2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Is he satisfied with the advice he has received from his Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes. I created the role of Chief Science Advisor to provide me with an independent channel of scientific advice. I am pleased with the contribution Professor Sir Peter has made to the broad suite of information that the Government considers as it develops its policies.
Does he agree with Sir Peter and the report of his task force that failure to use social science evidence properly is a core failing of policies, and that evidence and scientific advice is a good base for policy development?
As a general rule, yes, but of course one will always acknowledge that there is often quite a range of views from the science community.
What evidence and scientific advice did he seek before agreeing to allocate $2.4 million to Parents Inc. for a parenting programme that even the Minister for Social Development and Employment said she had neither sought nor received advice on, or was she carrying out his promise that he made before the election that he would make sure that Parents Inc. got money?
Members will accept that, as Prime Minister, I am not responsible for the allocation of that contract. That actually goes through the Ministry of Social Development. But I would say I have seen that Toolbox; I have seen the programme. In my opinion it is a very, very successful programme that is helping New Zealand parents, and we do need to help parents in New Zealand.
As the contract with Parents Inc. is yet to be signed, is he prepared to require a tender for the $2.4 million for a parenting programme now that other organisations have come forward to say they have a similar programme but they had no chance to bid for that money; if not, why not?
I think that was pretty wide of the primary question. Anyway, my advice is—I will not say that, actually. My advice to the member is to take the matter up, if she wants to, with the Minister for Social Development and Employment. I can say my understanding is that no one else provides a similar programme off the shelf like that that is so successful.
If evidence and scientific advice should be the basis for policy development, why is he ignoring the task force report and insisting on putting even more money into boot camps, which it said were doing very little to help teenagers and needed a thorough assessment?
I do not agree with the member’s proposition. For a start, the military activity camps, which the member talks of, have had the first cohort go through. There will be an evaluation. It is a little too early to evaluate them, because those people are still in the middle of their participation. I draw the member’s attention to a letter I received on 26 May from the Principal Youth Court Judge, Andrew Becroft, in which Judge Becroft wrote, in respect of whether military activity camps were a success: “Cautiously, they could be expanded into two of the remaining three residences (Wiri and Palmerston North), which are located close to military training facilities.” He also wrote about the smaller number of people going before the Youth Court. I tend to take the view of Andrew Becroft, who knows what he is talking about, as opposed to that of the member, who has not a clue what she is talking about.
Mr SPEAKERI ask the Hon Parekura Horomia what it was about that seeking of leave by his colleague just two seats along from him that he did not understand. There was no need for that interjection. What we need to sort out, though—[ Interruption]—no, no. The last part of the member’s seeking of leave was out of order. She was seeking leave and did not need to make the other comments. What we did need to know, though, was the source of the comments that she is seeking leave to table.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just heard you make a ruling for the Prime Minister, when he rose to accuse the Green member of misleading this House. You said there was a proper place to bring that up.
The member is now getting into the same patch as everyone else. We do not table press statements. If the member is concerned that someone has misled the House, then there are other means of dealing with that. We do not debate it by way of a point of order. I know we have had a 2-week adjournment, but we should not forget the Standing Orders of the House. We do not debate those matters by way of points of order.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note what you have just said, but you have in your written rulings to us indicated that you will not proceed with breach of privilege applications. You said you will not refer them to the Privileges Committee when they relate to supplementary questions, as opposed to prepared answers. The Prime Minister accused Annette King of drafting something in a supplementary question—
There is a Standing Orders Committee, and the member is a member of it. If he believes there is a need to amend the Standing Orders of the House, then we can do that. It is not beyond our ability to do that. The issue raised earlier on today was about deliberately and wilfully misleading the House. Supplementary questions, it is considered traditionally in this House, are not of such a formal situation to normally be considered to have been intended to deliberately mislead the House. They can at times, I accept, accidentally mislead the House. If there is a gap in our Standing Orders, there is the chance to deal with that. But we will certainly not debate these matters by way of points of order.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the past there have been occasions where something has been so egregious in a supplementary question that, in my understanding, cases were raised with the Privileges Committee. In this particular case it was just a straight matter of fact—
The member is now seeking to debate the matter—[ Interruption] I am on my feet, and we will not have any more of this. I am certainly prepared to look back over the record to see how many times a supplementary question has been the subject of a matter referred to the Privileges Committee. I think it would go back a fair way, if that were to be the case, but I will certainly check the record for the member.
Jacinda ArdernWhat was the reoffending rate of participants involved in the Government’s boot camp concept trials completed in 2009 and 2010?
Before I invite the right honourable Prime Minister to reply, I just alert members that where there is such a broad primary question, to expect the Prime Minister to have at his fingertips the details of boot camp outcomes is—[ Interruption] I will allow the question, because the Prime Minister certainly mentioned these in his answer. I will allow the question, but to expect him to have the details is not easy. The right honourable Prime Minister, in so far as he can answer the question.
I do not have those details to hand, but what I do have to hand is a letter from Judge Andrew Becroft, the Principal Youth Court Judge, in which he actually sets out, subject to an inquiry I made when I was at a military activity camp about how things were going, and that I would appreciate his assessment—
I am more than happy to table it. What he goes on to talk about, though, is very interesting. He says not only have youth apprehension rates dropped slightly in the last 2 years but “Youth Court numbers have dropped by 31% in the last two years;”. He goes on to talk about Fresh Start and the impact of those military-type programmes, and says they are working. He goes on to say they are broader than the basis on which the member is trying to comment. He then goes on to say, cautiously, that he wants to expand the programme.
Hon David ParkerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that the Minister table the official document from which he was quoting.
The member knows that a letter is not an official document. It is up to the Prime Minister whether he wishes to seek leave.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it clear that the Prime Minister can table it, without leave. He indicated that he would table it, and I wonder why he has not yet done so.
The member knows there is no Standing Order to provide for another member of the House to try to encourage someone else to table a document. If the Prime Minister was quoting from an official document, there is no question. But the Prime Minister was not quoting from an official document, and it is up to the Prime Minister whether he wishes—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that one of our hearings may have been slightly wrong. I thought that, in response to an interjection, the Prime Minister said he was happy to table the document.
I seek leave to table a letter from Judge Becroft in relation to, amongst other things, youth justice, in which he goes on to personally thank me for my clear—[ Interruption]
I say to the right honourable Prime Minister that I am on my feet and that that nonsense will stop, because that was also an abuse of the Standing Order procedure. I have allowed abuses on both sides now, and my patience will run out shortly. But leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is just a request that you look at the tapes, later, of the way that you intervened on Russel Norman and the way that you intervened on the leader of the National Party.