Volume 624 Week 82 - Thursday 10 March 2005 
Volume 624 Week 82 - Thursday 10 March 2005 
[Volume:624;Page:19105] 
Thursday 10 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. Priority will also be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill which as members will know is a 4-hour debate. As previously indicated on Thursday the third reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill will be the first item of business on the Order Paper. And of course Wednesday is a members’ day. 
Questions to Ministers 
Wages—Working for Families Package 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Can she confirm her statement to the House yesterday that she had not in fact been advised that the impact of the Working for Families package on a 5 percent pay increase for a worker with two children earning $50000 and receiving an accommodation supplement would only be $5.20 per week; if so does she have any plans to review the package in order to ensure that more of the benefits of any wage increases flow to the worker rather than to her Government? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
  
on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: I can confirm in respect of the statement in the member’s question yesterday that the Prime Minister was not advised of that particular scenario because it was not relevant. The Working for Families package will dramatically improve the lives and opportunities of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders and this Government stands proudly behind it. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government’s Working for Families package will result in a worker with two children earning $45000 a year and in receipt of an accommodation supplement receiving a mere $4.67 per week of a 5 percent wage increase—a pay increase that delivers a gross increase of $43.27 per week; almost 10 times the net increase that the worker will effectively receive—and can she tell the House what sort of incentive that provides for New Zealanders to get ahead? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can confirm with regard to the example in the primary question that a family paying a high rent in Auckland and with two children will get $156 a week out of this package. The members opposite are opposed to it but we support it. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Prime Minister support the call for a 5 percent wage rise across the board for workers in light of research that showed that the chief executive officers of 25 leading New Zealand companies had an average pay increase of 25 percent in the past year compared with a 2.4 percent increase in average ordinary-time weekly earnings? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Matters of those sorts of negotiations are between workers their unions and employers. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister have any information about the net impact on household incomes of the Working for Families package and other measures that have been adopted since she became Prime Minister; if so could she share that information with the House? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have the full list with me. I know that this package is worth about $1.1 billion. The changes in health are worth about $1000 a year for each family; similarly in education. For this sort of package to be done out of taxes would cost $5.5 billion and result in cuts right through the public services. 
Dr Don Brash 
: If the Government were so concerned about effective marginal tax rates that it specifically designed the Working for Families package to reduce the very high marginal tax rates facing beneficiaries why did it then simply introduce a system that moved those very high effective marginal tax rates on to the average Kiwi working family? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The average Kiwi working family or the average family referred to by the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union with a couple of kids and paying a high rental will get over $150 a week out of this package. People like the cash and getting the cash is much more important than the marginal amount they pay on the last dollar of tax. I ask that member whether he is saying they should not get the money or is he saying their mates should not have a 5 percent wage increase because they do not have children? He has to make up his mind. Previously he clearly wanted a low-wage low-cost economy. That is not what this Government wants. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Cabinet paper on the Working for Families package that estimates that only 2 percent of sole parents will move off benefits as a result of the package and that no couples at all will move off benefits as a result of the package? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: People have been moving off benefits because of the very good work done by Work and Income and because of the economy which is booming. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked whether the Prime Minister agreed with the Cabinet paper that said that only 2 percent of sole parents would move off benefits as a result of the package and that no couples would move off a benefit because of the package. The Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister did not answer that question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Cabinet paper is not relevant to people moving off benefits because people are moving off benefits because of the good work of this Government and the booming economy. What a contrast that is to the time when we had a Reserve Bank governor who saw it as his aim to drive people out of jobs in New Zealand! That was Don Brash. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note you have yet to rule on the requests that were repeatedly made of you yesterday to give the House an indication of how you would treat replies from Ministers under Standing Order 370 and its various subparts. I would now like to know whether the answer Mr Mallard gave and the style of it is going to be the style of question time so that perhaps from the point of view of supplementary questions members on this side of the House can make allegations of a sort similar to those that Government members clearly will continue to make in their answers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed that question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not ask you any question about the Minister’s answer to the question. I asked a question about Standing Order 370 and its subparts and your view of how it is to be applied then a question specifically about whether your view was evident in the reply that Mr Mallard gave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The reply that the Minister gave was relevant to the question asked. That is what is required. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the poor design of the Working for Families package and the statement made by the president of the Labour Party endorsing an inflationary wage round are part of the reason why the Reserve Bank has increased interest rates today and everyone who has a mortgage will have to pay more for it; if she does not what responsibility does she take for the rise in interest rates? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister I was not advised that either of those factors was part of the reason for the rates going up when I was briefed by Dr Bollard. The reason for the rates going up is that he is concerned at the overheated economy in New Zealand. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with this statement from the Cabinet paper on the Working for Families package: “The package is likely to have relatively modest employment impacts. This effect is due to the fact that some groups such as those on middle incomes will now face higher marginal tax rates from family assistance thereby reducing incentives to increase employment.” and is this the reason why the Cabinet paper has now been removed from the Ministry of Social Development’s website? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The particular objective of this package was to lift the standard of living of working and low-income New Zealanders. This package does that. It is actually very hard to have a big effect on unemployment when unemployment is at record lows—no thanks to members opposite and especially Don Brash who spent his time at the Reserve Bank trying to drive low-income Kiwis out of their jobs. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That in no way answered or addressed my question. I asked whether the Prime Minister agreed with the Cabinet paper. The Minister made another gratuitous remark about my record as Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to clarify his answer for the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Cabinet paper referred to the matter in the way that the member suggested but it was not the objective of this package to drive people into jobs; the objective was to drive up the standards of living of lower-income New Zealanders. We know that Tories would take that money off middle-income families; that is their policy. Their policy is to take $150 off the low-income families living in Auckland and we look forward to campaigning on that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether the claim that the economy is going so well and is booming is not cause for us to agree that a 5 percent pay rise would be reasonable if we have any intention of keeping people in this country rather than having them move to Australia where they would be paid about 35 percent more? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I repeat the comments I made earlier on behalf of the Prime Minister. Wages are negotiated between employees their unions and employers. In some cases 5 percent will be justified; in other cases it will not be. 
Police—Culture 
2.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he satisfied that the police force has a healthy culture? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: Generally yes but not in every instance. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What is the Minister’s view on the statements by the Tasman district police commander to the  
Nelson Mail  
last month that in the case of Terrence Hunt who was found by a jury in a civil trial to have struck John Menzies with a police baton and a police torch to have kicked him and then to have fabricated evidence in order to wrongfully prosecute and imprison him no disciplinary action would be taken and it was time to move on; and what does that say about police culture? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that every member of this House who deals with members of the police force generally would regard our police force in this country as being of a very high standard. That is not to say that police officers universally behave to the standards required and I think it is important that our system is responsive to dealing with misconduct or any corrupt or criminal action by police officers when allegations are made against them. We have seen that recently in south Auckland. It may be interesting for the member to know that last year 47 police officers were disciplined for misconduct for a variety of reasons but that number represents only 0.5 percent of our police force. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Further to the Minister’s immediate previous answer how did the reported misconduct by a police officer in the Counties-Manukau Police District come to public attention; and what was the response of the district commander? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is a case that everybody takes very seriously. It came to the attention of the police through allegations made to the police themselves. They conducted an internal inquiry and decided to press charges—which I think proves that the system does work. A judge made a comment that that case might represent a more widespread culture and we are concerned about that. The police commissioner has announced a wider and independent inquiry and announced today that Sir David Tompkins QC will oversee that inquiry. It will look at things such as whether there is evidence of a police culture that condones or encourages acts of violence or other inappropriate treatment towards prisoners. I think it is very important that that should happen. 
Keith Locke 
: Could the Minister tell us whether that inquiry will focus on a particular police district or be more general if it is really to address Judge Davidson’s comments that there is a sick culture and Sergeant Nelson’s comments that that culture is widespread in police stations throughout New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that the inquiry will focus in particular on the Wiri police district where the allegation that that culture exists has been made. If I may correct the member Judge Davidson did not say that the culture was widespread; he said that it may be. It is important that when a member of the judiciary expresses that concern or when there are actions like those that this man has now been convicted of such an inquiry does take place that it be independent and that it restore any confidence that may have been lost because of the actions of a small minority of police officers that are not acceptable. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Minister explain how the police culture can be healthy when the Minister of Police could not give a straight answer yesterday to two requests in response to a simple question—are the police instructed not to deliberately or carelessly mislead 111 callers? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What that member has just said is his own interpretation of that answer. I can assure the member that the police are certainly under clear orders not to deliberately mislead or misdirect anyone. That stands to reason. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister aware of the comments of Mr Solomona’s district commander—to whom he referred earlier as Superintendent Steve Shortland—that staff who speak anonymously to the media are “traitors who do it for money a free lunch sex or out of stupidity”; and is that not a culture of cover-up that helps to protect the sort of sadism we saw in the Solomona case? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have no knowledge of the comments that the member has quoted but I do know that the immediate response by the police to announce an investigation plus the fact that they took action when their internal investigation found that misconduct appeared to have occurred actually says exactly the opposite. I have in my hand a statement from the district commander Superintendent Steve Shortland. He states that the conduct uncovered is totally appalling and that while he believes that it is confined to a very small group of officers it is important that an investigation take place. That has been announced and it is under way. That is what is important. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that Senior Sergeant Anthony Solomona may now be entitled to a golden handshake in the form of a “perf” and that over recent years a number of police officers have left the force with full “perf” entitlements after being found guilty of or admitting to offences including indecent assault use of excessive force theft fraud and sexual harassment; and how long does the Government intend to allow corrupt officers to continue to rip off the system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Clearly an internal disciplinary procedure will be initiated against Senior Sergeant Solomona and any other police officer who has been convicted of any offence. Should he resign or be sacked he is entitled to one thing and one thing alone: his superannuation which includes his own and his employer’s contribution. That is standard. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Trevor Mallard in his answer on behalf of the Prime Minister to my last supplementary question on question No. 1 said that it was not a primary function of the Working for Families package to encourage beneficiaries into work. I seek leave to table a press statement made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen entitled  
Families package good for growth 
 in which he makes it very clear that encouraging beneficiaries into work is indeed one of the primary functions of the Working for Families package. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Did the Labour Party members just refuse to allow Dr Cullen’s press release to be tabled? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No but it is hugely funny. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It may well be but it is not a point of order. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a news clipping from the  
Dominion Post 
 in which Sergeant Nelson from the Counties-Manukau Police District says that the practices referred to are widespread in police stations throughout New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Post Primary Teachers Association Views 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with the view expressed in the PPTA report  
Teachers Talk About NCEA 
 that “The external moderation system which is the quality assurance process for internally assessed components of the qualification lacks credibility with the vast majority of teachers.” and “There were huge concerns about the quality and reliability of external assessment.”; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: While I agree that there is room for improvement I prefer to emphasise the views of 80 percent of participants who responded to this issue who said: “On balance … the new system of qualifications is working better than the old system of School Certificate Sixth Form Certificate and bursary.” 
Hon Bill English 
: What does the Minister say to the parents of the 100000 young New Zealanders who have only National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results as a measure of their achievement at secondary school—parents who believed his assurances that everything was all right with NCEA and that suggestions of problems were nonsensical but who have found out today from the teachers of their children that even the teachers did not believe that the internal or external assessment was credible? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would say two things to them. The first comes from the report: “On balance despite the continuing controversy about aspects of the qualification and despite the continued attempts of some people and groups to totally discredit it it can be said the implementation to this point has been successful thanks to that commitment of teachers and professional leaders.” I would also quote Allan Peachey who said: “A number of my colleagues have sought to keep norm referencing alive. I believe that history will judge them to have failed a critical test of leadership to the long-term disadvantage of students.” I suggest the member listen on that one issue only to Allan Peachey. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What will the Minister say to the Northland girl who sat three external subjects—English statistics and geography—whose scripts have been lost by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which as a result refused to accept that she ever sat the exams in the first place even though school staff confirm that she did; and given the appropriate information will he do something about this deplorable situation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There has been a history even going back to School Certificate of scripts that have been lost especially in the post. If the member gives me the details of this particular case privately I will follow it up and we will fix it. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister accept the report’s recommendation that operations grant funding be urgently increased to recognise the continuing financial impact of NCEA on schools or will he continue to support the creeping privatisation of the schooling sector where parents are forking out as much as $740 a year in school donations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is impossible to stop schools asking for and parents giving money for schools. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister aware of cases in which teachers have used assessment tasks made available to them by the Qualifications Authority on its website only to have the tasks slammed by moderators because they do not adequately test against the standard and who does he think is getting it wrong—the authority which set the standard and often provides the task the teachers who assess the students or the moderators who check that the assessment is appropriate? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would be happy to get the member a briefing about how the standards are set because I think he clearly misunderstands that. There have been some standards that have been updated. There have been some teachers who have not followed the updates well. It has been slightly uneven from school to school and that is something that is being looked at. 
Tariana Turia 
: What is being done to address the quality and reliability of the translation of exams and the marking of papers written in te reo Maori in external assessment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: During the time of this Government with the help of that member and especially of Parekura Horomia there has been a lot done to ensure that students can study and be examined in a large number of subjects in te reo Maori. That is generally done very well but there have been a few odd hiccups. I must say that the results for some of those subjects are excellent. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister now telling the House that out of this report of the views of 100 teachers who teach NCEA all he is worried about is whether he can win an argument about not going back to School Certificate and is he completely dismissing the reported views of the teachers that neither the internal assessment nor the external assessment has credibility in the eyes of teachers; and when will he actually focus on what the students need fixed and stop covering his backside as an incompetent Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It reminds me of the boy who got whipped in the ring. I make it clear that in my very first answer to the primary question I said “while I agree that there is room for improvement”. Those improvements will be made. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister aware that there is nothing to compel teachers to follow the recommendations of moderators and adjust their marking accordingly and that the moderators’ views are often ignored when their assessment is way out of line with the achievement standards awarded by teachers; if so how can the moderation process have any credibility whatsoever in maintaining national standards? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not accept that because there is an ultimate weapon which I think has been threatened on one occasion of removing a school’s right to internally assess. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister believes that there are no problems with the way that NCEA is marked and assessed what is his response to advice to me that level 2 English markers were given a phone call part-way through marking and told to “soften the standard” because not enough students were passing? There are a good number of very confused and bewildered teachers out there; what does that email make of his fine theory that this is all about absolute standards? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I make it clear again that there is room for improvement; it is not perfect. There has been a standard arrangement in examinations for at least the last 20 years— 
Hon Bill English 
: The Minister said it was fine and it is a shambles. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member seems to be lacking in control of himself today. What has happened? What is wrong? For about the last 20 years part-way into the marking of examinations there have been communications from examiners to markers. That happened last year it happened the year before and I think it will always happen. 
Kiwibank—Performance 
4.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Has he received any reports on the recent performance of Kiwibank? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes. Kiwibank recently declared a 6-month profit of $2.5 million. That taxpayer-owned business is now performing considerably better than originally projected in all target areas. Why the National Party would ever want to sell it off beats me. 
Mark Peck 
: Would the Minister share with the House whether he has seen any recent reports on Kiwibank and the details of those? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I would be delighted. I have seen a report in which Don Brash stated that he would sell Kiwibank if it were up to him. I have also seen a report stating that John Key the National Party spokesperson on State-owned enterprises would consider selling Kiwibank in the second term of any National Government. Fortunately for Kiwibank customers given the hopeless state of the National Party at the moment their bank is safe. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister support the ambitions held by Kiwibank’s management to expand the bank into business banking and if he does how much capital is the Government prepared to give to support that ambition held by the management? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Any proposal for expansion is in the first instance a decision taken by the board which then comes to see the Government. But I can say that this Government is absolutely firmly committed to keeping Kiwibank—not to flog it off as the National Party says that it will do. My message to Kiwibank account owners is this: they should just remember that National Party members want to sell their bank just as they want to sell other State assets that have been built up by taxpayers’ money over many many years. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister concerned that Kiwibank has not met its targets for the Kiwibank In Reach homeownership programme for low-income families and what steps if any is he taking to ensure that it does meet those targets in future? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Although the bank has reached its targets in many many areas I cannot comment specifically on that. I do know that there is huge confidence in Kiwibank. Now it is well on target to achieving 300000 customers when the National Party and the ACT party said it would fall over before it reached its first milestone and the profits would be down. I can say that under this Labour-led Government Kiwibank is safe. We will continue to own it New Zealanders want to own it and the National Party would fiddle with that policy at its peril. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Can the Minister confirm that the people’s New Zealand - owned bank is on track to having half a million customers or more within 3 to 4 years and why would any future Government disregard so many Kiwis’ interests by ever trying to sell that bank? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I am delighted to confirm that to my colleague but I cannot imagine any reason why a party that is serious about getting elected would ever contemplate trying to sell it—it just beats most people. Those National Party members in thinking of selling and flogging off State assets must know that people do not want that. They rejected it and the National Party will pay the price for doing that. 
Residency—Employees of Relocating Businesses 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has his department had any reason to question aspects of Jim Peron’s original residency application under the employees of relocating businesses category; if so what are they? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes Mr Peron’s application under the employees of relocating businesses category was declined because the relocating business did not meet New Zealand business definitions. Mr Peron appealed that decision which was overturned by the Residence Appeal Authority. However Mr Peron withdrew that application and then applied under the long-term business visa category. This application was approved on 20 December 2002. This is a temporary work permit for 3 years and he is not a permanent resident. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: May I ask the Minister whether he is concerned that Jim Peron who claimed on  
Morning Report 
 this morning: “I have never been arrested for anything and never even been investigated for anything” had his shop raided in San Francisco because he employed a sex offender—and a serious one at that—and stocked publications about men having sex with boys as young as 8 years of age? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not aware of all the details. What I can say to the member though is that in order to get some form of visa like the long-term business visa Mr Peron would have had to have a police clearance from the countries he had been in. I am advised that those police clearances were given. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that the same employee was later jailed for 16 years for child molestation that he was someone who had been employed for a long time by Jim Peron and that the police raided Jim Peron’s Free Forum Bookstore in San Francisco in 1987 where copies of the newsletter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association known as “NAMBLA” were found and why did his police clearance not reveal any of those facts? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The police clearances came from the United States and we rely on the police for that information. I am aware that there was a raid on that book shop and I have been advised that some of the publications that member has raised were stocked at the bookstore. What the Immigration Service relies on is whether in fact the applicant has been arrested or has committed a crime and whether that appears on police files. That is what we do. We check with the local police to see whether in fact everything is in order. I understand that the police clearance was given in both South Africa and the United States. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the police inquiry for Jim Peron’s residency application include the work of Sergeant Tom Eisenman of the San Francisco police who conducted an investigation into the North American Man/Boy Love Association including Jim Peron’s San Francisco Free Forum Bookshop and who commented: “It is an organisation that promotes child sexual abuse.”; if not what use are police checks at all? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not aware of the information the member has just given. We rely on the police forces of other countries to give us information when we are making determinations on applications for immigration status in New Zealand. My understanding is that those police clearances were given by the various agencies that were asked for them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the following articles: two from the  
San Francisco Chronicle 
 linking Jim Peron to publications from the North American Man/Boy Love Association which he does not today deny and regarding Peron’s employment of a convicted child molester in his San Francisco store who also participated in the North American Man/Boy Love Association meetings at Jim Peron’s store and an article dated 2003 by Jim Peron entitled  
The Claptrap over Child Porn  
in which he describes child porn censorship as an effective smokescreen to attack the free speech rights of all adults. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Apart from the shocking revelation yesterday that Mr Jim Peron actually knows Rodney Hide does the Minister have any evidence that there is any truth in any of the defamatory statements that Mr Peters has been making under parliamentary privilege? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you know as a former law lecturer what the defect in that question is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no responsibility I think for that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Precisely; nor is the Minister qualified to give an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I would not go as far as that. But there is no responsibility for the Minister to answer that question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have had Mr Peters during question time and using the privilege of tabling documents make a series of defamatory statements to the Minister all of which the Minister has answered. I am asking now after hearing all the questions today and yesterday whether the Minister—and I am talking about the information that the Minister has—has any information as to whether any of those defamatory statements apart from the shocking revelation that Mr Peron knows Rodney Hide are true? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Apart from the defect in the honourable member’s question I just say this. This Minister could not possibly answer the question because he is not an expert in defamation law for a start which is what he is being asked to pass judgment on. But Rodney Hide’s association with Jim Peron is a long one and he wrote to the Minister asking him to speed up that fart-blossom’s application. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has been responding to questions about what the immigration authorities know. I would note however that the word “defamatory” is not appropriate in this context. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How about having an answer to my question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister can respond to the question in the light of that ruling. The Minister is responsible only for answering questions about the immigration authorities and what they know. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In light of what Madam Speaker has said my interest has been as the Minister of Immigration looking into those matters. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the Minister knows that there is any truth in the allegations that have been made I invite him to tell the House and if he does not he should be man enough to tell us that there is no truth in them. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As Minister of Immigration my major concern is looking at whether in fact the declarations that were made were accurate. One of the accusations I think that had been made was that somehow that person may have had a criminal record. As far as that is concerned the advice I have from the officials is that the police have been contacted in various countries and no records were forthcoming. As a result that person received a police clearance. 
Community Education Courses—Funding 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has he received any reports on the effect of Government moves to reduce the amount of money spent on classification 5.1 community education courses; if so what do they say? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I have seen statements issued throughout the regions yesterday objecting to the Government’s decision to cut category 5.1 funding this year. Those statements were issued by the same person who spent much of last year advocating for 5.1 funding to be cut. Not only do those statements reflect yet another flip-flop by the National Party they contain figures that are just plain wrong. Bill English should front up tell the truth get his facts right and his story straight. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other steps is he taking to ensure greater value for money in tertiary education spending? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government and the Tertiary Education Commission will not contemplate paying for courses over the 5.1 limit as has been advocated by Bill English for his local polytech. He has to get it straight. Either they should be cut or they should not be. When rules are put in place they should be enforced. [ 
Interruption 
] The old woodwork teacher is at it again. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that under his watch as Minister of Education funding for sub-degree and community education courses went through the roof and that polytechnics were forced to enrol students in those courses to cross-subsidise underfunded trade courses? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I cannot confirm that because the vast majority of polytechnics acted responsibly. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Will the provision of trades training be impacted on by the Government’s push to get better value for money out of tertiary education provision? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it will not. In fact there is likely to be significantly more funding for trades training as a result of that value for money approach. There could well be a job for Gerry Brownlee after the election—teaching. 
Police—Inquiry into Historical Allegations 
7.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What has been the total cost to date including staff time of the police investigation announced in February last year into historical rape allegations against the police and what has been achieved? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: I am advised that the total operating costs of investigations into historical rape allegations up to 28 February 2005 is $1603645. Further I am advised that 48500 hours had been spent on the investigations up to the date of 28 February. I should advise the member however that it is not appropriate for me to comment on ongoing police investigations or matters that are already or may be soon before the courts. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister have any concerns that when those costs that he has just given to the House—the costs to date of the police inquiry—are added to the $1.4 million cost of the now suspended Prime Minister’s commission of inquiry it will mean that when completed this matter is set to be the most expensive criminal inquiry in New Zealand’s history; if he does have any concerns what are they? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That question is interesting in conjunction with earlier questions where members in the House have stressed that it is vitally important that in matters pertaining to misconduct or alleged misconduct by the police there needs to be full investigation to maintain public confidence in the police. Yes I regret that this sort of money has to be expended but yes I also believe that it is necessary for the money to be expended. It will not have escaped the member’s notice that in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this week it is reported that charges have been laid against a former police officer who operated in Kaitaia in 1988. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister accept that setting up two separate inquiries at the same time has resulted in this explosion in costs; and with the advantage of hindsight does he think the Commissioner of Police was wrong to set up his inquiry or was the Prime Minister mistaken in setting up an inquiry that has done nothing and so far has cost $1.4 million? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two separate purposes to the inquiry. There is of course an inquiry by the police which will lead or may have led to actions before the court to determine the specific instances where allegations have been made. Alongside that it is important that there is a wider inquiry into whether there was a systemic problem in terms of the culture of the police. That is the inquiry that will be carried out led by the High Court judge and Margaret Bazley. It is important for public confidence that that inquiry does take place but not before the matters before the court have been dealt with. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Why is it good government to have initiated two inquiries one of which has had to be suspended but has cost $1.4 million because it was set up too early; and if the Prime Minister and the public had any confidence in the Minister of Police does he really think she would have insisted on a second and parallel inquiry at this time? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course the broader inquiry was set up first. As matters unfolded and sufficient evidence was apparently gained by the police to take their inquiries further the first inquiry had to be suspended. But I do not recall any members of the member’s party opposing the setting up of the committee of inquiry in the first instance. That party seems to have changed its tune. 
Road Accidents—Funding of Health and Social Costs 
8.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: How much does the Government pay for the ongoing health and social costs of road accidents over and above those met by the Accident Compensation Corporation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Ministry of Transport estimates the total to be over $600 million and a further more than $400 million from health costs arising from air pollution. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree that investing in improvements to the safety of New Zealand roads that could prevent many road accidents is preferable to spending money in an effort to deal with road accidents after they have occurred; if so how does diverting over $600 million of petrol tax into the Crown account where it cannot be spent on road-safety improvements represent the best approach? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Clearly it is a good idea to do both—to invest in people’s health and in safer roads. 
Peter Brown 
: What proportion of the $600 million that is taken and put into the Crown account is attributed to health costs? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It all goes to the Crown account and from the Crown account comes about or a little over $600 million for health and social benefit costs arising from accidents; and as it happens from the same Crown account comes a further $400 million or more from health effects arising from air pollution. All of these are exclusive of accident compensation costs. 
Peter Brown 
: Why is it that the $600 million that goes into the Crown account and subsequently goes into health as the Minister has just indicated comes totally from the petrol motorist; and if these costs are legitimate why does the Government not take something from the diesel operator the truck operator or anybody who uses other forms of fuel? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is right to an extent—that road-user charges which total almost $700 million go straight into the National Land Transport Fund. However if a proportion were to be diverted from the Crown account and a lesser proportion diverted from the Crown account and into the National Land Transport Fund we would have a zero sum gain. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister say why the 5c per litre fuel levy introduced in July 2004 by his Government for accident compensation costs associated with road accidents is being applied to specialised off-road machinery such as steel track excavators when such vehicles are specifically prohibited from using public roads? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If I understood the question correctly the proper answer is I am not the Minister for ACC. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister give an estimation of how much he thinks the recent road toll reductions can be attributed to better roads being constructed in New Zealand rather than just police enforcement? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I am afraid I cannot. Despite endless attempts by people I cannot give a straight answer to that question. What is worth saying is that investment in roads has two characteristics: firstly they are very expensive and secondly the safety benefits last a very long time. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree that it is helpful if New Zealand motorists are given proper answers as to where the diverted portion of fuel excise taxes is spent so they can make up their own minds about whether it is acceptable to now be paying an additional 5c from 1 April to contribute to better roads in New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Successive Governments have spent some time and effort saying the diversion of fuel excise duty into the Crown account does not pay for health costs and never has gone anywhere near paying for health costs; and I welcome the opportunity to say it again. 
Cancer—Therapy Priorities 
9.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she agree that it is “immoral and unethical” to change cancer patients’ adjuvant therapy as a “cost-cutting measure” as was alleged by the daughter of Mrs Frances Borich last month; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Before I start I inform the House that I have approval from Mrs Borich to discuss her case in Parliament. I am not qualified to comment on the clinical decision made by the specialist oncology service at the Auckland District Health Board. However I am advised by Dr Nigel Murray of the board that the change made for the treatment Mrs Borich received as part of her cancer treatment from Zometa to Aredia is based on the strong international evidence that there is no additional benefit from using Zometa. I am also informed that the two drugs have also been assessed by the expert cancer treatments subcommittee of the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee which concluded that both drugs have similar efficacy but that Zometa was considerably more expensive and their minutes note that this higher cost cannot be justified. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does she intend to change the policy that has allowed this callous practice of switching drugs mid-treatment for cancer patients like Mrs Borich who was told on 16 February this year 1 week after having had the drug she had faith in switched: “Go home. We’re too busy. We may be able to give you an appointment in 18 weeks’ time.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not for me to decide which cancer drugs patients will receive. The Auckland District Health Board carefully considers the range of treatment options for patients with cancer and as a consequence it regularly reviews its decisions. That is what the board is expected to do not the Minister of Health. However I would say that I do not believe that telling a patient what the member claims was said is satisfactory and I would certainly want an explanation as to why that was said. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does she allow Pharmac to consider only the cost of the cheaper drug without considering the fact that it takes five times longer in hospital to administer thereby reducing the number of patients who can be treated; it increases costs to the hospital; and it causes despair and anguish to cancer patients? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This Government is following the same procedure and policy with regard to decisions on pharmaceuticals in New Zealand as has existed for 10 years; that is the decision on which drugs will be subsidised is made by the board of Pharmac after it secures advice from an expert advisory committee. We do not intend to change that and I have not heard the National Party say that it will either. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does the Minister not claim any responsibility for this practice when up to 25 cancer patients were affected in the Auckland District Health Board region alone and why does she not move to stop this inhumane and callous practice for at least the cohort of patients who are on the treatment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am aware that the member who is asking these questions spoke to Dr Richard Sullivan the clinical director of medical oncology at Auckland City Hospital several days ago—clinician to clinician. The issues were explained to the member including the international evidence available as to why those decisions were made. It is not for me to make those decisions and I certainly would not tell Dr Richard Sullivan how he should make those decisions or what decisions he should make. It is not appropriate. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a specific question which was: why does the Minister not claim any responsibility for this practice? It is within her power to change the policy of Pharmac. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister answered the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just ask you to think about that. Effectively the Minister’s answer to Dr Hutchison was that he had spoken to a medical colleague and that on the basis of colleague to colleague an answer was supplied to him. The Minister then went on to say that it was not her decision. The question went right to the heart of her authority as the Minister of Health to address Pharmac policy—specific responsibility that she holds. She did not address that question. She obfuscated in the most extreme way. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member asked an almost identical question one or two questions before it. I said that I would not change the policy and I did not hear from the National Party that it intended to change it either. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I have heard enough. The Minister did give her answer which addressed the question. Members may criticise that answer but that is not a point of order. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table three papers. The first is a letter from the daughter of Mrs Frances Borich asking how a successful treatment can be withdrawn from a cancer patient and saying that it is immoral and unethical; the second is from a Mrs Winifred van’t Hoff explaining that her drugs were stopped as a cost-cutting exercise and saying that it is false economy to persist with this policy on cancer patients; and the third is from Mrs Borich’s son who says that his mother’s treatment was stopped without warning advice or consultation. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could I ask the member to clarify for members whether he has the permission of the three authors of the letters to use them in this way because in my view it would be inappropriate to table them without that permission. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I can confirm that. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Police—Resources North Shore 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Were there any police cars in the vicinity of Forrest Hill North Shore at approximately 1350 hours on 20 December 2004 that were able to respond to any urgent request for back-up assistance in the area but did not do so; if so for what reason did they not respond? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: I am advised by the police that two traffic patrols were attending a serious vehicle crash in Forrest Hill Road from 1.17 p.m. to 2.56 p.m. I have asked the police to check the event log around the area and the time that the member has asked about and they advise me that a preliminary check has not identified any request for back-up assistance in the area at that time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister be concerned to hear that on the date and time in question a call was made over the police radio requesting back-up for an incident involving suspicious persons believed to be armed and that that call was ignored by an officer in a traffic patrol car within a kilometre of the incident who was instead content to continue to write out a traffic ticket for a former policeman who heard the conversation over the police radio; and is that not just further proof of the Minister’s ring-fencing traffic patrol cars in order to ignore emergencies? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No it is not further proof. I do not know whether the allegations are correct but of course if the member provides me with the specifics I can have them checked out for him. In terms of firearm incidents I can advise that there was an alleged firearm incident that was attended. It turned out to be somebody practising with a BB pistol at the back of a Liquor King outlet and maybe that is the event he is mistaking this for. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to short-cut this question and tell the House whether there is any evidence that any of the people responsible for this lamentable failure to respond to an urgent call that may or may not have happened was one Mr Jim Peron. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have no evidence to that effect. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister have no knowledge of that incident in view of the fact that if a call is made for urgent assistance regardless of how it turned out all those within the vicinity—in this case within 1 kilometre of the event—should urgently go about assisting the police in that matter? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have reported to the member that the police have no record of such a call for back-up assistance being made. Now if the member wants me to check it out and if he is genuine about his concern I am more than happy to do that but I cannot work on the basis of simple allegations and no facts. The member should provide me with the facts and I will check them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Notwithstanding the Minister of Police’s past record of never wanting to get involved in any police operation I seek leave to table a letter from the former policeman in question and a copy of the traffic ticket setting out the time and place of the event. That is my evidence; what is his? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have a question Madam Speaker before I agree to the tabling. Is there anything in the documents— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No—would the Minister please sit down. We have to rule on it as leave has been sought. If members object to it then they should object; if they agree they should stay silent. I will put the leave again. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Communications Centres Police—Staff Numbers 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many staff were employed at the police communications centres as at 1 March for each year since 2001? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: I am advised that the total staff numbers in the communications service centres were as follows: 316 on 1 March 2001 324 on 1 March 2002 330 on 1 March 2003 341 on 1 March 2004 and 339 on 1 March 2005. Further I am advised that two training wings totalling 28 staff are due to commence a 6-week training course next month which will take the expected total staff number to around 360 having regard for the possibility of staff turnover. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When did the Minister first become aware that staff numbers in the police communications centres had dropped 23 since the month before Iraena Asher went missing and what did he say to the police commissioner? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The figures I have read out to the member indicate that there has been a steady increase in staffing numbers at the communications centres up to the current date of 1 March—due I understand to staff turnover. But as I have indicated to the member the two training wings that are about to take place will take the staffing at the communications centres to the highest level ever. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister from his last answer therefore confirming this email which says: “The com centre is back in the news. I hear that north coms has lost 24 staff in a 2-week period over January-February. The place cannot cope with that.”; and if that is a true reflection of the situation at the northern communications centre can the Minister tell the House how much better would the situation be today if his Government had approved the police’s original request in the year 2002 for 100 extra front-line response staff and for extra staff in all communications centres throughout New Zealand—a request that was denied in fact slashed to the bone? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I cannot confirm the anonymous email. The member has been shown in the House in the past to be wrong but I am happy to check it out if he wants to give it to me—preferably with the name of the person attached. I can tell the member that by the time those training wings are in there will be more than 40 extra staff compared with the number in March 2001 in the communications centre over a period of time when the crime rate has progressively trended down. In fact there is 22 percent less crime than when that member’s party was in coalition with the National Party. 
Marc Alexander 
: Given the response that the Minister gave to the first question why is he able to answer the primary question to the House but we have been unable to receive similar responses to written questions lodged by myself for which a response was due on 1 March? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have no knowledge of the written questions but if the member wants to give me a note I will check it out for him. 
Dave Hereora 
: What discretion does the Commissioner of Police have to allocate resources to areas of specific need? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The commissioner has broad discretion to allocate and reallocate resources to meet his operational requirements. 
Ron Mark 
: Ring-fenced. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is quite wrong. There is a record annual budget of over $1.06 billion. There is a record complement of police officers approaching nearly 10000. If the police commissioner believes there is a need for more staffing in this area he of course has the discretion to respond to that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister advise how many of the 339 staff that he advised were there on 1 March were in the national communications management group as opposed to being in the front-line communications centres? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not know the answer to that. I can tell the member that the figures I have read out are comparing like with like. Those figures show that over a 5-year period there has been a steady increase—solid growth in the number of people employed in that unit—and that with the extra training wings that are to take place next month there will be a record number of people in that area something that that member’s party never achieved when it was in Government and the crime rate was higher. 
Ron Mark 
: Do the Minister and his Government not understand that bringing in new recruits who have no experience is no substitute for “that number of ex-cops who have come back to work there but after a length of time they too have walked away because of the demands and restrictions placed upon them” and is his failure to understand the value of experienced communicators reflected by the comment in the Police Association newsletter which we received yesterday that states: “This sort of thinking tends to suggest that the Minister is on another planet regarding being in touch with the realities of policing today.”; is that the truth? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I am afraid it is the member who does not understand this area very well. The member is saying we should be recruiting more experienced people into this communications centre. To be experienced they already have to be in it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the commissioner’s action in allowing the number of front-line call centre staff to fall from 362 the month before Iraena Asher disappeared to an estimated 334 on 1 March consistent with the Government’s policy of rejecting the police budget bid for a substantial boost in the number of call centre staff? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member’s figures are not consistent with the figures I have just given him. I prefer to rely on the figures the police have given me today. I remind the member that we have a record number of police staff a record police budget a record rate of police resolution and a record decline in crime. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister not actually realise that the problem is identified in the official information that the Minister of Police gave me yesterday which shows that the reason why we have these problems in the communications centres is that the police and the Government have allowed the numbers of front-line staff in the call centres to fall in the months since Iraena Asher disappeared; and what would have happened if those staff had been there when those calls were made? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I have pointed out there are dozens more staff there than when that member was Minister of Justice in the failed National Government. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table information that it is clear the police have not provided to the acting Minister of Police: the answer to parliamentary question No. 2243 which does show significant decline in the number of front-line call centre staff since the month before Ms Asher disappeared. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table again a letter to the Minister of Police dated November 2002 that highlighted the problems front-line communications staff were having with understaffing—a letter the Minister did absolutely nothing about. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. The document will not be tabled. 
Tourism Strategy—Implementation 
12.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What announcements has he made recently concerning the implementation of the New Zealand Tourism Strategy? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I am sorry the Opposition does not like the unrelenting good news but today I am releasing criteria for application to the tourism infrastructure scheme which will help qualifying small communities to fund the water and waste-water infrastructure they need to maximise benefits from New Zealand’s thriving tourism sector. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the key factors contributing to the successful implementation of the strategy have been? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I would be happy to help the member. As with the development of the strategy the success of its implementation has reflected this Government’s commitment to working with key sector interests and operators to build effective partnerships. I will add for the member’s benefit that this is in stark contrast to the wreckage left behind by the last National Government’s Minister of Tourism. 
Mike Ward 
: What measures does the Minister have up his sleeve to persuade more New Zealanders to take more of their holidays in New Zealand in view of the fact that so many overseas visitors find us irresistible and might not doing that do more to make our tourism industry sustainable than our encouraging more people to come here from the other side of the world burning up vast quantities of fossil fuels in the process? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise to the member but members at this end of the House are having real difficulty hearing him with several conservations going on in the House. I am sure the Minister would want to hear what the member has to say and so does the rest of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Power. I hope all members of the House heard and understood that questions should be heard in silence. 
Mike Ward 
: What measures does the Minister have up his sleeve to persuade more New Zealanders to take more of their holidays here in New Zealand in view of the fact that so many overseas visitors find us irresistible; and might not increasing domestic tourism add more to the sustainability of the industry than our persuading more people to come from the other side of the world to visit us? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member is quite correct that this country is a highly desirable destination. I am sure he will be pleased to know that more than 50 percent of New Zealand’s income through tourism does still come from domestic tourism. It is an area in which I will continue to work with the industry and I am happy to engage with the member as well. He clearly has a real interest. 
Relationships (Statutory References) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 March. 
Schedules ( 
continued 
)   
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 13 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sutton   
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher   
Mahuta(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard   
Tanczos(P) 
Burton   
Gosche   
Mapp(P) 
Tizard   
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei   
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson   
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes   
Ririnui  (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Roy(P) 
Dunne   
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban   
Shirley(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy   
Stewart(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock(P) 
English(P) 
Perry   
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones   
Scott(P) 
Collins(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M 
Tisch   
Schedule 13 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise members that by leave the Committee agreed that a number of schedules would be grouped together for the purposes of voting. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 15 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Anderton(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Barker(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban   
Shirley(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton   
Gallagher   
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Gosche   
Mallard   
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Turei   
Clark(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes   
Robertson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 50 
Adams(P) 
English (P) 
Perry   
Turia(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Franks   
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wang   
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Wong(P) 
Brownlee   
Hutchison(P) 
Rich(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones   
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Newman(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy   
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Tisch   
Amendment agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedules 13A to 15 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich (P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher   
Mahuta(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard   
Tanczos(P) 
Burton   
Gosche   
Mapp(P) 
Tizard   
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei   
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes   
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Roy(P) 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban   
Shirley(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 45 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry   
Turner(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wang(P) 
Baldock  (P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth (P) 
Brown(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith M 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy   
te Heuheu(P) 
Tisch   
Schedules 13A to 15 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I want to refer to clause 2 and in particular to the commencement date of this bill. We know that the commencement date is a rushed one. It was rushed because the Civil Union Act was coming into force on that date and even then that date was rushed. When we talked to advisers and to Labour members at the Justice and Electoral Committee we heard that they were trying to advocate a date as early as 26 April and they would have liked it even earlier. There was some consternation among officials because of the amount of work that had to be done after the Civil Union Bill was passed in order to get regulations forms and everything else in place. They would have much preferred a date of 1 July for its commencement which would have given them a bit more time. 
However the Government was clearly anxious to get the Civil Union Bill through because of this year’s election. It knew that a 1 July date for the commencement of the Civil Union Act—and for gay marriages which effectively they are to come into force—would have been acutely embarrassing. The Government’s fond hope in this regard is that the extra couple of months will help New Zealanders to forget will give a little more time for things to pass over will allow the country to become accustomed to this new move and will not impact on Labour’s chances in the election. 
So we have this bill as well with the commencement date of 26 April because it has to dovetail with the Civil Union Act’s coming into force. That means we have a period of only 6 weeks in which officials have to get their regulations into force change forms and get everything prepared for that eventuality. It is a panic time; it is rushed; but that is the reason for it. 
However I think the New Zealand public are much more wary than that and I think their memories are a little bit longer than a period of just a few months. I have no doubt whatsoever that come this election the passing of the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will be very much in the minds of the voting public. Mark my words: the Civil Union Act and this bill will reverberate all the way to the election and beyond. 
Moreover the fact that this is happening on 26 April allows 3 days according to officials in which to process licence applications for civil unions so we are looking at Saturday 30 April as being D-day—the day when there will be a mass of civil unions. We have yet to see how many homosexual marriages there will be on that day but there will undoubtedly be quite a number. 
 The fact that 30 April is coming is probably the best insurance we have against an early election. No doubt the Government will want the dust to settle and the date for the election to be prolonged so that it is as far away as possible from the embarrassing day it will face on 30 April when Television One and TV3 are present at the ceremonies of a number of homosexual couples getting married. But mark my words this bill will reverberate and it will count against the Labour Government. 
Senior priests of the Catholic Church talked to us at the select committee and said that the church had traditionally been a strong supporter of Labour. But they said that Labour could now no longer count on its support. That is how serious they saw this move. I talked to an Anglican archdeacon who said to me—and I was quite taken aback with the strength of his comments—that as far as he and a number of his colleagues were concerned the Civil Union Act was a direct attack on the sovereignty of God. That is the strength of feeling out there among those church communities which represent quite large constituencies that in the past have been strong Labour supporters. The evangelical Christian communities many of whom have been supportive of Labour because of its social justice policies are also turning against this Labour Government because of this and other legislation that has been passed such as the prostitution law reform legislation and because of other things that Labour has brought about. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: None of them will save this member. He’s gone. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: The member for Hutt South may well complain about that. I know that he is a strong supporter of those bills. I look forward to challenging him in Hutt South because I am sure that we will have some very good debates during the campaign about his track record on this issue and my track record on it. I look forward to strong support in Hutt South as a result of that. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The most remarkable thing about the speech we have just heard with its expression of repugnance towards this legislation is that the member who made it is a member of the United Future party which supports this Government and keeps it in office. It is quite amazing that such repugnance can be ignored when it comes to things like confidence and supply. However members will know that I actually voted for the Civil Union Bill and I am pleased that I did. I believe that it was the right thing to do. I believe that in a nation where we allow certain forms of relationships to be legal then we should also allow those relationships to be recognised in some sort of civil form. I believe that that was in the best interests of the country and that in future we will see that it will not have had any negative impact upon the institution of marriage whatsoever. 
I also supported this particular legislation going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Government has talked all the way through about level playing fields. The law as it stood in fact was not a level playing field; it was discriminatory against those in heterosexual relationships. When it came to benefits those in heterosexual relationships were treated as a couple and got less than they would have if they were treated as two individuals. Therefore I saw that this legislation would create a fairer situation. For those people who wish to enter civil unions it will. There may be a price to pay for that for some of those people in the sense that they will have reduced benefits—unemployment benefits sickness benefits and superannuation—because they will be treated as couples rather than as two individuals. 
But here is the rub: the discrimination was to be fixed up in this legislation. It has not been fixed up because the Government has run away from doing so because of the rainbow vote. De facto homosexual couples are to be privileged under this legislation. They will no longer be treated in the same way as heterosexual de facto couples. Heterosexual de facto couples in fact are being discriminated against by this legislation. This Government has said that it would create a level playing field. It said that we should not have any discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Yet this legislation is in fact doing just that. Those who are in de facto homosexual relationships will not be treated in the same way as those in any other form of relationship. 
I had no difficulty with the notion of having a 2-year period before those sorts of provisions were laid on people. People should have had the time to get their affairs in order. But what this Government has done is to run away from its own principles. It has run away from the set of ideals that it has stated in this Chamber time and time again. It has run away from that set of ideals because when certain members of the rainbow community realised that this legislation would hit them in the pocket they became angry and the Government put its principles off the agenda because of the pending election. That is wrong. That shows an unprincipled Government. As a result I have had to change and reverse my vote. As I said in all honesty I could not vote for this legislation under the circumstances. However I would have voted for it if the Government had fronted up to do the very things it has said it would do. I remember the Hon Chris Carter during the debate on the property relationships Act saying that that was the price people of his sexual persuasion would have to pay.Unfortunately they will not have to pay that price because the Government has run away from its clear responsibility to the principles that it has continued to espouse about fairness regardless of sexual preference. 
This legislation discriminates against heterosexuals who do not wish to enter into either civil unions or marriages but who want to have longstanding relationships in a way that it does not discriminate against homosexuals. I hope that people will understand why my vote has changed as a result of the decisions that were made by the select committee. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We come to the dying stages of this debate on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. If it is to be the case that this legislation is to pass—and there are some indications that that is likely to be the result—then I say to this Government the more shame there is. It seems to me and I offer this view sincerely to members of the Committee that this Government cares more about pushing its flawed ideology than it cares about real situations real children and real families. This is a debate about the title of the bill and the title is the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill but it is clear from one of the Supplementary Order Papers that is before the Committee that the plan is to divide this bill into a large number of bills as the various statutory changes find their way into the principal Acts that they should be part of and similarly in respect of Part 2 as the various amendments to regulations find their way into their homes. 
I was interested in the comments made by the previous speaker but perhaps for quite different reasons. It has been made very clear what this bill is all about. It does two things: it gives legal effect to civil unions but it also takes the view that all relationships should be protected—the relationship of marriage the relationship of civil union and also de facto relationships. Therein lies the rub. It is very easy to say what a marriage is. There are formal indicators of such a status and as a result of the passage of the Civil Union Bill it is now very easy to say what a civil union is. There are formal indications of that status. It is much harder to say when a de facto relationship has been established and also much harder to say when a de facto relationship has foundered. Where I part company from the previous speaker is that I see in this bill the problem that it adds to the mix a whole lot of rights and responsibilities for de facto couples—obligations that they have deliberately not chosen to accept. De facto couples are now to be fixed with a host of rights and responsibilities. People enter or drift into de facto relationships for a wide range of reasons. It is also fair to say that there is a wide range of de facto relationships. When couples enter into those relationships they do not intend that they will be fixed with a set of rights and responsibilities but that is what the Government has done to them in this particular setting. 
I am very much aware as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee that the majority members of the committee went painstakingly—or they tried to be painstaking—through the task of reviewing the myriad of statutes and regulations that they thought required change and of making case-by-case judgments as to whether there should be extended in the particular setting of a statute or regulation a set of responsibilities attaching to de facto couples. Some of that work may be well done some of it is doubtless flawed and some of it will doubtless throw up anomalies. One thing is for sure: there are a lot of anomalies in this legislation. I believe that the majority members of the committee—and I was not part of that majority—certainly recognised that in the commentary on the bill because the too-hard issues were parked for reference to the Law Commission. It is relevant to note in the commentary the comments made by the select committee. Page 7 of the commentary states: “As a result of the work of the committee we recommend that terms of reference be developed for referral to the Law Commission to further assess any remaining inequities between de facto couples and couples who are married or in a civil union.” 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I recall when the Prime Minister stated her intention for what was called an omnibus bill and is now referred to as the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill that it would result in the Marriage Act having no practical effect. She said that in an interview with the gay magazine  
Express 
. It is therefore some consolation to the thousands of submitters who have opposed this legislation and the civil union legislation that as a result of the amendments made by the Justice and Electoral Committee only married couples—men and women in New Zealand—can refer to themselves as husband and wife. While I am sure this is not all that the opponents of the legislation had hoped for I think it is worth recognising this milestone in the battle that has been going on in New Zealand during the last year. 
We are all born male and female and with the nurture of our parents we grow into men and women and into adulthood. Although some casual encounter and biology can turn us into mothers and fathers and a loose relationship can turn into a partnership only a decision to commit ourselves to someone of the opposite sex for a lifelong committed relationship makes us husband and wife. 
Those words are very important to hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. A healthy society needs more dedicated husbands and wives—in fact it depends upon them—and they deserve to maintain that special distinction in New Zealand law. 
Although illness accident or the breakdown of relationships can leave too many adults on their own and often parenting on their own and therefore in need of and deserving of society’s support all the research I have ever seen states convincingly that husbands and wives in lifelong relationships in good marriages are healthier happier have the most fulfilling sexual relationships are even wealthier and most important provide the best environment to raise happy well-adjusted children who become tomorrow’s good citizens which I believe we all welcome. 
As I mentioned earlier I welcome the fact that the select committee and the House have thwarted some of the Prime Minister’s stated intentions to make marriage have no practical effect in New Zealand. I will still however be voting against this bill because rather than taking the sensible option of affording all adults the opportunity to register a relationship for the purposes of next of kin rights and responsibilities as proposed in the Committee stage of the Civil Union Bill the Government has created a dishonest replica of marriage solely for the benefit of same-sex couples and their desire for recognition and approval by society. 
I along with everyone else in this Chamber I am sure hope that everyone in this country experiences happiness fulfilment and companionship with whomever he or she chooses but I do not believe the Government should sanction and treat all relationships as being equal and the same and pass civil union legislation. I have no doubt that at some enlightened time in the not too distant future Parliament will revisit this legislation and amend it considerably. The natural law that leads to the fulfilment of human beings cannot be altered by an Act of Parliament or by the will of a Government and society will eventually reject this mistake after experiencing the resulting consequences in our country. 
This bill could perhaps be called the “New Zealand Goes Its Own Way (In Contrast with the Rest of the World) Bill” because on 6 December last year the United Nations passed the Doha Declaration on the Family which was supported by 139 nations. It called on member States to “uphold preserve and defend the institution of marriage; take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by among other things encouraging the full and equal partnership of husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship;” and also to “establish effective policies and practices to condemn and remedy abusive relationships within marriage and the family including the establishment of public agencies to assist men women children and families in crisis;”. That sounds like a very good instruction for any Government but our Government dissociated us from it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 That was a thoughtful speech made by Mr Baldock from United Future. I was almost tempted to seek leave to give him extra time in case he would have explained why having mentioned the Doha Declaration on the Family which New Zealand did not support he still keeps that Government in office. It is a very strange puzzle! 
I was also interested in Mr Donnelly’s explanation of why he is changing his vote. The reasons were sound. This bill was supposed to end discrimination instead it preserves it. But it is not the Justice and Electoral Committee that preserved this discrimination. It was in this bill from the moment it was introduced to the House. It was always intended that the discrimination remain that entitles an unmarried gay couple to keep the single benefit whereas the same heterosexual couple gets around $60 a week less. So that discrimination was always there and it was one of the reasons why I found this bill far more pernicious than the Civil Union Bill. If that bill had not been so blatantly a kick in the teeth to those who see a sacredness in marriage if it had been what France Denmark and so many other European countries and the New Zealand Law Commission recommended if it had been a registration for next of kin purposes and for other partnership purposes it would have been very churlish indeed to have opposed it. 
However the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and the title and commencement that we are now debating highlight the very odd priorities of the Government. It wanted this anguish. It wanted this feeling of upset by the churches. I believe that one day it may work for good because it is time people woke up to how casually this Parliament has changed family law. If one goes through the select committee’s report I think there are five different places where the committee has said that the issues it discovered in looking at this bill need further work. 
The committee considered that automatic succession might not have been contemplated by people in de facto relationships and that this would be better dealt with in a specific review of succession law. It recommended that evidential privileges and immunities not be automatically extended to include de facto partners as a full review of the Evidence Act is being undertaken. It believed that further work should be undertaken in respect of any proposal to include a next of kin register or to include relationships that were not in the nature of marriage or civil union. 
In relation to age the committee said it had encountered a variety of provisions and recommended the Government reinstate its consideration of the age of majority and the ages contained in various enactments and regulatory instruments. Under the heading “Issues recommended for reference to the Law Commission” the committee recommended the Law Commission to further assess any remaining inequities between de facto couples and couples who are married or in a civil union. 
In other words this bill is premature. We looked at a whole host of issues raised by the ridiculous notion that we should be eliminating distinctions between a status deliberately and overtly chosen by people and a status drifted into or deliberately and consciously not chosen—in other words de facto people not marrying. But instead of the select committee coming back and saying: “Let’s do the work before the bill progresses.” the bill is being rushed through. 
 When I say rushed it is being rushed. If we look at some of the bills on the Order Paper that this bill has taken priority over they include Mr Goff’s Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill—he started on that legislation in 1997 and it will not be passed in time—the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which was reported back in July 2004; the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) which was reported back in October 2004; the Police Amendment Bill (No 2) which has not been touched by this Parliament since debate on it was interrupted on 27 November 2001; and the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill which was reported back on 17 November 2003. And we are rushing this bill through. The select committee has expressly identified all the untidy loose ends and all the issues it raises about the way we approach families and relationships but instead the bill is going through. Why? It is going through so that in the last week of April there can be some high-profile television that will further enrage those who feel that a sacred institution has been hijacked and it will delight those to whom the Government wants to say “Thank you”. 
I believe April was chosen because it is judged by the Government which has made more use of polling calculated spin-doctoring and psychological manipulation of the electorate than any Government before it that it is about the right distance before the election for the worst of the outrage to fade from the memories of those who are upset but not too far for the gratitude not to last. We will find that in fact the interest will fade. I do not share the confidence of United Future that this will be a burning issue. I do not think it will at all. I think that the traditional allies of the Labour Government particularly the establishment Churches will quickly forget as they have forgotten so many earlier insults. They were not even aware for example that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of marital status. It came as a real surprise when I proposed an amendment to this bill that would at least have eliminated that provision because this bill ignores that provision in the Human Rights Act. This bill patently thinks that was ludicrous because the select committee went through all the provisions and decided that it was proper to discriminate and a blanket approach had no foundation in principle; nor does it have any foundation in morality. 
By rushing this bill through now and having a commencement date that in the case of the Government’s friends is deferred for 2 years to 2007 and in the case of the other provisions takes effect by the end of April the Government makes very plain the cynical calculation that went into this legislation and how deliberate was the offence it has caused. But I predict that unless someone with more spine than United Future manages to keep alive the concerns about what is being done to family law it certainly will not be an election issue. If United Future can suppress all its anxiety enough to vote day after day to support this Government—and not just on matters of confidence; it has been supporting the Government on matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with confidence—it will manage when the time comes to forget that this legislation generated outrage. 
The ACT party has approached this—not because we expect to receive votes out of it but because we know that this issue will be forgotten—by trying to look at what principles should underlie the law that governs relationships. For example the bill should not be coming in as stated in the commencement clause on a whole series of different dates to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council or specified throughout it should be coming in at a time when everyone knows that it has started. But the Government cannot do that because it is not anxious for people to know that the real commencement date of much of this legislation has been postponed long enough to fix it up. 
The select committee looked at the way this bill interacts with social security law and with the welfare system and stated: “There is a two-year lead-in period to the extension of coverage to same-sex de facto couples so this should enable the government to address the matter.” In other words this is not even intended to be law. This is a holding pattern. We are voting for a holding pattern so that the Government can go back to the drawing board and have another think and what is in this bill is not even likely to be what the law becomes. The Government is trifling with Parliament. It is treating legislation as a mere convenience a set of slogans. It is something one puts up before the election knowing that after the election one will come back in before it takes effect and change it. How will the Government change it? We do not know. I put a set of what I thought were coherent principles into the report. I believe that it is appropriate where a union creates children that the children have an interest in their parents being obliged to share. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 As I said last night during the Committee hearing time I do not want to indulge in arguments or in broad sweeping statements about morality or otherwise. I just want to clarify what is in the law. I did make the comment last night but knowing that there may be different people listening today I will repeat it. Stephen Franks has just made a comment about the different dates. There are different commencement dates in this bill. For instance the amendments to the Care of Children Act will come into effect on 1 July 2005 to coincide with the commencement of that Act. For the same reason the amendments to the Status of Children Act will come into effect on the same day. That is for clarity for the people who are working in the area. Amendments to the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act will come into effect on 13 October 2007 to coincide with the next local body election. That is about clarity and ease of working. Amendments to the Rates Rebate Act will come into effect on 1 July 2006 because rates are set until that date. 
 An issue was raised by the New Zealand First member Brian Donnelly. He made the point that he could not vote for this legislation because he said we were making a discrimination between de facto couples of the same sex and other de facto couples. I tell him that on 1 April 2007 same-sex de facto partners will be treated the same as people who are married or in a civil union. We have decided to give them time to adjust up until that time. The reason for that is quite simple. If on 26 April we had imposed that provision there would have been many couples with little children who would immediately have been faced—and some without warning because people may not read the newspapers or know that these things are happening—with a loss of $126 a week. This period is giving people time. It is out of sheer kindness and a care for children that we are giving de facto partners time to adjust. 
People who enter civil unions were not given the same lead-in period on the basis that they had consciously made that decision. But this provision is for de facto same-sex people—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not entering into an argument; I am just trying to clarify what I consider to be some fairly misleading statements. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I want to make the point at the closing stages of the Committee stage and with the third reading still to go that New Zealand First is voting totally with all 13 members against this bill. That should not be a surprise ultimately because that is what we said we would do before the last election. So it is not as if we were somehow or other block voting or something like that; it is what we said we would do. We gave every indication we would do that at the last election and that is what we are doing. It was on our Labour Party debit card to which I have already referred during the course of the Committee stage. 
I have said many things during the course of this debate and I am fed up with the debate. I am actually sick and tired of the whole thing. This bill should go into the rubbish bin and we should not have anything more to do with it. I really do not want to say all that yet again and bore myself as much as I might bore everybody else. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I appreciate having the opportunity to respond to the taunts of New Zealand First and ACT members who asked why we keep this Government in office. I am actually quite astonished at the lack of primary school arithmetic evidenced by those members who try to do the numbers. If they add—as I hope most people would be able—27 plus 9 and 13 plus 8 they would get 57. For a Government 61 is needed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to address the bill. That is most important. Otherwise I will have to terminate his speech. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Disparaging comments were made by other parties about this issue and I understand that under the Standing Orders I have the ability to respond to those. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: OK but would the member now just move on please. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Responding to irrelevant remarks has never made the response relevant. The rules are very clear. The member has been in Parliament for only a short time and he will not be here much longer. That is one Speaker’s ruling he should look up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to move on please. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: My colleague Larry Baldock was referring to the Doha declaration and because of short time constraints he was not able to finish everything he said. The Doha declaration he mentioned was the Doha Declaration on the Family that was passed in 2004 by 139 nations. That declaration called on nation States to “Uphold preserve and defend the institution of marriage;” to “Take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by among other things encouraging the full and equal partnership of a husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship;” and to “Establish effective policies and practices to condemn and remedy abusive relationships within marriage and the family including the establishment of public agencies to assist men women children and families in crisis;”. 
It is worth noting the latter point point 14 in the declaration about establishing effective policies and practices to condemn and remedy abusive relationships within marriage and the family. That is very relevant because New Zealand refused to sign the declaration on the ludicrous pretext that it did nothing to stop genital mutilation of African women. Well not only was that a very narrow line to take but it is in fact quite wrong. The declaration as I read it makes it quite clear that abusive relationships within marriage and the family are things that States are encouraged to dissociate from. So the Government did not support it. 
The real reason the Government did not support the declaration was that the declaration did not support civil unions and that is much evidenced in this bill. As made very clear here and as all New Zealand knows this legislation and the civil union legislation are all about legitimising same-sex marriage. The Government’s agenda then in relation to the declaration was quite clear in its refusal to support a declaration that said that States should “uphold preserve and defend the institution of marriage”. In terms of this bill the Government’s intention to try to equate marriage with same-sex relationships—and as it started with de facto relationships—is in direct contradiction to the direction in which the 139 nations that signed the declaration are heading. 
New Zealand is out of step with the direction the world is going in. There may have been a period—I know there was a period—when the world seemed to be adopting human rights issues and going down the path of greater and greater rights for people. That is now turning round. Particularly with regard to this whole area of marriage the world has cottoned on to the fact that marriage is the best environment particularly in which to nurture the next generation. That is important. Pansy Wong made a comment to the effect that she had not thought in terms of nurturing children when she got married. Well that is fine from an individual point of view and nobody is suggesting that people who get married necessarily have to have children. But the reason for the State’s interest in providing stable environments is that the State is looking towards the next generation and has a vested interest in ensuring that our children are raised in the best possible environment. 
In that context my speech on the second reading which outlined the statistics that quite clearly show—as all the social statistics do—that a stable marriage between a man and a woman is the best environment for raising children is entirely relevant. The Government and those who are supporting this bill are moving in the opposite direction. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher  
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei  
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa  
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs  
Pettis(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King  
Roy(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
Locke(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Hughes  
Noes 45 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry   
Turner(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wang(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Scott   
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison   
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones   
Smith M 
Collins(P) 
Mark   
Smith N (P) 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Copeland(P) 
Newman(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Tisch   
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton (P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher  
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa  
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide (P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs  
Pettis(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King  
Roy(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
Locke(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Hughes  
Noes 46 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry   
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott   
Catchpole(P) 
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mark   
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Copeland(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch   
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill the Administration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Care of Children Amendment Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill the Estate and Gift Duties Amendment Bill 
the Goods and Services Tax Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 4) the Income Tax Amendment Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 4) the Interpretation Amendment Bill the Life Insurance Amendment Bill (No 2) the Marriage Amendment Bill the Minors’ Contracts Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill the Tax Administration Amendment Bill the Trustee Amendment Bill the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Wills Amendment Bill  
divided into Relationships (Statutory References) Bill Administration Amendment Bill (No 2) Care of Children Amendment Bill Child Support Amendment (No 3) Deaths by Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill Estate and Gift Duties Amendment Bill Goods and Services Tax Amendment Bill Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 4) Income Tax Amendment Bill Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 4) Interpretation Amendment Bill Life Insurance Amendment Bill (No 2) Marriage Amendment Bill Minors’ Contracts Amendment Bill New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill (No 2) Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill Social Security Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill Trustee Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) Wills Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 332 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip) 
: 
 I seek leave for parties voting on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill relating to Supplementary Order Paper 332 to cast votes for the Ayes and the Noes and to record abstentions notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b). 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 1; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Animal Products Act 1999 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. The dairy industry is worth nearly $6 billion in export earnings per year to New Zealand. It is essential that there is confidence worldwide and in New Zealand in New Zealand dairy food products. The safety of those products is a matter of concern for all of us. This bill sets in place standards and risk-based management practices that ensure that is the case. The bill was developed after the release of two discussion documents one from the previous National Government in 1999 and one from the Labour Government in 2001. The bill has had the support of all parties up to this point and I believe that tonight it continues to have the support of all members. 
The title of the bill basically covers what the bill intends. The risks that milk products can contain are pathogens and residues. Back in the very early days of New Zealand’s history unpasteurised milk was very common. But the risk of TB and other pathogens was recognised and pasteurisation became standard from the 1900s. The sort of pathogens that milk can contain are retroviruses which are killed by pasteurisation and processing zoonotic diseases and residues of veterinary medicines and antibiotics. We see that antibiotic resistance is increasing throughout the world and is a considerable problem. We must have a risk management programme as stated in Part 1. 
 Luckily the dairy industry has actually taken a responsible approach to the use of antibiotics and they are not used routinely. In some other countries they are which causes problems with animals and with the increasing resistance to antibiotics. The routine use of antibiotics in animals can lead to increased antibiotic resistance amongst humans and that is of major concern in terms of serious diseases. Tuberculosis is a good example of that because worldwide TB resistance to antibiotics is proving to be an increasing problem. I remember many years ago working at the old chest hospital here in Wellington because before I was a doctor I trained as a nurse. I remember the antibiotics we had to give to people for months on end to try to cure TB. TB continues to be a problem and antibiotic resistance is an increasing problem. 
Safety and quality assurance programmes for milk and dairy products from the farm to the table are being developed under this legislation and that is welcomed. Milk products are a great growth medium and it is vital that milk is collected in ideal conditions and transported to the milk company for processing within 24 hours before there can be any deterioration. The Act that is to be repealed the Dairy Industry Act is over 50 years old. That Act is specifically for milk products. Now we will have the dairy industry brought under the Animal Products Act. Rather than end-product testing we will have a process of certification for the whole collection treatment and manufacture of milk products. That approach is needed to facilitate the entry of New Zealand dairy products into more overseas markets. 
New Zealand cheeses ice cream and chocolate have to be amongst the best in the world. [ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely and undoubtedly. When I travel overseas New Zealand chocolate is one thing that everybody asks me to bring. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. All that I really want to do is to use the bill’s commentary to illustrate the key points and the reason why New Zealand First wants to support the bill because they are contained in it. As the commentary states “The Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill provides for the regulation of the dairy industry by the Animal Products Act 1999 and repeals the Dairy Industry Act 1952. The Dairy Industry Act 1952 which currently regulates the dairy industry is outdated and imposes significant constraints on the dairy industry’s ability to facilitate trade in dairy products and to counter risks to food safety.” as we have heard from our colleague in the National Party. 
The commentary continues: “Further the Act does not adequately facilitate the application of a risk management approach to the regulation of the dairy industry. Food safety administration in New Zealand is moving towards an environment based on the principles of food-safety risk management in line with international trends. The bill’s requirement that the dairy industry operate in a risk management environment will provide consistency with the rest of the food industry. A further aim of the bill is to facilitate the entry of dairy products to overseas markets by providing the controls and mechanisms needed for market access and the giving of official assurances.” As I have said in previous speeches in debates on this issue in terms of cheese alone the dairy industry provides $5.8 billion just from the cheese industry itself. 
Under the heading “Export requirements and consultation with the industry” the commentary states: “We do not recommend any change to clause 13 allowing the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry to issue notices specifying requirements to be met in relation to animal material or animal products intended for export.” The Primary Production Committee made that decision. 
I now move to another part of the commentary about provisions in the bill that are important under the heading “Cost recovery in transition”. But before I do that I want to say to the Committee that the select committee on this bill comprised the Hon David Carter as chairperson Janet Mackey as the deputy chairperson Clayton Cosgrove the Hon Harry Duynhoven Gerrard Eckhoff Ian Ewen-Street Phil Heatley the Hon Dover Samuels Tariana Turia and R Doug Woolerton. Doug Woolerton’s approach and input into the bill and his common-sense view would have been no different from that of Gerry Eckhoff from ACT and of the Hon David Carter. They are farmers in their own right who approached this bill with reasonable common sense. 
The provisions concerning cost recovery in transition are I think an important part of the legislation. The commentary states: “The New Zealand Cold Storage Association considers that any fee paid for registration under the dairy regulations should automatically constitute registration under the Animal Products Act 1999. The association also considers that where this fee has been paid to cover a period beyond the date of the passing of the bill and a fee has also been paid to register under the Animal Products Act 1999 the fee relating to registration under the dairy regulations should be refunded. We”—the committee—“have some sympathy with the submitter but understand that costs associated with the previous registration have already been incurred; money should not be refunded for services that have been provided.As section 121 of the Animal Products Act 1999 allows for the waiver of fees and could be used to avoid duplication of cost-recovery we see no need to legislate further.” 
The Bills Digest No. 1116 gives a clear overview of this bill. It needs to be passed without any fuss. I think it is a common-sense approach to the industry which is one that provides this country with overseas funds and also the income from primary industry that is very important for the economy of this country. The Labour Party has benefited from that rural income. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I notice that when my colleague Lynda Scott spoke on this bill she said that the parties over the last two Parliaments including with this one were in agreement with this legislation. I have no argument with that because that support is based on the dairy industry itself saying that this is the type of legislation it wants though I think that the industry is giving that confirmation through gritted teeth. I notice that the argument has been mounted that this is a modernisation of the Dairy Industry Act but although casual listeners to these proceedings could be excused for thinking that the dairy industry has not progressed at all under that Act of course quite the contrary of that is the truth. The dairy industry in fact has managed itself and created an industry that is second to none in this country and we should be standing up and applauding its efforts. Here is an industry now that I think on last count was trading in 42 different countries around the world. It is an industry that by anyone’s standard has done very well. In fact I think its contribution to export earnings for this country is something like $5.5 billion—nearly as big as the surplus that Michael Cullen hoards; the surplus that he has taken from hard-working taxpayers in this country. 
I do not buy the argument though that this measure is something that has to be done to the dairy industry for its own good. This industry has had the ability to self-regulate itself to such an extent that it is the envy of other primary producing organisations around this country. The health standards that the dairy industry or Fonterra imposes on its suppliers is something that members should make themselves aware of if they do not already know about them. I notice my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison has a significant interest in the dairy industry and when he takes a call he will be able to attest to that fact as well. 
Then we get into the talk about risk management programmes as if we are putting them in place for our own good. Well I have to say that the risk management programmes that the dairy industry already has in place are first class. This legislation is essentially a technical confirmation to make the industry come up to what is supposedly an international standard. I say “supposedly” because when I look at some of the regulations the bureaucracy and the strangling of enterprise in some overseas economies I cannot help but think that we are being brought back to the pack somehow by putting in place this type of legislation. That worries me; it worries me a lot. I think what is happening is that we are being told particularly by European nations that this is the type of standard they want. That comes from nations that in terms of their primary production are not even on the same page as the New Zealand dairy industry or New Zealand dairy farmers when it comes to actually being productive and in terms of the health standards that they impose. I cannot help but think that in some way falling for their rhetoric and dancing to their tune is going to do us damage in the long term. What we will lose is our ability to set the standard to be flexible and to be nimble. 
Then of course I look at who is driving this legislation and I see those words “the Food Safety Authority”. Well that organisation makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. It has the reputation across the primary industries of this country of being almost like the Gestapo. It is bureaucratic it is all-powerful it does not listen and it has been driving business after business out of business. The Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs is shaking her head but that is simply out of ignorance. If she were more in touch with what was happening around this country she would know that what I am saying is quite right. We have set a standard now that is almost so impossible to reach that people are throwing up their hands and saying that it is just too hard. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I note the policy objectives of this important technical legislation known as the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill are indeed fundamental to the hugely important dairy industry of New Zealand. They include management of the risks to human and animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products and the facilitation of the entry of dairy products to overseas markets by providing the controls and mechanisms needed for market access and the giving of official assurances. 
Undoubtedly the National Party supports this bill.It is of a technical nature and it is indeed one of the very necessary safeguards to ensure that our vital dairy export industry is right at the forefront of the world that it is able to carry out its business around the world in an effective efficient manner and that our magnificent dairy products are given the full opportunity to be exported in a highly effective way. As the member of Parliament for Port Waikato proudly representing one of the finest dairy areas in New Zealand I say that it is indeed right and proper that we in the National Party support this bill which has been supported strongly by the industry. 
I must mention that the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand consists of the major exporters in the country. It represents Fonterra Mainland Products New Zealand Dairy Foods Tatua Cooperative Dairy Co. and Westland Cooperative Dairy Co. and has strongly supported this bill. The association is concerned of course about some of the aspects of ensuring that in this process the bureaucracy does not get out of hand. I must concur with my colleague Brian Connelly that it is a worry to see the reflex reactions of this socialist Labour Government. It is so intent on increasing bureaucracy in New Zealand and putting up hurdles for exporters that it is vital that those tendencies are kept in balance. 
Clause 13 is one of the important measures in this bill; it deals with the area of export requirements and official assurances. New section 60 of the principal Act inserted by clause 13 states: “(1) The Director-General may by notice issued under this section specify requirements in relation to all or any class or description of animal material or animal product intended for export if the Director-General is satisfied that the setting of the requirements—(a) is necessary or desirable” etc. I notice that the Primary Production Committee makes the point in its commentary on the bill that: “We do not recommend any change to clause 13 allowing the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry to issue notices specifying requirements to be met in relation to animal material or animal products intended for export.” But the commentary does state: “While consultation would provide checks and balances”—and I think it is referring to the New Zealand Food Safety Authority which is well known for being bureaucratic and has the mark of the Hon Annette King on it in terms of its bureaucracy—“we consider that it is not practical to consult on all market access requirement issues.” I absolutely concur with that. 
The select committee points out in the commentary: “Some of the matters will be of an urgent nature requiring fast resolution in order to ensure access to the particular market while other changes will be of a minor or technical nature meaning the increased compliance cost of consulting would outweigh any potential benefits.” That is why it is so important that we do indeed have clause 13 which does mean that the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry can give official assurances. The commentary also states: “Many negotiations are restricted and confidential and a consultation requirement would not be appropriate.” All that is about our exporters being able to be nimble on their feet to do things efficiently and effectively and not to have to wait for the sort of bureaucracy that this Labour Government is so intent on putting before New Zealand businesses. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am pleased to debate Part 2 “Amendments to Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999”. In the debate on Part 1 I was talking about how well our dairy products are liked overseas and I shall tell members a little anecdote of a friend whose son took back overseas with him 32 bars of New Zealand chocolate. Do members know how much that would have weighed? They would have been very heavy but he managed to stay within the weight allowances for travel. I am sure that he will use those bars of chocolate to sustain him through some of the cold dark winters in the Northern Hemisphere. 
Jill Pettis 
: Like Vogel’s bread. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Like Vogel’s bread the chocolate is very well liked. 
This bill has had the support of the industry and the Primary Production Committee did receive advice from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. It is that authority which I think was set up 3 years ago that is going through the legislation in New Zealand to look at any legislation that is to do with food safety. It will be conducting a domestic food review to establish a programme that does protect consumers. It will also look a minimising compliance costs and will ensure that New Zealand’s food industry is positioned for the growth we expect to see in the future. Of course we have seen enormous growth in the dairy industry with more and more people going into that area herds increasing in size and a lot of conversion of land to dairying. That is a real growth area for New Zealand. Ninety percent of our dairy products are exported. 
 It is no wonder that all parties support this bill. The select committee made only minor changes to it. I agree with the committee’s report where it states it wants to see compliance costs kept to a minimum. The cost recovery in transition was one point that was debated at the select committee. Select committee members wanted to ensure that the fees that were paid under the Animal Products Act could be transferred to the dairy regulations or that there should be a refund if people had to pay new fees. A National Government—soon to be—would be very keen to see compliance costs reduce and to avoid duplication of cost recovery. 
One of the things I have to ask about is the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. We have a Ministry of Health that has over 1000 people in it. The Ministry of Health has grown and grown; I think it employs about 1200 people. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The Minister said it would go down. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: The Minister did say the number would go down by 25 percent but what happened was that it went up by 25 percent. So there was a bit of a problem there. While I totally agree that food safety is extremely important why did we need to have a separate authority? Why is the Ministry of Health not responsible for New Zealand’s food safety? It seems that the more the bureaucracy grows the less it does. However we now have a New Zealand Food Safety Authority and it gave advice on this bill and is conducting further domestic food reviews. 
We support Part 2. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I was surprised that the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King bridled so much when I attacked her sacred cow—I suppose I should not have done that—the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. Essentially it is just an extension of this Government. That is why she really bridled. This is the Government that says: “If it moves legislate it.” Here is another example of this taking place. Let me be clear: the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has a reputation of being an overkill organisation. It has a reputation of being almost impossible to deal with and a reputation of: “Do it our way or no way.” It has a reputation of not listening of being threatening and it has created a view that it is right at all times—of course it is not. 
That is what bothers members of the dairy industry when they ask me to address this concern on their behalf when it comes to this bill. They are concerned that having created one of the biggest and best industries in this country without the benefit of the Labour Government—without the benefit of any Government to be fair—is that they will be smacked with red tape and legislation and it will get out of control. I caution the Minister in the chair that it is something she needs to be cognisant of. This country can ill-afford to have its largest primary export earner damaged in any way. It is a real issue because in the minds of our dairy industry and producers this is the type of thing that concerns them. The perception whether or not it is real is what counts. 
One has only to look at the changes that have taken place across the landscape of New Zealand to realise just how significant the dairy industry now is to this country. I was brought up on a dairy farm and I recall my father milking 120 cows and having an economic unit. He was a significant player in the industry and that is not very long ago. Now unless people are milking something in the vicinity of 350 to 400 cows they are not significant players. But what is not in doubt is that the intellectual property that has now been captured in this huge organisation called Fonterra which is a culmination of huge industry players is something that should not be ignored and that is the concern that people have. 
I have touched on risk management programmes before and was coming to the defence of the industry in saying that what it has in place now is second to none. The industry already has first-class risk-management programmes. One only needs to go to a dairy farm to see what hurdles people need to jump through in order to be able to supply their local dairy company. If people do not do it to those exacting standards the milk is dumped. That can be a penalty of $2000 or $3000 to each of those suppliers on any given day. So they have some real self-interest in making sure that these things are in order. This bill simply brings those actions into a legislative form that protects their interests. 
I appreciate that it will maintain our ability to keep exporting into international markets and of course that is important to the industry. But we must not do it in such a way that brings us back to the pack. I have already touched on that in an earlier call. I think we are in dire trouble if we try to reach out to the standards that some of the European nations want to impose on us simply because we are more efficient and they are not. We do not subsidise our agricultural sector at all. With those European nations we are dealing with subsidies to the tune of £30 billion annually. I just hope that the Minister instead of getting on her high horse when I talked about the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and the threat that it represents to a lot of dairy suppliers will take those concerns more seriously. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I too have had experience in the dairy industry just like my colleague Mr Connell. New Zealand First supports Part 2. The products produced by this industry are wide ranging and very well received offshore. We need to protect the borders and to make sure the industry is protected for the rest of our lives because this country was built on the efforts of the pioneers in the primary industries. This Government has been rewarded not because of its own efforts but because the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Rt Hon Jim Bolger interfered with the dollar and the industry got on its own two feet demonstrated its reliability and returned to the Government a percentage of the surplus it now enjoys. 
I have to be very careful in speaking to this bill because the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King saw me one day in Masterton eating some of these products. I am being very guarded and hope she does not let out the secret about what I was eating. 
The dairy industry has grown. What was once sheep country on the Napier - Taupo plains is now huge dairy farms. Some of those farms are milking over a thousand cows. The dairy industry provides this country with huge dollars. 
I want to touch on something Mr Connell mentioned. He was brought up on a dairy farm; I was brought up on a sheep farm but I did have to milk two cows every day before I went to school—only two but that was an effort. I had to drag the cream can out to the front gate and at the end of the week make sure I got the cream can back with a chit in it saying what the quality of the milk was and I was paid according to that. Today when driving around the country one sees milk tankers collecting milk from a wide range of areas including places that previously were not dairy-farming country. Around Taupo my colleague Ron Mark is a director of a trust that has won a number of awards for being one of the top dairy providers in this country. 
New Zealand First supports Part 2 of this bill. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I would like to take this opportunity to thank members for their contribution to this debate and to thank the Primary Production Committee for the way it dealt with the bill and reported it back without amendment. I thank the committee members for the points they raised but I do not agree with all of them. This bill is all about managing the risk to human and animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products and facilitating the entry of dairy products into overseas markets. I do not think there is any argument about that and I think both our medical professional people here today outlined very well the first objective when it comes to protecting people’s health. 
I was a little disappointed in Mr Connell’s contribution in that he did criticise the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. It is a very new organisation and not a threat to industry but there to help industry—to help facilitate exports and the making of quality products. I am particularly proud of that organisation. I know that it works incredibly well with industry and what the member said was a little unfair of him. I realise he was trying to put a bit of spice into the debate—trying to gear it up a bit—and maybe to have something to say. But I personally am very proud of the agency and I think many other New Zealanders are as well. 
The only other comment I would make to Mr Connell is that I take his point about us not wanting to have standards forced on us by overseas European markets. There is only one problem with that: if we do not accept the standards that they will accept in order to allow our products in they have the right to say they do not want our products. So there is a balance between saying: “Well stuff your standards.” and making sure we have a standard that is acceptable to the people who buy our products. After all it is a buyer’s market. We are the best in the world but it is still a buyer’s market out there and we have to meet the standards that buyers find acceptable. In the same way we expect people who send products to our country to meet our standards. 
I thank members for their contributions. This bill will see through a measure that started some time ago and at the end of the day it will bring the dairy industry in line with the Animal Products Act. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 This is the title debate and we are very pleased that the title debate now comes at the end. I can remember being in this Chamber and continually having title debates. They were often very amusing especially to members of Parliament but did not have a huge amount of relevance to anything that had gone before. Now that we have the title debate at the end it means we can do a little bit of a summary of what we feel about the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. 
It was interesting listening to my colleague Brian Connell saying he grew up on a dairy farm and to the member from New Zealand First talking about how he had had to milk two cows. Well when I grew up in the Marlborough Sounds I boarded on a farm. One thing that my mother said to me was: “Lynda never learn to milk the cows.” which I thought was quite good advice. It was not so good when at the milking competition at the last A and P show—my having entered it for many years and having got into the finals a couple of times—I had an Ayrshire which managed to kick me in the face and give me serious bruising. That was not such a great event! 
This bill is supported by all members in this Chamber. As the Minister said it is about making sure that all dairy processes from the milking shed and the farm dairy until the dairy product is exported and sent to retail operate under a risk management system. I do hope the Minister’s assurance that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority will continue to work with industry to try to reduce compliance costs and to make businesses in New Zealand more viable will hold true and that we do not see that body becoming just another self-serving bureaucracy rather than being part of the Ministry of Health. The fact is we are an exporting nation and we should think about the fact that we can have year after year of excellent and safe products but it would take only one serious contamination of our products to damage us worldwide. That means that continual vigilance is very important in risk management. 
This bill has been around for a long time since the first public consultation in July 1999. I think that shows how slowly things move through the parliamentary process— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Under the Labour Government. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: —especially under the Labour Government. But we are trying to get this bill through tonight so that it can become law and so that the industry which is all geared up for this legislation is able to move ahead. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the title of this bill particularly after the very fine speech from my colleague Dr Lynda Scott. I think she was absolutely right when she pointed out how vital it is to have continued vigilance with risk management because there is no doubt that it is the quality of our exports and our vital export industries that is so important to New Zealand. I recall that it was a Labour Prime Minister none other than David Lange who some 10 years ago—it might have been a few years longer ago than that—said that the dairy industry was a sunset industry. Shame on him! Shame on him and on the Labour Party for that awful prediction. 
Hon Annette King 
: Look forward—grow man grow! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The Minister of Health is saying “Grow man grow!” and indeed that is exactly what the industry has done despite the Labour Government and its reflex ability to set up hurdles for the industry. But it was good to hear the Minister of Health actually take a call on this bill which has taken so long. 
Hon Annette King 
: Actually I’m the Minister for Food Safety. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Sorry—the Minister for Food Safety. And that brings up another point. Why do we have a separate ministry when this matter could surely be dealt with by the Ministry of Health if only the Ministry of Health under this Minister were much more efficient and effective than it is. Nevertheless I make the comment that in schedule 3 it points out that it is important to include such things as alcoholic beverages. Many of us are not aware that some of the by-products or the value-added products of the dairy industry are 100 percent alcohol formulated caffeinated beverages and ice creams. What I really want to point out is the emerging number of value-added products that the dairy industry is now producing. They include nutraceuticals pharmaceuticals and all sorts of goods with high value that through research and development the dairy industry has been able to bring up to market and those products have been extremely important for New Zealand. 
What I am concerned about though is that the regulations of this Labour Government particularly in biotechnology have made it extremely hard for that research to take place in New Zealand. It is a very very important problem to researchers throughout New Zealand. It is common to Crop and Food Research AgResearch and HortResearch that unnecessary regulations brought in by this Labour Government have meant that much of that vital work has to be done offshore. 
It is an indictment on the Labour Government that only several months ago one of the very important trials on transgenic sheep to do with Huntington’s chorea was done offshore in Australia because the verdict was that it would take too long and cost too much to be done in New Zealand. 
But like Edwin Perry I also recall being involved in milking cows myself. On this occasion it was in Ireland where the uncle in County Cavan had the largest dairy farm in that county—26 cows. We hand-milked them popped them on the donkey and carriage and went down to the dairy but next door happened to be an excellent hostelry where there was a considerable amount of wonderful Irish brew. Six hours later one would come back to the farm and the cows would be all ready to have that excellent cycle repeated. What is remarkable though is that the Irish dairy industry has been bolstered by absolutely massive subsidies—€190 billion in direct subsidies—and that is what the New Zealand industry is having to compete against. That is why it is so important that we must have an efficient and effective system here in New Zealand. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for Food Safety for taking a call. I thought she made some fair points and her contribution was reasonably balanced. I have to ask her a question though in relation to her saying that a part of this bill is to facilitate entry of products into overseas markets. That does pose a question about what we have been doing in the last 30 to 40 years in this industry. 
Hon Annette King 
: There could be new markets. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister says there could be new markets but I have tried to build an argument that the expertise in this industry is such that it has the ability to get into new markets. I have already said in a previous call that Fonterra now operates in 42 countries around the globe. 
The Minister made a second point and I thought on balance it was also fair when she talked about the need to balance the standards we want with those standards imposed by overseas countries. I find myself agreeing with that somewhat but I wonder how hard we work in Government to convince particularly our European markets just how exacting we are in the standards we impose on our dairy industry in this country. That industry is not subsidised unlike the ones the Minister is comparing it with. It is very hard to get more blood out of a stone when the industry is already performing to very exacting standards. 
I pose the question and I posed it before of just how necessary some of this stuff is. I go through the bill and see that we are putting definitions into legislation and members of the Committee might be interested to know that under clause 5(2) “dairy material” is now “milk extracted from a milking animal;”. That is one definition of it; the second is “any material derived or processed from milk extracted from a milking animal”. I know that Mr Perry said that he had milked cows so he will be interested to know what a “dairy processor” is. Under the definition “dairy processor means a person who for reward (otherwise than as an employee) or for purposes of trade carries out dairy processing; and—(a) includes—(i) a farm dairy operator:”. 
Edwin Perry 
: How do you work that out? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I do not know but I thought that might bowl the member over. In the following subparagraph a “dairy processor” is also “(ii) a transporter of dairy material from a farm dairy to a place of processing or manufacture:”. This is an industry as I have said that contributes something like $5.5 billion to New Zealand’s export earnings yet we thought we had to tell the industry those things! I found the definition of “dairy product” quite interesting—one lives and learns. Under the definition it “(a) means animal product that having originally been dairy material—(i) has been delivered to the place of sale for consumption or for end use for purposes other than consumption; or (ii) has left New Zealand’s territorial waters in the course of its export:”. 
I have one last point that I thought was worth mentioning for the benefit of people like Dr Hutchison Mr Mark—in his capacity of having owned a number of dairy farming estates—and Mr Perry. I thought they might want to know what a “farm dairy” is. It is “a place where milking animals are milked”. Just for the sake of clarity the definition goes on to state that it is a place where they are milked on a permanent basis or on a temporary basis. But the key is that it is a place where dairy animals are milked and its surrounds could include stockyards milking yards or feedlots. I ask the Minister in the chair whether we really need to tell an industry that operates in 42 countries around the world and that contributes $5.5 billion to our export earnings how to suck eggs. Because that is what we are doing. That is the very issue I was bridling against before when I said that what we are being threatened by here is unnecessary legislation and red tape. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper331. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.