, which is what we are now doing. We are now in the Committee of the whole House, and we are considering those amendments. I think it really is as plain and simple as that.
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National): I am sorry, but we argued that point with the Chair last night, and it was firmly ruled that we could debate only what was on Supplementary Order Paper 133. We were told that just because we were in Committee, that did not mean we could debate anything else. Our debate was confined clearly to what was on that Supplementary Order Paper—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): With some allowances.
ANNE TOLLEY: —with some allowances. But we could not widen the debate. We could not have a debate on Part 2, for instance, or on other issues contained within Part 1.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The key issue here is the suspension of Standing Order 261. The suspension of Standing Order 261 was related only to Supplementary Order Paper 133. Now Mr Barnett has argued that, well, no, we can do this because Supplementary Order Paper 134 is within the scope of the bill. Well, I want to draw your attention to Supplementary Order Paper 134. It refers to the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Act. I want you, Mr Chairperson, to refer to the base bill we are debating, which is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. That Supplementary Order Paper is outside the scope of the bill. That is why the resolution was required for Supplementary Order Paper 133, and why it is absolutely, irrefutably logical that that must also apply to Supplementary Order Paper 134.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member. He is quite correct in most of the issues that he outlines. Standing Order 261 is about the subject area of the bill. The suspension of that Standing Order enabled this bill to become an omnibus bill. The division of the bill does not require the suspension of the Standing Orders. That is an inherent power of the Committee of the whole House under Standing Order 305. The subsequent motion to recommit the bill was as follows: “That the order of the day for the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133, and dividing the bill.” The motion to move Supplementary Order Paper 134 is next on the list, after we have dealt with clause 3. That motion will be debatable. Now I cannot really take the matter too much further than that. Supplementary Order Paper 134 divides the bill and is thus provided for under the motion to recommit the bill. There is no doubt that this is in order. That is my final ruling.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The purposes of dividing the bill are fine. What the Minister does not have the right to do is to introduce a second Supplementary Order Paper. He could have included the issues that are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 on his original Supplementary Order Paper, but he does not have the capacity to introduce a second Supplementary Order Paper. So I have to take the step of recalling the Speaker to get a definitive ruling on whether the Committee, in fact, has the power to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is entirely for the member to take us out of Committee if he wishes to do so. It is my ruling that this matter is in order. But if the member wishes to proceed down the suggested course, I await his decision.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the Speaker be recalled so a ruling may be put on this procedural issue.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Speaker Recalled
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Madam Speaker, you have been recalled to give a ruling on whether the recommittal and the process we are going through to divide the bill are in order. Representations have been made by a number of speakers, particularly the Hon Dr Nick Smith, in this regard. The ruling I gave was that what the Committee had done, and the procedures we had gone through, were in order. I gave that as my final ruling; hence you have been recalled.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you for that. I have considered the matter, and I have taken advice on it. I accept the advice that the Chair has already given to the Committee. The suspension of Standing Order 261 is a separate matter; to give authority for the consideration of an amendment that creates an omnibus bill is a separate matter. The recommittal motion dealt with the consideration of the amendment and the division of the bill. The Committee has the authority, of course, to override the bill. So the ruling that the Chairperson gave was correct. But, further to all that, Standing Order 305 gives the Committee the inherent power to divide the bill. That appears to be the issue—whether there is, in fact, power to divide the bill. That, as far as I am concerned, is the ruling I am giving.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is important that we are very clear about the issue. It is a very unusual procedure, which has been used on very rare occasions, to suspend the normal Standing Orders of Parliament for the way in which law is considered. For the Government to use its majority to suspend those Standing Orders is very unusual, and it is a mechanism that should be used with great restraint. I could quote you Geoffrey Palmer’s comments about the use of that power.
The issue is not the division of the bill. It is clear that the two resolutions that were passed were, firstly, to suspend the Standing Orders; and, secondly, to discharge the bill, to refer it to the Committee, and to allow the bill to be divided into parts. The issue is whether Supplementary Order Paper 134 can be considered by the Committee. Supplementary Order Paper 134 deals with issues that are outside the scope of the bill. It deals quite specifically with issues in the Building Act, whereas the substantive bill deals only with issues in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act. The question arose during the Committee debate on the bill. Points were raised last evening. The Chairperson said very plainly that we could debate only the issues that were in Supplementary Order Paper 133.
I think the correct ruling for you to make, Madam Speaker, is that it is not possible for the Committee to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134. If the Government had wanted the Committee to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134, that should have been specifically listed in the motion that was put to the House. So I seek clarification from you, and I say that in this area of the suspension of the Standing Orders we should have very tight rules, because to pass law without the normal process of a first reading, a select committee process, and a second reading goes to the heart of the powers of Parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member and I will take a moment for some advice. I thank the Deputy Clerk, and also the member for his comments. I agree with him that it is an important process and one that is used rarely, and that, therefore, it is important to get it right. But the reality is that the process and procedure that has been followed, however extraordinary it is, has been followed correctly according to the Standing Orders.
In any recommittal motion—and maybe I did not explain this carefully before—it is not actually required to specifically mention the Supplementary Order Papers, though that motion, of course, did mention the division of the bill. So we are dealing with two separate matters. There was the original issue of the suspension of the Standing Orders to consider the Supplementary Order Paper; that was dealt with. Then there was the recommittal motion. It did not have to refer specifically—as I understand the member’s point—to the Supplementary Order Paper. It was passed. That was the correct process. The ruling given by the Chair in the Committee was the correct one, and that is my ruling. Thank you.
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Clause 3 Principal Act amended (recommitted) (continued)
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Now, having had the Speaker’s ruling, that the very wide powers that the Committee has enable the movement of a Supplementary Order Paper on pretty much anything, can I seek your clarification that it is now quite permissible for me and my colleagues to move a Supplementary Order Paper to change the Building Act, or the Finance Act, or the social welfare legislation, or any other Act of Parliament, and for those motions to be put to the Committee under the title of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that matter, Dr Smith. It would appear that you are not entitled to do that. A ruling on the matter can be found in Speaker’s ruling 112/1, which states: “If a bill is recommitted for the purpose of considering amendments proposed on a Supplementary Order Paper, the committee can only deal with such matters as are stated in the motion for recommittal.” We are dealing with Supplementary Order Paper 133, and with the division of the bill, which is the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 134. The Speaker has ruled that those are the issues that the Committee is considering, so there is no power to allow any member to bring in any extra matters, or Supplementary Order Papers, in fact. So can we move on to clause 3 and the question that it stand part.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): We are debating an awful legislative bungle that has occurred both within the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act and within the Building Act. The Government passes a law, does it in a rush, and makes a botch of it. It then passes another law to fix up the botch-up, but when it goes to fix up the botch-up it realises there is a mistake, so it brings another bill to the House that it wants to ram through to try to fix it. I remind the Committee that the Minister in charge of this bill has a mantra. His mantra for the building industry is “Do it once, do it right.” Well, it is a pity that the Minister for Building and Construction has not applied his rule of “Do it once, do it right.” to his own legislation, because what we have here is a bill to fix the fix that went wrong, and then to fix the subsequent fix.
We also have the Government using an extraordinary power to suspend the Standing Orders to enable it, after the second reading and Committee stage, to send the bill back to the Committee to include new provisions to fix another one of the Minister’s mess-ups—not a mess-up in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act but in the Building Act. So what we have is a series of botch-ups in trying to fix the leaky homes, and another set of botch-ups in terms of the Building Act.
The Government has set a deadline of 30 November this year, when every council has to be accredited as a building consent authority, and some councils are quite clearly not going to meet that deadline. The difficulty I have is that the Government has known of this for months. My colleague John Carter pointed out that he was told over a year ago that councils were not going to meet this deadline. I heard as early as 6 months ago that councils were not going to meet this deadline. So the question I have for members of the Government concerns why, given that we on this side of the Chamber have known about this problem for over a year, in a mad rush this week, Government members have had a rush of blood to their heads and suddenly rushed to the House to pass another set of amendments.
A further question I have for the Minister of Corrections, Damien O’Connor, who is the Minister in the chair—the Minister who is overseeing more messes within the Department of Corrections than before in living memory—
Hon Damien O'Connor: Not as many as you.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I was proud to be Minister of Corrections. What I find really interesting is the number of questions the then Labour Opposition asked me during my period of 18 months as Minister of Corrections. Do members know how many questions it asked me? Zero! The only questions I got in my entire period as Minister of Corrections, I say to Mr O’Connor, were patsies from my own side. So I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister of Corrections, who has seen one botch-up after another, is now the “Minister of Correcting the Problems of the Minister for Building and Construction”. Actually, he is quite appropriately named. The Minister of Corrections is correcting Clayton Cosgrove’s stuff-ups.
What I would like Mr O’Connor to explain to the Committee is why, in 2002, the Government said: “Trust us. These amendments we have got here will fix the leaky homes.” It got it wrong, and in 2005 it had to come along with the amendments to fix the botch-ups of 2002. Again the Government said to the House: “Trust us. We’ve got the detail right. There’ll be no troubles.”, and it rushed legislation through the House. Now this bill is to fix up the botch-ups that occurred in the 2005 legislation. I ask Government members, given that they got it wrong in 2002, when they did it in a rush, and they got it wrong again in 2005, when they did it in a rush, why should members in this Chamber trust the Government to get it right on the third attempt, when there has been no select committee process, and the legislation was tabled in the House only yesterday?
I put this to the Committee: I bet that not a single member of this Parliament has read through the more than 120 lines of changes to the law that we are making right now. I bet that no member has gone through and checked each line of that legislation. I say to this Parliament that it is a dereliction of our duty that we would pass 110 lines of legislation, knowing that the Government has got it wrong three times previously. Why would we, in a mad rush, pass a law today that the Government tabled only yesterday? I further point out there is not a mad rush. Can the Minister in the chair explain why we need to rush this bill through today, given that we have until 30 November to do it?
PAULA BENNETT (National): It is very fortunate for the Committee that we have this opportunity to stand up and point out some of the comedy of errors that is continually happening with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. Everything to do with the bill has been an absolute comedy of errors, and, at the end of the day, the Labour Government keeps forgetting the people who are trying to work their way through the issue. It is one thing for the Government to make a mistake and get the process a bit wrong, but there are people at the end of this process. That is so easily forgotten.
Let us work through the comedy of errors. I was not in the House in 2002, so correct me if I am wrong, but in 2002 the Government rushed through all these changes. It rushed them through because it thought it was urgent and it did not need to get the legislation right, but just had to get something through. It was all done in a bit of a hurry. Now we are taking up the time of the House, once again, trying to fix mistake after mistake. What gets me upset the most about these issues is that Clayton Cosgrove is out there telling the building industry to not stuff it up, but to get it right. I say: “Get it right, first time.” I say we cannot be fixing these houses—time and time again. That is a good message at the moment, but would it not be better if the Government had got it right, if not the first time, then the second time, or even the third time, maybe? Just maybe it could get it right. The Government has only to fix this legislation once, and if it had done it right once, we would have already seen results. Instead, we are taking up the time of the House going back to what should have been done the first time. We have had the first reading, the second reading, the select committee process, and the Committee stage. The Government has been in such a mad rush to get the bill through that we have suspended the Standing Orders—suspended the actual way the House runs—so the Government can put through this flawed policy. The Supplementary Order Paper seeks to extend the deadline.
I refer to clause 3 in quite some detail. I just cannot get over the fact that we need to go back to clause 3 and redo it, when we are looking at line after line of stuff-ups by the Government that keep going back to the building legislation. The Weathertight Homes Tribunal was set up and is not going well at all for those people who are trying to work their way through the process. They have no faith in this Government to get it right. They are completely legitimate in their lack of faith. They are appalled, upset, and disgusted that the House has to go back to the same legislation—time and time again. There are mistakes that need not have happened, if due consideration had been given to the importance of the issue.
Members on the other side of the Chamber can make snide comments and sit there grinning, but this is a really serious issue. It is affecting people’s lives, and they cannot afford to have this level of hold-up. The Government needs to take a good look at itself. It needs to understand how it is getting the section wrong, and why the time of the House is still being taken up with it.
Hon TAU HENARE (National): I want to make a couple of brief points. The first one is that the esteemed member of Parliament for wherever, Shane Jones, mentioned—
Shane Jones: A very good member!
Hon TAU HENARE: That is right; he is a cousin of Hone Harawira, the intrepid journeyman in Australia. He is a very close relative.
Pita Paraone: “MP for the Northern Territory”!
Hon TAU HENARE: He is the “MP for the Northern Territory”. I digress. Shane Jones said we are talking about minor details, but if they are just minor details, then why were the Standing Orders suspended? The history of the House would not have been put aside, if they were just minor details. I concur with my colleagues, who have said that the first attempt to fix this problem happened in 2002 when the House promulgated—
Shane Jones: That was in the past; look to the future.
Hon TAU HENARE: Well, let us look to the future, after we have looked at the diabolical nonsense we have had from Labour over the last 5 years. It attempted to fix the problem in 2002, then in 2005, and now in 2007. The member says we should look to the future. Well, a couple of words come to mind—“déjà vu”. We are doing something that should have been done in 2002, and should have been done in 2005. Now, in 2007, we have put aside the history of the House by suspending the Standing Orders just so that we can try to fix the diabolical nonsense of this Government. It could not organise a you-know-what in a brewery.
Dave Hereora: Talk about clause 3.
Hon TAU HENARE: Why do we need to amend the principal Act? The only reason—[Interruption] Mr Hereora is murmuring and muttering away, but he will not take a call. There is not a mutter, not a murmur from him—as a member of the House is wont to say. The member opposite would not even know what is in clause 3. The Government has suspended the Standing Orders, but for what reason? It has done so—
Paula Bennett: To make another stuff-up.
Hon TAU HENARE: —to make another stuff-up. Mr Jones wants me to talk about the future. Well, what is going to happen in the future is there will be a new Government, and it will be the new Government’s responsibility to fix up all of the mess and all of the mistakes made along that little way by that little Labour Government. [Interruption] Exactly, and we will take on the mantra of Clayton Cosgrove and we will do it once and we will do it right. That is what will happen; that is what the National Government will do in 2008.
Shane Jones: 2080!
Hon TAU HENARE: No, no, not when that member is still here. Not when he is still here at the age of 100-and-whatever. What we will do is figure out things. We will get the experts in—not Clayton Cosgrove, not the Minister of Corrections, and certainly not Shane Jones—to deal with this issue and to sort it out. If Shane Jones is anywhere near the Minister’s seat, we will be going through this again and again, fixing up the diabolical mess and the diabolical nonsense that this Government has been on about for the last 7 years. There have been a number of stuff-ups and botch-ups, just in this legislation. It behoves us all to make sure that when a bill is put before the House it is done right, we do not waste the country’s time, and we certainly do not waste taxpayers’ money. What this Government has done is a total waste of taxpayers’ money, the hard-earned stuff that Shane Jones would not know about.
KATRINA SHANKS (National): I speak to Supplementary Order Paper 134. Interestingly, I was speaking last night to Supplementary Order Paper 133 because I thought that was all there really was. I did not realise there was a Supplementary Order Paper 134 as well.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is clause 3 that we are speaking to.
KATRINA SHANKS: Sorry—it is clause 3 that we are speaking to. It is interesting because I am on the select committee that looks at these bills. We read them and we get submissions. There is a robust process when we make legislation. There is a first reading where we talk to it. It goes to a select committee, and we get submissions in. It is really important in this process to listen to what people out there say about how the legislation affects them, and to listen to what the specialists in the industries say about the legislation we are trying to make. After that, we adjust the legislation, bring it back into the House, debate it in a second reading, debate it in a Committee stage, go on to the third reading, and then the bill is passed.
We have a very robust system in New Zealand and one we should be proud of. But I must say that today I think the system has let us down. It is disappointing when we attach Supplementary Order Papers to bills and put them through without the opportunity of their going through the proper system that we have in place. When I look at clause 3 and I look at all the other things that have happened in the building industry, I see mistake after mistake after mistake.
The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 came in to fix leaky homes. Well, it kind of fixed leaky homes; leaky homes are still being built, so the problem actually has not been fixed. It was repealed, and the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 came in to make the situation a bit better, because, obviously, the legislation had been rushed through, as has every piece of building industry legislation that has been presented here. We were here again yesterday, to talk about the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. It is being rushed through, yet again, and we did not even ask for submissions on that legislation, which is about the distress and anxiety of owners of leaky homes and giving them some form of compensation. That is fine; we are talking only about leaky homes, and that is what the initial bill was about.
But then I looked at the Building Act 2004, which is relevant to clause 3, as it does relate to the building industry. Then I looked at the bills before the select committee in 2007. All these bills should go there to be made right. The Building Amendment Bill is sitting there, and, gosh, is this relevant to that bill, or not? Well, you know, it actually should be, because it has nothing to do with leaky homes.
That is interesting, because when we look at the purpose statement of the 2007 bill we see that it was drafted to make the 2004 bill more workable. We have a pattern here, a pattern of legislation made incorrectly, rushed through, not properly worked through the system, and we are back here again and again. It is really disappointing, especially as I am so new to the House, to see legislation and the process let us down, over and over again.
I will talk about the split this Supplementary Order Paper 134 is making to the bill. It is splitting the bill into the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill—which is pretty close to clause 3, I do believe, Mr Chairman. Anyway, I think we have let down the people. We have let down homeowners and we have let down the building industry.
Colin King: We haven’t; the Government has.
KATRINA SHANKS: I have not; I believe that the system is wrong. We have let down the homeowners and we have let down the building industry. We have let down all those people who voted us into Parliament to represent them because they believed we can make good legislation to make this a better country for them all to live in.
When we witness something like this, we are not witnessing good legislation or a process we should be proud of. Everybody out there who has listened to this debate should be disappointed in what has happened to clause 3. All the people in Auckland who are in their cars now, driving along at 1 kilometre per hour, with another hour to go before they get home to their leaky homes, will not be helped at all by any of the legislation that has been put through in the last 2 or 3 days.
NATHAN GUY (National): Following on from Katrina Shanks’ very, very good and informative address on clause 3, I was thinking about her mentioning the people sitting in traffic jams in Auckland. I was also thinking about the building inspectors who occasionally work in Wellington, trying to get to the Kapiti coast, where I live, but who are snarled up in traffic as we speak. Those building inspectors, who have been listening to their radios in their cars this afternoon, will be having a quiet wee smirk at the Government over the shonky process we have seen in the Chamber in the last day and a half.
Nick Smith has done extremely well to expose that here this afternoon. Those building inspectors will be thinking that this is the third attempt to change the Building Act. They are sick of heading off to conferences and seminars. They are sick of having to carry around all this bureaucracy and these large documents. They just get au fait with something, and then the Labour Government brings in yet another change. So what do they have to do? They have to get in their cars and head off to another seminar down in Wellington, and then turn round at 5 to 6 in the evening and get in the terrible traffic jam and head back out to the Kapiti coast.
This legislation is a shambles. We have exposed the fact that the Government wanted to dismantle the 402 Standing Orders yesterday, and Nick Smith and his team of Katrina Shanks, Phil Heatley, and Bob Clarkson have done extremely well in exposing the Government. What we need to be aware of is that in 2002—and I am speaking to clause 3—when the Building Act was amended by the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act, it was meant to provide homeowners with a speedier, more flexible, and cost-effective alternative to the courts. Well, I want to tell all those building inspectors who are quietly smirking in their cars as they listen to their radios that since 2002, when that Act was passed, only 16 percent of those cases have been concluded. So 84 percent of people are still waiting to have their cases heard, to try to get a conclusion after 5 long years of this Government. So what I want to say to Mr Cosgrove, who talks about doing it once and doing it right, is that we have seen a really shonky display in the last 2 days in this Chamber. What an embarrassment it has been to the Government.
Progress reported.
Report adopted.
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.