Volume 608 Week 22 - Tuesday 29 April 2003 
Volume 608 Week 22 - Tuesday 29 April 2003 
[Volume:608;Page:5085] 
Tuesday 29 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We in the Opposition are having some difficulty in getting replies to questions for written answer and I have raised that matter with you. We have a serial offender in the Minister of Education and I just wonder what action your office has taken in making the Minister comply with the Standing Orders in replying to written questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will examine that matter and report back to the member. 
Questions to Ministers 
Electricity—Supply 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What actions has the Government taken as a result of the 2000 Inquiry into the Electricity Industry the 2001 electricity crisis and the electricity governance establishment project and will these actions reduce what he described as “economic and social disruption” facing New Zealand this winter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We passed the Electricity Industry Reform Act and the electricity amendment legislation which were both opposed by National. The Government announced a series of moves yesterday to reduce the probability of disruption should a dry winter eventuate. 
Hon Bill English 
: After passing two Acts of Parliament conducting an inquiry into the electricity industry in June 2000 publishing the first policy statement by the Government as to the further development of New Zealand’s electricity industry—which includes the management of electricity supply risk—and then publishing a revised policy statement on exactly the same issue in February 2002 why is it that nothing has happened at all to reduce the impact of a dry year on New Zealand’s electricity supply? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Despite the fact that Parliament is sovereign neither statute nor policy statement can make it rain in the lakes nor fill up the Maui gasfield with the amount of gas that was previously assumed to be recoverable. There are of course questions lying around the issue of whether the market is the best means of ensuring security of supply. I welcome the suggestion from the Opposition about reducing the amount of market influence in the electricity area. 
Mark Peck 
: Would the Minister care to share with the House exactly what is the effect of the legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Apparently it is to make the Opposition laugh but in fact it picked up the key recommendation of the inquiry by providing for industry self-regulation. However the Minister of Energy was far-sighted enough to provide for a Crown governance board should the industry model fail. It looks like we may now have to use that option which was also opposed by National and ACT. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister concur that to address the electricity problems in the short term there needs to be appropriate regulation coupled with a financial incentive to save power and that in the longer term there need to be incentives and less bureaucracy in order to improve and enlarge the supply capacity? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I agree on the second point that there is not enough bureaucracy and rather too much market in terms of long-term supply considerations. [ 
Interruption 
] The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that the market works perfectly but there is a problem and then object to any suggestions for changing the market. Certainly it is very important for reductions in demand over the coming period to first look at issues like the appropriate levels of coal supply for the Huntly plant. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Minister admit that any power cuts and economic and social disruption caused by electricity shortages are not the result of market failure but of Government failure in that the Government owns 70 percent of the generating capacity in New Zealand and has elected to take scarcity profits over building new generating capacity the Government owns 100 percent of the national grid and has elected to take profits rather than to increase the grid’s capacity it is the Government’s own Department of Conservation that is refusing to allow the Dobson hydro scheme to go ahead and it is this Government that has decided to make New Zealand the only country in the Southern Hemisphere to ratify the Kyoto Protocol? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows full well that he made a statement at the end of that rather than asking a question. The aspects of the question that were addressed the Minister can reply to. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will just reply to the last part. As a professional historian by training I say that for A to cause B A has to come first. As the Kyoto Protocol does not come into force until 2008 it is hard to see how it is causing a power crisis in 2003. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister believe that the New Zealand economy has given Max Bradford’s market reforms a long-enough trial and does he agree— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That comment is totally out of line. The current situation we face in the electricity industry is entirely of this Government’s making— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a matter for a point of order. That is a political point. The member’s question so far is perfectly in order. The member will start again. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister believe that the New Zealand economy has given Max Bradford’s market reforms a long-enough trial— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no such thing as “Max Bradford’s market reforms”. There are simply the reforms—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have had a 2 weeks’ break and we are having a little bit of fun. That is where it ends. The member so far has not come to any point of order. I want to know what it is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If you refer to Standing Order 372(2) you will find that one cannot make inferences epithets or assumptions when asking a question. That is exactly what this member has done. What we have at the moment is Pete Hodgson’s power system which has fallen apart. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member rewords her question “reforms introduced by the Hon Max Bradford” it will be in perfectly good order. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Thank you Mr Speaker for your advice. Does the Minister believe that the New Zealand economy has given the market reforms introduced by Max Bradford a long-enough trial and does he agree that the least economic cost and social disruption in future will come from accelerating permanent improvements in energy efficiency while we develop cost-effective renewable supply options? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly demand management over both the short and long term is important in the electricity market but it has to be said there are elements that can be used to influence demand factors. If one is to give away those elements then it is much harder to limit demand through other mechanisms. But there are some interesting questions around whether the market by itself will deliver a sufficient margin of security of supply given New Zealand’s peculiar situation of dependence on hydro power and the nature of its hydrology. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister concerned that Transpower is apparently unwilling to commit the funding necessary to upgrade the distribution capacity of the national grid because it requires the approval of every local authority over whose area its wires might pass and has no confidence that that will be forthcoming; if so what action is he prepared to take in respect of that matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That issue has certainly been raised but it is not clear that it is true. We are looking at that but there are other considerations in terms of Transpower’s own commercial imperatives. One of the changes that result from Mr Hodgson’s legislation is that once the Electricity Governance Board is in place it may be a great deal easier to deal with that particular matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Government has itself known about the effects on New Zealand households and businesses of the 2001 electricity crisis can the Minister tell us exactly what steps this Government has taken since that crisis to reduce the impact of a dry year this year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There was no expectation of a dry year as early as 2003. The member should also be aware that the Maui Gas redetermination has a big impact on the amount of gas that is to be taken out of Maui this year. That was not expected. 
Economy—Reserve Bank Statement 
2.  
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received regarding the response to the recent announcement by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Business New Zealand described it as prudent the Council of Trade Unions said that it was a step in the right direction WestpacTrust said that a stitch in time saves nine and compared it to the more reactive responses seen in some earlier cycles and the Opposition spokesperson said he had not expected the bank to move at that time which indicated that he would not have done so had he stayed being the Reserve Bank Governor. 
David Cunliffe 
: What moves has the Government made to allow the conduct of monetary policy to be more accommodating of growth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There were three changes to the monetary policy framework—those in the policy targets agreement requiring the bank to avoid unnecessary economic instability requiring the bank to take a medium-term focus rather than be distracted by temporary fluctuations and adjusting the inflation band to 1 to 3 percent. Those are all well supported by the business sector in New Zealand and by informed commentators and financial analysts overseas. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given that one of his express aims in changing the policy targets agreement with the Reserve Bank Governor in both 1999 and last year was to “minimise excessive appreciation of the New Zealand dollar’’ how does the Minister reconcile his claim that the changes have been successful with the fact that the New Zealand dollar has appreciated faster during the last year than at any other time since the currency was floated in March 1985? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The primary factor is that we have enjoyed the highest growth rate in the OECD which has attracted money into New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports of the enormous cost to New Zealand’s economy over the last 7 years of the Reserve Bank Governor having previously failed to take anything other than a blind ideological approach to this issue at a great cost to the New Zealand borrower? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I saw many comments in particular last Thursday about a lack of proactive responses in earlier periods and therefore a tendency to both ratchet up too early on the upside and ratchet down too slowly on the downside of the economy and welcoming a more proactive approach by the new management of the Reserve Bank. 
Economy—Reserve Bank Statement 
3.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard’s statement when announcing the reduction in the official cash rate from 5.75 percent to 5.5 percent that “available data suggest that growth in the New Zealand economy is slowing”; if so will the cut in interest rates be accompanied by a prosperity-boosting tax cut? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes and no. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Given the Minister’s own statements of concern that economic growth will be affected by the energy crisis and the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic how does he justify overtaxing the country in order to fund his superannuation scheme and get a surplus when if he balanced the Budget there would be enough money for a $50 per week per full-time taxpayer tax cut and would not such a tax cut boost the economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Only a very silly Minister of Finance would try to solve a cyclical downturn problem by a structural change in the Government accounts. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why will the Government not spend the Budget surpluses now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because unlike some others we are governing for the long term and governing for all New Zealanders not just for the rich. Before we spend the surpluses which are not cash surpluses but surpluses on an operating balance on an accruals basis we need to know what proportion of them is structural and what proportion is cyclical. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given the likelihood of a sharp slow-down in the economy over the next year or so why does the Government continue to erect what most people in the business sector see as major barriers to economic growth such as the Resource Management Amendment Bill and the Land Transport Management Bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because we do not agree with business particularly on the former. In any case 3 years ago we were forecast that this economy would grind to a permanent halt and no new jobs would be created. Over the last year we have had the fastest growth rate in the OECD and well over 100000 new jobs. Cassandra I am afraid is one of the few people left on the unemployed index at the present time. 
Electricity—Dobson Hydro Scheme 
4.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: With the worsening electricity crisis and concerns for adequate electricity supply in future years will he reconsider amending the Conservation Act 1987 to enable the proposed Dobson hydro scheme to go ahead as the proposed scheme is in a high rainfall area; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 No I will not. The proposed power scheme would take some time to construct and is irrelevant in terms of the electricity situation this winter. The modest amount of power likely from this scheme does not in any case justify the flooding of an area of valley-floor kahikatea and matai forest protected within an ecological area and established by the National Government in 1983. 
Gordon Copeland 
: When the Minister stated in the  
Greymouth Evening Star  
with reference to the Dobson hydro proposal that there are “better projects around” what specific projects was he referring to? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Quite a number of options were suggested in that very same paper the member referred to. I would suggest that he and other members of the House agree to my tabling this document which I propose to do now. I seek leave to table an article from the Greymouth  
Evening Star 
 which lists quite a number of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister could also list a couple of those options as requested. I will take the tabling of the document at the end of the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Project Aqua the proposed scheme for the Waitaki River would generate up to 570 megawatts compared with the 60 megawatts from the proposed Dobson scheme. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 16 April had a suggestion from Mighty River Power that it would put a 100-megawatt geothermal plant at Kawerau. Those would be much more viable options. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on other power generation proposals for the West Coast? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am trying to gather how this goes now. Mr Copeland asked the question. United Future has an understanding with this Government in respect of supply and now you are giving Mr Parker a supplementary question. Now that is not how it goes in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am sorry but that is how it has gone in the last 4 years. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well it is not going to go on for many more. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will not raise that point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I have raised it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I have ruled it out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I want to finish my point of order and not be constantly interrupted before I have completed what I want to say. The fact of the matter is that everybody on this side of the House expected the next question to come to this side after Mr Copeland’s supplementary question. That is what the press gallery and everybody else watching this TV show would be expecting. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: A TV show! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well it is being shown to about 70000 New Zealanders who have nothing better to do. My point is why is there a change now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has been no change. The United Future party is not part of the Government coalition. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on other power generation proposals for the West Coast? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen an excellent report in the  
Greymouth 
Evening Star 
 the headline of which was “Plugging into the Coast’s power potential”. I seek leave of the House to table this as there seems to be a great deal of interest in the subject. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did he in an interview on National Radio on 16 April say: “This project has already been to the High Court and was rejected.” when in fact it has never been to the High Court or any other court and the decision was made by a Minister of the Crown or is this just part of a misleading campaign for this Government not to take responsibility for its own decisions? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Clearly that member was not listening carefully to the interview because in that interview I made the point the topic had been to the High Court. In fact that member should recall that in 1995 his predecessor Denis Marshall as Minister of Conservation declined the flooding of an area of conservation land in Buller for a hydro scheme. It was tested in the High Court and thrown out. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table this transcript which says: “This project—” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows tabling is done at the end of a question. However the Minister twice asked for leave to table. I allowed it and as I have done that for him I will now allow it for the member. Is there any objection to the tabling of Dr Nick Smith’s statement? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to read the transcript so the House can be clear about exactly what the Minister did say on National Radio. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to read the transcript. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not read the transcript but I heard my colleague read a sentence when he sought the tabling of it and the quote was: “This project—”. Given that the Minister in his answer said he did not talk about the project he talked about the topic I wonder whether the Minister wishes to reconsider his answer because answers in this House are meant to be accurate and if the Minister has misrepresented this to the House now is the time to correct it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is up to the member or the Minister. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I want to make it clear to the House that my recollection of that interview was that flooding ecological land is the topic I was talking about. My reference—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank Dr Smith. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn people about calling out and interjecting during points of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s not a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order and that is Mr Brownlee’s last warning for the day. It is a point of order and the member is speaking to it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is misusing the point of order procedure. He should actually be seeking leave to make an explanation which the House would give to him but he should do it properly not under a point of order procedure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member can raise a point of order outside the point of order. This is supplementary question material so far that I have been listening to not a point of order. The member was speaking to the point of order. Had the Minister finished? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No I had not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That’s a complete abuse of the point of order procedure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member will now stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I stand withdraw and apologise and say we are having a complete abuse of the point of order procedure. The member is correcting his answer and you and I know that he should not do that by way of a point of order. He should seek leave and make a proper explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now leave the Chamber. He is way out of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: So I am now being thrown out for insisting that the Standing Orders be followed. What you are doing is outrageous. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I made a legitimate point of order you know I am correct and you are now throwing me out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was on his feet explaining the difference and in fact used the words “in his recollection”—referring to whether it was an individual project or the general topic. That is in fact correcting the answer. He took my invitation which you said he was entitled to take to correct his answer. It is quite wrong to do that by way of a point of order. I understood he was doing it by way of a correction. When a member then goes through the process of pointing out that simple fact as laid out under the Standing Orders and then gets thrown out because of it that is I think quite wrong. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I think the House does need clarification on that point. My understanding of the Standing Orders is quite clear. The Minister in the situation we have just experienced should have sought the leave of the House to make an explanation. My colleague Richard Prebble has been thrown out of the House for standing up for the rights of the Opposition on this issue and I think that does give the Chair cause for reflection. I suggest that was an over-reaction. I also suggest that if that interpretation is correct you should invite my colleague to return to the Chamber forthwith. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is clear to me having watched the episode that Mr Prebble was thrown out for continuing to interject and yell abuse at the Chair during a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The problem here arose because a Minister sought to clarify a situation from his memory when he knew full well that in front of him—provided by Dr Smith—was the transcript which if read out would have solved the problem. It is sneaky and it is weasel words; that is what has been condoned here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I first want to deal with the matter of Mr Prebble. He was not thrown out for attempting to raise a point of order; he was thrown out for defying the Chair. That was the reason and the same will happen to anyone who does that. I will not have that in this House. The second point is that the Minister was speaking to a point of order but it is clear that it was not a valid point of order and the matter ends at this point. However supplementary questions can continue. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two points I want to make. The first is that when the Minister was answering his question initially he had a document in front of him. You directed him to read from the document to make a couple of points from it — 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In answer to the question. 
John Carter 
: Correct in answer to his question. I wonder therefore given that you gave him an instruction or suggested to him that he read from the document whether you might suggest to him that he read from the transcript so that the House does know what it states. You could ask him to do that in the same way that you asked him in the first instance. That would clarify the matter for us and it would be useful. The second point I want to make is given that you have asked Mr Prebble to leave—in circumstances that there has been some question about—I wonder whether you could ask him to be recalled at the end of this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not because as every member knows he was thrown out for defying the Chair and shouting abuse which he cannot do. That was the reason he was thrown out and everyone knows it. On the member’s first point all I can say is that if a member or a Minister has misled the House there is an appropriate way to deal with the matter and we all know what that way is. I can then receive correspondence on the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a serious development that arises from your last statement—that is Ministers who wait until some distant time in the day when no one is in the House when the press gallery is totally empty and when the television lights are off and then come down to the House and correct their answer. It is wrong and they should be told either to make the correction immediately or to take the consequences the next day in a privilege hearing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I thought that was the case I would be the first to jump on the Minister as hard as I could. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been much confusion here. First of all I do not believe that Mr Chris Carter called out “Speaking to the point of order”. So there was some confusion as to what grounds he was on his feet. I think if you reflect back you yourself were confused because at one point you said he was speaking to a point of order and at another point you thought he was answering a question. He cannot have been doing both and if he was correcting an answer there is a proper procedure. I think that it is harsh. We had supplementary questions to ask the Minister. There was a lot of concern—not just on the part of members of the Opposition but it should be on the part of members of this whole House—about answers given by Ministers and the appropriate way in which those answers are corrected. We had a situation with a Minister on his feet but under what pretence or guise— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have consulted. The member was speaking to a point of order and not answering a question. There is no current supplementary question before the House and I am prepared to call— 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: For the sake of speed and of getting through question time I seek leave now to make a personal statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. It is in relation to this matter I presume? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is in relation to this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member can only object. He cannot speak to it. Is there any objection? I call the Hon Chris Carter. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: On quite a number of occasions I have been asked questions on this issue before and it has been raised in the House. I spoke recently at a meeting of mayors in Kaikoura on the issue of the dam on the Arnold River near Dobson. On each occasion I have made reference to the actions of Mr Denis Marshall when he was Minister of Conservation and to having this issue tested in the High Court. I have used it if one likes as a sort of icon case about the difficulty of flooding or damaging conservation land. 
My recollection of the interview on Radio New Zealand is that I made reference to that. Now as all members of this House know I have not read the transcript yet. It may well give the impression that I was referring specifically to the Dobson case. If it does I apologise to the House. In fact I was referring to the precedent set in the Buller case under the National Government. That is an issue I have referred to many times and perhaps may well refer to again in the future. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister has compounded the problem. He was given then a clear chance to go to the transcript he has before him and to read it out. That is what the question was about; that is what he was required to answer. Instead he took the time to make a ministerial statement and in an evasive and obtuse way he tried clumsily to get out of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We cannot discuss a personal explanation made to this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hope it is not going over this matter any further. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. It relates to Standing Order 343 and members have a right to ask the Chair questions relating to the Standing Orders. That Standing Order is very clear: a member may make a personal explanation about matters of a personal nature with leave of the House. I assume that when the Minister spoke to the mayors at whichever gathering it was it was as the Minister and I assume that when he spoke in the radio interview of which the transcript is provided he was speaking as the Minister so his statement should have been a ministerial statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to read the second sentence in that Standing Order: “A personal explanation may not be debated.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is exactly the point I raise. The Hon Chris Carter should not have used a personal explanation in the way he has. There is nothing personal about that at all. He is trying to explain his actions as a Minister. It seems that the Opposition’s role of scrutinising a Minister is being subverted by his being allowed to pursue this particular Standing Order in his own defence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. He sought leave from the House. I asked twice and leave was given. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I also raise a matter because I think we have missed the point here. Standing Order 343 is clearly about a personal explanation. The Minister was not giving a personal explanation; he was replying in his ministerial capacity to a matter under his responsibilities as a Minister. His statement should have been a ministerial statement. I think we need a clarification of this point before we move on. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The fact that the member is a Minister does not get around the fact that if a member is talking about words he has used and whether he may have misled the House in using those words that is a matter of a personal explanation. Whether one is saying that about what one said as a Minister or simply as an individual the same conditions apply. It does not require a ministerial statement. For one thing a personal explanation has to be believed by the House; a ministerial statement does not. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am ready to rule on this matter. I say once again that the Minister chose to ask for leave. I twice asked and the House concurred. A personal explanation can be used about an answer a Minister has given. That is always the way in which a misleading reply is cleared up. The Minister chose to do that right now instead of later as it was suggested he might do. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I need guidance now because the supplementary question I am about to seek the call for is in effect debating the correctness of the statement that has just been made. I did not know anything about the background— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give the member the perfect opportunity to ask his supplementary question and I will listen to it very carefully and liberally. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In the same Radio New Zealand interview why did the Minister refer to it as “a little micro-dam” and four times referred to it as “a micro - hydro scheme” when in all the expert literature both from an engineering and sector point of view they are schemes of less than 5 megawatts when this is a 62 megawatt scheme and noting that in my own electorate of Nelson 400 people have been put out of work because of the power shortages in our region will he now not accept that he has consistently misled the public about his responsibility and the importance of this scheme to the top of the south? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can give the member the assurance that I will now call it a middle-sized hydro scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question I call the Hon Ken Shirley. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why am I not getting the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had a supplementary question and Mr Shirley from ACT has not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I have not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had a supplementary question. Both I and the Clerk have it registered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I have not. I do not care what he has written down there. I have not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member assures me that he has not I accept his word and I will call him as soon as I have heard Mr Shirley. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We did not slave to get ourselves to No. 3 in this country’s politics only to be taken fourth and fifth in this House. Those are the rules. Those are the precedents that go back a long long way and I am asserting them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Sit down Winston. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Shut up. Sit down. I am speaking. It is my point of order. Sit him down. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise my point again Mr Speaker. You know the order of precedence in this House. This is the second time today I believe that you have attempted to rearrange supplementary questions or reassert them or reorganise them. We do not accept that. I am now asking to have this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whether or not through error I have already called Mr Shirley. I will call the member next. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How does the Minister reconcile his repeated statement that the Conservation Act precludes him from engaging in land swaps that would allow the Department of Conservation to receive 700 hectares of prime forested land on Mount Buckley in exchange for some 250 hectares of cut-over lands in Card Creek thus allowing the significant expansion of TrustPower’s Arnold River power scheme; how does he reconcile those statements with the fact that last September he engaged in a land swap of Department of Conservation land in Bruce Bay to allow Te Runanga o Maakawhio to build a marae? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That member’s question contains a number of erroneous points. The one I would like to address principally is that the Mount Buckley area that is proposed for exchange has itself been logged for timber and in any case is under no threat. It is hill-country forest whereas the area that is to be flooded is valley-floor kahikatea of which we have less than 5 percent left in the country. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It was how did he reconcile the land swap issue with— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. The Minister addressed the question. He might not have given a satisfactory answer but that is not my concern. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He did not address the question. The question was not in two parts; it was one question: how does he reconcile the fact that he is claiming there cannot be a land swap for Arnold River because it is Department of Conservation land yet last September the Minister engaged in a land swap of Department of Conservation land to allow a marae to be built in Jacksons Bay? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is only using debating material. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Before I ask my supplementary question am I right or wrong about having asked a question on this issue? I am right am I not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of us— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Just say so so that we can get things clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the member had. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am telling you I was not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have accepted the member’s word. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes and my point is that we will not take you reorganising question time as you please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I think I am entitled to an apology. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am getting sick and tired of this. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So am I. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am on my feet and I am ruling. I say to the member that I checked to see whether he had asked a question. I had listed it. I carefully asked my assistant. He had listed New Zealand First. A member of his own party came to the Table to check because there was some confusion about it. I said that if I had made an error I accepted the member’s word and I have accepted the member’s word. I then called Mr Shirley. There has not been any change. In future of course the member will be called third. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is not my point. My point of order is that we do not accept your decision in respect of Mr Parker and I certainly do not in this case as well. That is twice in the space of four questions. We will not accept that. I ask you to explain why it happened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. Now the member will stand withdraw and apologise. I will not have the ruling about Mr Parker questioned because it is consistent with the rulings I have given over 4 years and I have already said to the member that I have accepted his word on the other matter. We have finished that particular point. I want now to come to the member’s supplementary question which he is entitled to ask. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to have Mr Peters expelled from this Chamber but I ask you to reflect on the issue of consistency when you consider your treatment of Mr Prebble who in contesting the application of the Standing Orders and having an exchange with you was not asked to withdraw or apologise but was summarily thrown out of this Chamber. When Mr Peters did the same thing—and again I am not saying that Mr Peters should be thrown out—he was treated with some considerable leniency and was then asked to withdraw and apologise. I suggest that what is good for one leader should be good for the other and indeed for all members of this House. I ask you to reflect on that sincerely and to reflect on whether you treated Mr Prebble a little harshly. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed you did call upon Mr Prebble to withdraw and apologise and in fact he did do so and then carried on yelling from his seat at you on a regular and continual basis for a period of time which Mr Peters did not do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is precisely correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Minister had before him the transcript beginning with the words “This project” why did he not read it to the House or is it that the transcript again states everything that he has attempted to explain to this House since he was asked to qualify what he said? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I repeat to this House that if I gave the impression I was talking about the Dobson project I apologise. What I was referring to was the precedent set by the Buller case—something that I have referred to often. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister believe that Dobson is the only site on the West Coast on which a hydroelectricity dam could be built that would make economic and environmental sense as implied by TrustPower; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No a number of options are available and I refer the member again to the article that I am about to table in the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister visited the site of the Dobson hydro scheme; if so what are his impressions concerning its environmental robustness? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No but I am going there in a couple of weeks’ time. However I do have full confidence in the ecological reports describing the area including those done by TrustPower. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If conservation land is so sacrosanct that its status can never be changed why is there before this House a bill in the name of the Hon John Tamihere the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill that changes the conservation status of eight different blocks of land including ecological reserve; and why does this Minister simply not come clean and say this is not a legal issue but a political issue in which Labour is being held to ransom by the Greens? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That member once held the position of Minister of Conservation and he I am sure knows that sections 7 and 16 of the Conservation Act relate to the disposal of conservation land. As the Buller case which I have referred to a number of times in this House showed in the High Court to change that would require a major change. That member when he was the Minister of Conservation added 1800 hectares to the Dobson site. Why does he want to destroy it now? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table a map of the area involved in the Dobson dam which shows quite clearly that the area that it is proposed for it is nowhere near the area that was added by the previous National Government. 
Document not tabled. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why did the Minister tell Radio New Zealand that he would need a law change to allow the Dobson River scheme to proceed using an infinitesimal fraction of the Department of Conservation’s gorse and broom when section 18(7) of the Conservation Act states specifically that the Minister may by notice in the  
Gazette 
 vary or revoke the purpose or all or any of the purposes for which an ecological area is held and it shall thereafter be held accordingly? I urge the Minister to consider the consequences of deliberately misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question and do not make a comment. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I refer again to the Buller case which showed that under the current Act one cannot destroy ecological land for any purpose. One would have to have a law change to do that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the High Court decision in respect of the Ngakawau case which made it plain that the Minister had the discretion. 
Document not tabled. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Further to the question from my colleague Mr Ken Shirley why will the Minister not consent to the Arnold River scheme proceeding to build a hydro dam by swapping Department of Conservation land as he did last September when he swapped prime rimu forest in Jacksons Bay to allow the building of a marae? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not prepared to swap land of lesser value for land of more value that would be destroyed. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Given that one of the Minister’s reasons for turning down the Dobson hydro dam proposal was that conservation groups would be outraged did he take into account the views of any other groups and their probable reaction—for example the people of the West Coast? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I was delighted to drive 2½ hours from Christchurch to Kaikoura and then 2½ hours back to Christchurch last week to meet the mayors of the upper South Island to discuss that very issue. One of the hallmarks of my ministry I hope is a willingness and a desire to engage with anyone interested in conservation issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Minister whether he will now read out from the transcript the comments beginning with “This project” or can I take his declining to do so as clear evidence that he has misled this House deliberately? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Like probably most members of this House I am very keen to see question time end soon so I am not prepared to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: So too am I and that reply does not help. I want the Minister now to address the question or I will take further steps. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I first asked the Minister whether he would read those comments out and the answer to that is yes or no. Secondly I asked whether I can I take his refusal to read them out as clear evidence of his attempt to mislead this House. He has given us half an answer. I want the answer to the first question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the Minister say “No” quite clearly. That addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is pretty rudimentary stuff. I asked whether the Minister would read those comments out and the answer to that would be yes or no. I then asked whether I could take an answer of no to mean that he had deliberately attempted to mislead the House. Is that answer no to the first question no to the second question or half an answer to both questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am now losing patience. The member was asked a specific question. He said “No” and there cannot be any clearer answer than that except to say yes. 
Electricity—Savings 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Are any incentives being developed by the Government to encourage consumers to make the 10 percent electricity savings called for by Winter Power Task Force coordinator Dr Patrick Strange; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Incentives for power savings in the form of buy-back programmes from electricity retailers will be part of the industry’s response to the prospect of power shortages this winter. Those programmes were successful in 2001 and will add to the existing financial incentive for saving electricity which is a lower power bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will those incentives apply from yesterday—the date of the 10 percent savings target announcement—or should householders postpone any savings until they know how much the incentive is and when it will apply from? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Consumers certainly should not postpone making any savings because they will get a lower power bill as a result and will reduce the chances of problems in winter. I imagine that retailers will roll out their various programmes over the next week or two. They will include programmes that operate at the individual customer level and those that operate at the community level where the savings are gathered and returned into the community in some project or other as they were in 2001. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How easy is it for domestic electricity customers to save 10 percent on their power bill? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority advises that domestic electricity consumers can save 10 percent on their power bill relatively easily by switching off appliances at the wall when they are not in use taking short showers instead of baths switching off unnecessary lighting and so on. Information on simple measures to save electricity will be made more widely available in a substantial advertising campaign beginning this weekend. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What progress has been made towards the provisions in the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy to encourage solar water heating—namely a market transformation programme with a target of 10000 new installations a year and a Government purchase programme to stimulate the solar water heater market—and would that not have made a difference if it had started last year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government hopes to make announcements in regard to those matters in the next week or two. They are useful: solar water heaters all those things help to contribute; when one starts to do the arithmetic one finds that they are not hugely useful but everything helps. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister agree with the proposal from Meridian Energy to supply its customers with draught-stoppers energy-saver light bulbs and hot water cylinder wraps and how many draught-stoppers energy-saver light bulbs and hot water cylinder wraps would it take to meet the 10 percent savings target and where do people sign up for the delivery of those goods? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In order the answers to the questions are: that is Meridian’s business; quite a lot; and I do not know. 
Social Policy—Development 
6.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Social Services and Employment 
: What initiatives is the Government taking to improve social policy development? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 This morning I announced an $8.6 million package of initiatives to ensure social policy development is supported by high-quality social research. The centrepiece is a project to encourage social science research networking leadership and collaboration within and between university and public service sectors. The project will encourage social science research excellence help identify and plug key research gaps and ensure public sector policy development is informed by timely relevant and excellent New Zealand research. 
Helen Duncan 
: What examples is the Minister aware of where social research has contributed to better outcomes for New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One example would be the evaluation of the work-for-the-dole scheme in the late 1990s which proved that the scheme failed. It actually prevented people from finding work and ensured that they stayed on the dole longer. I congratulate Roger Sowry on commissioning the work-for-the-dole evaluation which proved that National’s current policy is a failure and will be a failure in the future if it ever gets a chance to implement it. It should be grateful for this research. 
Judith Collins 
: Why does one of the Minister’s social policy initiatives involve spending $400000 of taxpayers’ money on research into the increase in the number of sickness and invalids beneficiaries when he has previously supposedly given definitive reasons for the dramatic increase in numbers and why can he not just accept that this Government’s slack welfare policies are the real reason behind the massive increases? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What I have said in the past is that we have an idea of why we think these benefit numbers are increasing but that we need to do definitive research and that is what the money is for. I understand that the member’s party intends to introduce work testing of sickness and invalids beneficiaries again if it ever gets a chance to do so. I am appalled by that policy. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Do those policy initiatives include significant means for reducing the 621-day investigation period of an urgent Child Youth and Family Services case or will the Minister continue to publicly wring his hands agree that it is not good enough and accept no responsibility? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member may have missed part of the discussion about the case that she raises in which I said that we do not accept that length of time. In the performance agreement the department now has a maximum of 6 months. 
Sue Bradford 
: Given the Government’s stated commitment to partnership with the community sector why is the Minister ignoring the large potential resource of community-based research and instead focusing his new programme on funding and increased support for academics especially given the fact that there are already 300-plus policy analysts at the Ministry of Social Development? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is appropriate that we do focus the bulk of our work on the people who do the research and they happen to be in tertiary institutions. But if the member reads my speech from this morning she will see that we made a great deal of effort to include consultation with the community on the way that this research will need to be done. That is why a large number of community-based people are at the social policy conference today and tomorrow. This is the single biggest social policy conference that I can remember in the history of this country and they are there. 
Judy Turner 
: In the light of the Minister’s comment this morning at the social policy research conference when he said: “Historically social research by Government agencies has been disparate.” can he confirm to the House whether the Government plans to absorb the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Ministry of Youth Affairs into the Ministry of Social Development? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm to the House that we do not intend to absorb those ministries into the Ministry of Social Development. 
Police—Car Crash Inquiries 
7.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Do the reported press comments by Police Association president Greg O’Connor regarding “the State failing to deliver justice to its people” because of the police’s inability to carry out car crash inquiries have substance? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 No. Police policy around responses to traffic crashes has remained unchanged since it was formulated in the early 1990s. The commissioner expects police to respond to all fatal and injury accidents. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister saying that the  
New Zealand Herald  
article of 28 April that reads: “Police in parts of Auckland have given up investigating minor car crashes and are telling victims to deal with the offenders themselves.” or further reports that victims of a random shooting out of a car parked on a victim’s property had to wait 8 hours before the police attended or for example the sending of a form letter from police to victims of vehicle accidents advising those involved that they are on their own are examples of proactive policing or what? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not think that any of those examples are acceptable. However I tell the member that the police have been using the same standard letter for a long while. It was last modified on 14 September 1999— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking the Minister whether those reports have substance and whether they are true. He is attempting to give us a diatribe of what happened in the dim dark past at a time for which he was not responsible as Minister. That is my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order is not well based. The Minister did address the question. I heard him do so myself. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Commissioner of Police stated that the ability to respond to reported offences is due to lack of resources; if not what information has the Minister received about the current level of resources available to individual police districts? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The commissioner and I held a media conference on this matter yesterday. The commissioner stated that it is not a matter of resources. The Government funds the police and the commissioner sets district budgets. For example the budget for the Auckland police district has increased significantly between the 1999-2000 year and 2002-03. Over that time the personnel budget has increased by 9 percent the operational budget by 38 percent and the total budget by 14 percent. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister categorically state that there are no other crimes that the police are telling people to investigate themselves and is this not just the Government’s solution to try to lower the crime rates by having less crime reported? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I cannot give a categorical denial of that. From time to time police resources are stretched. However I would say that the police are doing far better. This Government has set standards for them that burglaries should be attended within 24 hours. The police are doing well achieving that compared with what happened under the National Party which was abysmal. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Minister make that statement in respect of police resourcing when there is only a 40 percent clearance of reported crime first of all and when every member of this Parliament dealing with any region or district has been told by the local police that police are under-resourced and under extraordinary stress? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The amount of resolved crime has been higher under this Government than under any other Government and I have to say the police officers who want more resources want to catch more crooks always and they use every opportunity they can to lobby. The commissioner lobbies me and we deliver. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that the raising of the bar for crimes that warrant police attention will soon extend to other offences where victims may tend to over-exaggerate the crime in order to compete for the attention of a police force that is seemingly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of crime; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think some victims do exaggerate the nature of the crime and that is because crime impacts on people at different levels. I seek leave to table a letter last modified on 14 July 1999 from the Balmoral Police Station. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first shows that fewer than one in 10 burglaries in Auckland are being resolved under this Government and the second is a report from the Insurance Council of New Zealand describing the police as under-resourced underfunded and under stress. 
Documents not tabled. 
Genetic Engineering—Risk to GDP 
8.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why did Treasury advice to him describe the range of impacts on GDP from use of genetically modified organisms as being from a “best-case scenario” of plus 2.5 percent to a “worst case scenario” of minus 1.3 percent when an April 2003 BERL-AERU report on this topic includes scenarios with greater risks to GDP? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 BERL-AERU was asked to consider the full range of theoretically possible outcomes. Treasury in reporting to Ministers chose sensibly to focus on likely outcomes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Was he aware that US research on productivity from genetically engineered (GE) soya beans shows they produce on average across all states 5 percent less than conventional soya beans when he accepted Treasury advice that the scenario assuming zero productivity gains from a GE crop was not likely and should be ignored? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The reason for ignoring such an unlikely outcome is that it is very unlikely that farmers would continue to plant crops or use genetically modified (GM) stock that continues to show zero productivity growth. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How is the Government planning to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks of genetically modified organisms? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government will institute an extremely rigorous case by case approvals process that will ensure that New Zealand can build on its strong biotechnology sector while maintaining strong environmental safeguards. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Given that the economic reports in question are based on fundamental assumptions about New Zealand does he consider that the New Zealand environment is in reality clean green and GM-free and what evidence has he to support his answer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly and this is quite relevant to the research the perception of people overseas is very strongly that New Zealand is clean and green but equally we all know there are many examples of where we are not so clean and not so green. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree with recent Treasury advice stating: “It is unlikely that overseas consumers would know or bring to mind at point of sale the GM attributes of New Zealand when deciding whether to purchase New Zealand’s export products.”; if so does he also agree that this shows any negative real-world effect of the release of GM organisms in New Zealand on gross domestic product (GDP) at least as far as export earnings are concerned? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed there is evidence in the report that demonstrates that people often did not recognise GM-free labelling and make decisions on that basis. There was also a tendency for people to say they would respond to GM free but would be less likely to do so in terms of paying the price increase in actual practice. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Was he aware of the international survey commissioned by Discovery Channel which showed that 58 percent of all those polled in eight nations are unwilling to eat GM food when he accepted Treasury advice that the scenario showing no adverse market reaction at all was credible and should be further considered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware of such surveys. I am also aware the member claimed that the most likely outcome of GM free was 7.5 percent growth of GDP when in fact that extreme scenario was under the assumptions firstly that New Zealand was GM free; and secondly that either all other countries were not but nobody knew about it or were and had no productivity gains. Either way it seems extremely unlikely. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How could Treasury credibly conclude in its advice to him that it was highly likely GM-food exports would have no effect on market access or price when the European Union was about to introduce a comprehensive new labelling regime that will require identification of all food produced by GM technology and which will lower the threshold for GM contamination? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The European Union of course is also one of the largest producers of genetically modified food in the world and there are always questions around any action by the European Union as to whether it has got to do with a trade barrier or something to do with food safety. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: How can genetic engineering be in any way good for New Zealand’s economy when all realistic scenarios show negative impacts on farmers unless one assumes that GE has no negative impact on export demand—a scenario that has not occurred anywhere in the world? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the last assumption is wrong. If I go back to the case previously noted—if the same scenario were tested on the assumption there were productivity gains from genetic modification the net benefit to New Zealand was not plus 7.5 percent but negative. 
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome—District Health Boards 
9.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has every district health board by now a comprehensive action plan for community and hospital care of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome and a budget to meet that action plan? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. Every board now has a comprehensive action plan for the community and hospital care of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) and a budget to meet that action plan. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why when the admission of a suspected Sars patient to Auckland Hospital prompted an urgent review of procedures on 19 March are staff there still scared and why has Dr Colin McArthur described the hospital as “having a physically inadequate environment”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In the week since Sars was first notified as a disease many changes have been made in the handling of this case as have been described and explained to the member in the briefings given in my office and the regular updates that have been given to all Opposition spokespeople. However Colin McArthur has also said he believes that Auckland Hospital is well prepared to handle a case of Sars which we will inevitably get in New Zealand at some stage. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister seen any comments that nurses feel vulnerable because they do not have the resources to assist patients and are at risk of catching the disease themselves; if so what feedback has she received? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes the Nurses Organisation informed me today that nurses are anxious to provide good care and it is generally satisfied that they have the knowledge to provide that care safely. The organisation is comfortable that nurses have the knowledge and the equipment needed and that nurses around New Zealand are generally expressing satisfaction with the preparedness of hospitals. 
Pita Paraone 
: Notwithstanding the importance of internal community and hospital care is the Minister confident in her border control provisions given a recent newspaper report with regard to a man treated for Sars who arrived at Auckland airport from Thailand “coughing his guts out” who was not screened by officials and who had to admit himself to hospital after arriving in Christchurch? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There have been two suspected cases of Sars to date. That was not one of them. However as the member probably now knows we have nurses at our major airports who are checking people for symptoms as they come through. Coughing and hacking on their own are not symptoms of Sars. Sars has other symptoms as well. 
Heather Roy 
: Can the Minister deny that New Zealand does not have enough face masks of a standard to guarantee the protection of all nurses and doctors against Sars and can she give a guarantee that New Zealand will have enough before this disease hits the country? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Unfortunately the member was unable to attend the briefing that was given this morning. However her researcher was there and he asked that question. He was assured that at this stage we do have enough masks in New Zealand. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why did it take a television documentary to expose the inadequate environment for treating suspected Sars patients at Auckland Hospital given that the Minister has described the arrival of Sars in New Zealand as inevitable? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It certainly did not take the  
Sunday 
 programme to expose any inadequacies at Auckland Hospital. In fact David Sage who is the chief medical officer for the Auckland board said that the programme was disappointingly alarmist. The member raised the issue of one room that was shown on the  
Sunday 
 programme. She may be interested to know that Auckland Hospital has a total of 30 negative-pressure beds and there are 43 ventilated beds in the Auckland region. That does not sound like a region that is unprepared. 
Schools—Staffing Review Group 
10.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is the Government taking to implement the recommendations of the School Staffing Review Group? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 A substantial 774 extra teachers. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Will the Government invest in initiatives to improve teacher supply? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes $22 million extra which is a 50 percent increase over 4 years. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What is the point in funding additional secondary teaching positions when positions that already exist cannot be filled or are being filled with teachers of marginal quality and is it not true that if schools fill these new positions with the latter or worse the system will be negatively affected now and into the future? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am really pleased to tell the member that there are over 200 extra secondary trainees including nearly 100 in Auckland where the real shortage is this year. One of the good side effects of the slight disruptions we had about 12 months ago is that we have highlighted there were a lot of teaching jobs and a lot of people have enrolled in training for them. 
Domain Names—New Zealand Way Ltd 
11.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What if anything was paid for the domain name newzealand.com now registered to the New Zealand Way Ltd and who approved the purchase? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 The newzealand.com domain name was purchased by New Zealand Way Ltd on behalf of its member organisations for US$500000. As far as that relates to my ministerial responsibility I say the board of Tourism New Zealand approved its share of the purchase. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister think that this dot.com purchase costing roughly NZ$1 million was a good buy especially since other Governments such as the United States Government do not own domain names like usa.com or WhiteHouse.com; if so why does he think it is a good buy? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes it was a good buy. There is no question that this domain will provide an invaluable commercial entry portal into New Zealand for those interested in tourism commerce and industry. It has been reported that for instance an offer of US$1 million was turned down by the owners of switzerland.com and the South African Government offered Virtual Countries US$10 million for southafrica.com. It has also been reported that korea.com was sold for US$5 million to Thrunet Korea’s largest Internet service provider. On the evidence and certainly given the function that newzealand.com will perform for New Zealand commerce and industry it was a sound investment. 
Dianne Yates 
: Would the Minister reaffirm why the newzealand.com address was purchased? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes the newzealand.com address is as I indicated the obvious single point of entry for anyone online who has an interest in New Zealand for the purposes of tourism trade or investment. That portal is an important global marketing tool for us and ownership will ensure that it contains up-to-date and accurate information. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the Government or New Zealand Way Ltd give any thought to buying nz.com gonewzealand.com newzealand.co.nz or a host of other domain names used and unused—some of which are owned by New Zealanders—that could have been picked up for much less than newzealand.com; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: My understanding of the decision taken—and I believe it was a sound one—is that it recognises that newzealand.com reflects the clearly understood and recognised first port of call as similar domain names do for the countries that I referred to previously. 
Rodney Hide 
: Rubbish! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Clearly the member is not a regular Internet user but many millions of other people are. 
Electricity—Disruption of Supply 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Will the Minister inform the House of all of the implications that he has been advised of if consumers fail to achieve the necessary savings to avoid disruption to New Zealand’s power supply? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The implications will obviously depend on the extent of any electricity shortages that might arise if demand continues to grow and supply continues to be constrained. At minimum people can expect the inconvenience of hot water cuts. However if the low inflows to the hydro lakes continue and if the savings are not made now then it is entirely possible there will be more severe economic and social disruption. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that people on low incomes and elderly folk on fixed incomes will be able to live reasonably comfortably and not suffer undue hardship? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It would be remiss of me to give any assurance because I do not know what the forecast for rain will be over the next several months. I tell the member that saving now will significantly reduce the chances of people being inconvenienced later. I also tell the member that although we had no blackouts or hot water cuts to speak of in 2001 in 1992 we had hot water cuts that regularly went for 18 hours a day. If one goes back a little earlier to 1973 we had blackouts and constraints in broadcasting time. If one goes back even earlier than that to 1958 and 1947 there were serious blackouts. So this has been part of our history. The real key is to make sure that this year we do not suffer what we did in those earlier times. 
Darren Hughes 
: Besides power savings what other measures can help reduce the risk of electricity shortages this winter? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is important that demand for electricity is reduced where possible. But we can also take steps to increase supply. To that end the electricity industry’s winter power task force is overseeing efforts to secure new supplies of fuel for thermal electricity generation and is actively exploring options for short-term increases to generation capacity. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the formula used by generators to calculate the highest spot price finalised yesterday at Haywards of some $991.63 per megawatt indicates that the price later in the winter should those savings not be achieved could climb as high as $3000 per megawatt? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can confirm that there is no formula used in the electricity market. It is simply a matter of bids and offers. It is clear that when one gets a very very high spot price settlement as we did briefly yesterday and as I recall the day before then that shows that hydro generators are trying very hard not to generate at all. It also means thermal generation must run as far and as fast as possible. The return of the Huntly power station to full capacity in recent days has been useful in that regard. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that this country needs extra capacity fairly urgently and that the Resource Management Act the Conservation Act and now the Kyoto Protocol are presenting huge barriers to achieve that; if so what is he doing about it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do accept that the country needs capacity at the rate of about 150 megawatts a year and there is something like from memory 1600 megawatts that has already been publicly announced as prospective. I do not accept that the Kyoto Protocol or the Resource Management Act constrains development—except for renewables where I think the Resource Management Act is a problem particularly for wind and that is why the Government has already announced its intention to change the legislation in that regard. 
Questions to Members 
Electricity—Inquiry into Industry 
1.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Commerce Committee 
: How much time does the committee consider it will need to allocate to its inquiry into the electricity industry? 
MARK PECK (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): 
 That is a matter for the committee. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Written Answer 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to reply to Mr Hide. There were four questions mentioned. Two were answered yesterday one was answered this afternoon and the fourth is awaiting the Minister’s signature hopefully to be done very soon. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Energy Crisis—Management 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the management of the energy crisis this coming winter. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating a particular case involving ministerial responsibility that has already occurred not a means of debating a general forthcoming issue. As there is no particular case of recent occurrence the application is declined. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened to your reason. Last night on television the Minister and in fact the Acting Prime Minister emerged from Cabinet which he chaired yesterday to announce that the Government would be looking for much greater savings—unprecedented savings of 10 percent for ordinary New Zealanders and 15 percent for the State sector. That seems to me to be a decision that was taken by Cabinet. It was certainly announced in a way that indicated it was a decision taken by the Government and we want to know from you if we cannot have the opportunity to debate this now at what point do the announced savings get to such a level that you deem it is the Government’s responsibility? Your ruling was not that it was not important enough to debate because of the time it would take the House; your ruling was that it was not a Government decision. Well surely it was a Government decision because it was announced post-Cabinet as a Government decision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I ruled—and I said—that as there is no particular case of recent occurrence the application is declined. Of course if anything significant comes up in the future I will look at this matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is not a debatable ruling. I have ruled but I want to finish what I have to say and that was that as far as I was concerned this did not meet the test. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have confused me. You are now saying this is not a case of recent occurrence. Certainly the fact that we are entering into a power crisis has been speculated on for some time but the decision to move the savings substantially up to 10 and 15 percent certainly was recent. That was announced just yesterday. I turned the radio on this morning and heard a whole range of people debating the new announcements and debating whether the 15 percent was achievable in the public sector with regard to the health and safety aspects. Indeed in this very building I have had staff express concern to me that the back stairwells emergency exits etc. have had their lights turned off. They have raised that as a health and safety issue. So I would have thought the decision that was made yesterday was certainly a recent occurrence and I cannot see how you can rule that it was not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I shall read the first sentence of Mr English’s letter: “I request an urgent debate under Standing Order 376 on the management of the energy crises facing New Zealand this coming winter.” I would suggest to the member that that is not the appropriate way to word that particular letter. It does not specify a matter of recent occurrence and on that ground I rule it out. 
Maori Television Service Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 April. 
Schedules 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 Schedules 1 and 2 go into great detail about appointments to the electoral college that will appoint the directors of the Maori Television Service and schedule 2 further spells out the duties of these directors. I really would urge the Minister to take a call because so far in the Committee stage of the debate the Minister has totally refused to take a call on some very serious questions raised by members from this side of the Chamber. Schedule 2 spells out very clearly the duties of directors. They have to be competent and I want the Minister to take a call to tell the Committee whether for example Derek Fox and the current board of directors if they are going to operate under this schedule would be removed from office because one of the reasons given in schedule 2 for a director being removed from office is that “the director has brought the Service into disrepute”. I would argue that the fiasco of the existing Maori Television Service and the fact that it appointed a fraudster John Davy and was never able to accept the consequences has brought the Maori Television Service into disrepute. 
The other question I want to ask is whether Derek Fox’s failure to disclose interest would under this bill mean that he needed to resign. While he was the chairman of the existing Maori television establishment board he took part in the interviewing of candidates for the job of chief executive officer and nowhere during the process was any candidate made aware that he might have an interest in the position—and I do not know whether his fellow directors or the Minister knew of his intention either. 
Clause 4D in Part 2 of schedule 2 states quite clearly: “A director who is interested in a transaction or proposed transaction of or other matter relating to the Service—(a) must not vote or take part in any deliberation or decision of the board …”. So I would like the Minister to take a call to explain to us whether under this bill when a board of directors is going through the process of appointing a chief executive officer or senior manager to the Maori Television Service and members of the interview panel have an interest in applying for the job the failure of panel members to disclose their conflict of interest would lead to this provision being put in place. 
If it would the Minister needs to explain why the members of the establishment board are not being held to the same standard. I am totally convinced that the public and Opposition members are equally concerned that before the Maori Television Service legislation has been passed we already have a lot of question marks over the conduct of the establishment board. What is the point of Parliament spending time debating and passing legislation that will supposedly hold the board of directors to a high degree of integrity and professionalism if that is not going to be implemented? 
I do not think it is good enough for the Minister to continue to simply sit there refusing to answer any questions and refusing to give the public the assurance that all these high standards of behaviour spelt out in these schedules will be carried out and the assurance that if any member of the board fails to perform to that standard the public can expect the Minister to take effective action. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I am disappointed to have got the call quite as early as this because I rather expected that the Minister would seek the opportunity to answer the excellent questions posed by my colleague Pansy Wong. The Minister should reflect solemnly on the questions she asked and the theme behind those questions. We are here today in the Committee stage debating the schedules to this bill and they are important schedules. The first schedule outlines the appointment process for the electoral college the second schedule the process for directors and the third schedule the process for the chief executive. In respect of each of those schedules there has been a pantomime of events over the past 2 years for which this Minister owes the Committee an explanation. 
The Minister cannot with a straight face ask the Committee today to solemnly pass these three schedules knowing the history that has gone before them without providing at least an explanation. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that we will keep taking the calls and asking the questions until he does this Committee the courtesy of giving the explanations it deserves. 
The first question I want to ask him is about schedule 1 because that talks about the Maori Television Electoral College and that electoral college it is known has the gravest of concerns about many of the recent events in relation to the management of the Maori Television Service. I am not going to go on to rehearse some of those concerns. Some of them have been placed in writing to the Minister or one of his ministerial colleagues. I simply invite him to take a call and explain to the Committee the nature of the concerns held by the electoral college expressed to him both verbally and in writing and tell us what he has done to reassure the electoral college on these matters. He must tell the Committee about those concerns and particularly about his responses if he expects us to pass this schedule into law. 
More worryingly I want him to tell us about some matters that bear upon schedules 2 and 3. I have raised these matters in this Committee previously and so far the Minister has avoided giving an answer. The process by which Mr Derek Fox got himself to be appointed as the chief executive officer of the Maori Television Service was nothing less than a monumental jack-up—and that Minister knows it. The whole process by which he was put in place as the chairman in the first place was calculated to remove a political opponent from the establishment of an alternative Maori political party and to stop Mr Fox from beating the Minister of Maori Affairs in his own electorate. That is what this thing was all about in the first place. 
We were told that the position of chairman of the Maori Television Service was to be a small part-time $36000-a-year job. But that has been translated into a massive role—first of all of executive chairman and now of chief executive. The Minister needs to tell us how it is that his departmental chief executive signed off on that process. Did that chief executive ask some questions on his behalf to assure himself of the probity of that process? I know he did. I know that Mr Leith Comer signed a memorandum asking those questions and that he was far from satisfied with the answers. I want the Minister to tell us what those questions were and what the answers were. 
How was it that there was an appointment process that Mr Fox himself presided over as the chairman of the appointment committee? He sat on the board for the report-back process and only when his own nomination came up did he leave the room. What was it that saw him appointed by three votes to two with one of those votes being a proxy? I want the Minister to stand and tell us why we should have confidence in passing these provisions particularly schedules 2 and 3 when he knows that the process that has already preceded this discussion in the Committee today is shonky has been rightly criticised by his own officials is one that his own chief executive has most serious reservations about and does not meet the smell test by any standard. Why was a decision made to proceed with the appointment to announce the appointment of Mr Fox when he the Minister knows that the advice was that the appointment should not proceed? 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to look at the history of Maori involvement in business. There have been many failures in Maori business because of non-accountability. New Zealand First has already expressed its opposition to Maori television because of the process and the steps that have been taken. One of those steps has been touched on by Mr McCully—the appointment of the chief executive officer. I remember when that person was asked in the Maori Affairs Committee what he was getting paid as acting chairperson as he was at the time and he specifically quoted the figure of $36000 although I will stand corrected on that. 
I refer to the process that has taken place in relation to the appointment of the chief executive officer. How can a person who sat on the interviewing committee all of a sudden be appointed to the position of chief executive officer? I am sure that some very competent people applied but at this stage I am not aware who the applicants were. Maoridom has been tarnished with the brush of incompetence and failure in business. Why is that? Is it because we are following along that same pattern of appointees—patting each other on the back and saying: “You will do the job.”? Why is it? That is the question I ask. The commentary on the bill talks about “Issues beyond the bill” and “Security and level of funding”. In relation to someone being appointed to the very responsible position of chief executive officer of Maori Television—if and when it gets off the ground—it states: “Several submitters proposed amending the bill to provide security of funding to the Service …”. If there are concerns about security of funding to the service why are we still continuing to pass this bill? 
The commentary on the bill continues: “Submitters are concerned that funding for the Service is contestable with other broadcasters. Submitters also have concerns about the level of operational funding allocated to the Service. We consider that issues relating to funding of the Service are outside the scope of this bill.” Are we not destined for failure when there is a question about the funding for this bill? Are we on the same track that led to the failure of other business corporations in the past? What and who would that reflect on? Here we go again—money is spent and there is no accountability. The viability of this bill is doomed. We in New Zealand First do not want to be associated with anything that is a failure for Maori because we feel that Maori have a great part to play in our community in our nation and internationally. 
Mita Ririnui 
: So why not on television? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: So if we are going to talk about Maori television as I have just heard—if or when it gets off the ground—how are we to say: “Yes Maori have learnt from that media or that type of learning to retain the language and the tikanga.”? As I have asked before who will facilitate the learning when people look at the screen? The bill is saying it will help retain the language yet all of a sudden a person who was on the original interviewing panel has been appointed chief executive officer. Who were the people who applied for this position? Did they or did they not have the skills? 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I find schedule 2 very interesting. I come to it as a company lawyer. Of course what this bill tries to do is to build a company without calling it a company and to give a few key distinctions. First let us examine the appointment criteria. How does one appreciate the dual role of the Crown and Maori as stakeholders when this bill does nothing to tell anyone what a stakeholder is or what his or her stake is? 
 Indeed the report of the Maori Affairs Committee states expressly that neither of them owns the service. So who does? Is it owned by no one—not even as a trustee? If this service acquires valuable market share or contracts that are important or if it acquires a runaway hit as a series or a programme does no one own it—not the people of New Zealand not Maori not the electoral college not the Crown? Does no one own it? Yet in the first clause of schedule 2 one of the first criteria for appointment and a key competency as stated in paragraph (c) is that people appreciate “the dual role of the Crown and Maori as stakeholders” without any definition. That is a typical example of the drafting style that says: “We don’t need to answer hard questions when they relate to Maori. We will just throw them into the air and no one will ask again until people are embroiled in litigation. Pakeha all over New Zealand will be saying ‘Maori can’t organise their affairs. Look they always have to go to court.’.” The reason they end up going to court is that people draft law that steers them in that direction and they have no option. That is an inevitable consequence of writing drivel like clause 1(c) of schedule 2: “appreciation of the dual role of the Crown and Maori as stakeholders”. I am a little suspicious of some of the other criteria but I will come to those when I go a little further through the bill. This list looks like a “don’t rock the boat” appointment list. Clause 1(e) of schedule 2 states: “ability to distinguish corporate governance from management:”. It is always the claim of management when someone really needs to get to the bottom of something that the directors are getting outside their proper sphere. There are times when the corporate governance mantra is used as a simple impenetrable shield against investigation and proper examination. The list of competencies includes in paragraph (j) the “ability to work as a team member and collaboratively:”. There is nothing that balances that and mentions the ability to take the initiative the ability to stand up against the collective the ability to challenge accepted wisdom or the ability to be the devil’s advocate. No the only criterion that relates to that is the “ability to work as a team member and collaboratively:”. In other words it is the ability to be a yes-man or a yes-woman. 
I now look at the definition of “interested” in new clause 4A “Conflict of interest of directors” in the second schedule. I think that the preceding address from the New Zealand First member quite correctly said that there is a good deal of public concern about the propriety with which business has been conducted in some Maori organisations. So we get a special definition of “interested” for the purpose of identifying a conflict of interest. Unfortunately this is an exclusive or comprehensive definition. Clause 4A(1) states that a director is interested in a transaction or other matter if—then the clause has a list of specific things but it does not have what is usual in these sorts of provisions such as the words “includes” or “by way of example” or the normal implications of “interested”. So for example we find in clause 4A(1)(d) that one who is the parent child spouse or partner of another party is probably interested. The provision does not cover a cousin an uncle an adoptive relative a shareholder or a member of the same iwi. All of those are relationships that could give rise to a conflict of interest but by this definition they are excluded. Is that deliberate or is it just an example of the clumsy hopelessness with which this legislation has been drafted? The precise kinds of conflicts of interest that Maoridom should be and is most directly concerned about are not covered by the definition of “interested”. The only things that are covered are things that are pretty transparent and unlikely anyway. I move on to a new clause clause 5(2A) which was inserted by the select committee. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Again I take great pleasure in talking on the schedules of this bill Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori bill. I must remind the Committee that we have yet to hear from the Minister as to exactly why he failed to have a Maori name for this bill as well as for the schedules when the whole idea of the bill was to promote Maori language. Certainly as my colleagues Pansy Wong and Murray McCully pointed out the schedules of which there are three are incredibly important given the history surrounding the appointment of directors and the chief executives that we have seen so far. 
The first schedule deals with the electoral college the second schedule deals with the appointment of directors and with the chief executive. If we look at Part 1 of schedule 1 we see that it refers to organisations that may appoint members of the Maori Television Electoral College and it lists those organisations which have a role in promoting te reo Maori that are each entitled to appoint one representative to be a member of the college. We have never heard from the Minister—and it would be tremendous if he were prepared finally to take a call on this matter—why he has not explained to us a rationale behind the fact that $55 million of taxpayers’ money will be spent on television when we have no evidence-base to show that is the best mechanism to promote te reo Maori. All the organisations listed in schedule 1—from Te Kohanga Reo National Trust to Nga Kaiwhakapumau i te Reo Maori and including the Maori Women’s Welfare League the National Maori Congress the New Zealand Maori Council and the list goes on—are highly capable and eminent in terms of their ability to promote the Maori language but the Minister has never told us anywhere about any evidence-base showing that this huge amount of taxpayers’ money spent per year is an effective way of promoting the Maori language. 
Schedule 2 deals with the appointment of directors and undoubtedly one of the great concerns has been the appointment process that we have seen so far. Part 3 of that schedule deals with the appointment of the chief executive and again we must ask the Minister why the history of the appointment of chief executives has so far been so totally and absolutely unsatisfactory. On 15 March 2002 the Minister in the chair Parekura Horomia—who has failed to give an explanation to the people of New Zealand—talked about John Davy as being the best person for the job. Derek Fox the next director—the one who sat on the board and slipped out of a meeting only at the last moment before his own appointment—said that there was no perfect answer about applications for the job but that the board had come down on the side of strong financial and managerial control. He went on to say that he was confident the guy would deliver. Well that is the very man that this process has delivered. Here we are with a bill that will encompass the expenditure of $55 million of taxpayers’ money on promoting te reo Maori yet we have a legacy of 100 percent of directors so far having been appointed in a very shonky manner. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I refer to schedule 1 and in particular to clause 10(2)(b) which states that one of the issues to be considered in dispute resolution is “whether and when to seek information from and review the performance of the Service:”. I have already referred to my major concerns about the amount of money that is going into this television service bill which is somewhat of a black hole. We are talking about $30 million or $40 million a year going in to fund the Maori Television Service. That is a huge amount of money we are spending from public funds to float this service. 
When we come to issues of accountability the very least we can expect is a strong provision for accountability regarding that money. As members of Parliament we expect to have some sort of right to know where this money is going and we expect the right to know that it will be spent wisely. Already many questions have arisen as to whether money has been spent wisely thus far. So when we look at clause 10(2)(b) we see that there are very lax accountability standards and we found those standards when we looked back at clause 15 of the bill which lists the college’s accountability standards. In particular I notice from clause 15 that the functions of Te Putahi Paoho are to appoint four of the seven directors of the service; to provide direction to the chairperson of Te Putahi Paoho in the performance and exercise of his or her functions and powers; to consider the need to increase or decrease the number of organisations represented on the college; and to receive the accountability documents prepared by the board. At least at that point there is some sort of reception of accountability documents. I note though that the power and function of the college is to receive accountability documents; I see nowhere any powers that it has in terms of what it does once it has received them. That seems to me to mean that the college can receive anything it likes and that anything that is presented to it is simply tabled. Whether or not the college likes it there is nothing it can do if it is unhappy with the accountability documents that are given to it. The best the college can do is to provide some sort of directions to the chairperson but that will not get it very far. Certainly it will not make the Maori Television Service very accountable. 
We see in clause 16 that there must be consultation with the Minister in terms of the preparation of a statement of intent and in terms of the review of the performance so that the Minister and the college jointly may—and I note the word “may”; there is no “shall” here—review the performance of the service. With that background we then look at the provisions of schedule 1 which take us a little bit further on and perhaps give us some sort of inclination as to what that accountability will be about and what we can expect to see from the accountability. When we look at clause 10(2)(b) in schedule 1 we find that there is an issue as to whether any information will be provided at all and as to whether the service will be reviewed in terms of its performance. Even if it is reviewed there are questions as to when that information will be sought. So we may not see any review for 5 years. We may not see a review for 10 years. We may never see a review because it is within the power of the responsible Minister and the chairperson of the college to determine whether and when to seek a review. It seems to me therefore that the Maori Television Service could go on and on using up tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars without very much accountability whatsoever. Not only may the service never be called to account but even if it is called to account we have seen in clause 15(1)(d) that the power of the college is simply to receive the accountability documents. There is nothing there that gives the college any power in terms of any sort of direction or any withholding of funds or anything else like that that would give it any teeth whatsoever if it was convinced the Maori Television board was not producing as well as it should produce. I have very real concerns about that. I am concerned about all that money going into a black hole. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Madam Chairperson I am indebted to you for giving me another call and I give you notice that I will keep on seeking the call until the Minister does the Committee the courtesy of providing some answers. I know that you will be keen to exercise leniency in that respect because the Minister should be compelled to answer those questions and if not answered makes a mockery of the process the Committee is engaged in today. For example Part 3 of schedule 2 relates to the appointment process for the chief executive. The Committee is discussing a process that has already been acted out and the Minister refuses to tell the Committee today whether the provisions that we are solemnly debating have been acted upon. 
In particular I refer the Minister to the provision in clause 18(2) of schedule 2 in relation to the appointment of the chief executive which states: “In appointing a chief executive the board must—(a) act independently;”. That is what the schedule states. I want to know whether the Minister can assure the Committee that that test was met in the appointment process of Mr Fox. Was that an independent process in the words that are in the bill? Was it independent when Mr Fox presided over the appointment committee? Was it independent when he sat through the report back to the board? Was it independent when there was a 3:2 vote and one of those was a proxy? I simply ask the Minister to give the Committee the assurance that it is entitled to if that is not to be a process that should draw the contempt of the public. 
In relation to the appointment process I also want to ask the Minister about clause 18(3) in schedule 2 which states: “In determining or amending the terms and conditions of the appointment of the chief executive the board must—(a) consult with the State Services Commissioner;”. I ask the Minister whether there was a proper and meaningful consultation process with the State Services Commissioner. Even the Minister of Maori Affairs should be able to answer that question. If not why are we going to solemnly pass that schedule into law this afternoon? Will the Minister take a call to answer that question? 
The documents that I have seen make it quite clear that the State Services Commissioner did have the appointment process drawn to his attention. He said that no it was not a satisfactory process and that he had certain concerns. In an email that I have seen and which the Minister should have seen the State Services Commissioner stated quite clearly that one of the problems was that the terms of reference for the appointment—the job description if one likes—was the same job description that applied in respect of Mr Davy. Yet Mr Davy and Mr Fox could hardly be more different. The State Services Commissioner then pointed out how wrong it would be to change the job description after the board had decided who the appointee would be. He said that that would take a bit of explaining. The Minister now has a bit of explaining to do. He wants us to solemnly vote for a schedule that describes a process that he knows simply did not happen. 
Then we have to ask the Minister why if the consultation process in relation to the State Services Commissioner was inadequate the next bit did not come into play that states that where that process does not work then the responsible Minister should be consulted. I want the Minister to tell us whether his officials consulted him and whether they told him the State Services Commissioner had said that that stuff did not look very flash. Did his officials tell him that? He should have been; that was in the email traffic that I have seen. What did the Minister do then? I want the Minister to tell the Committee that this afternoon. If he wants us to vote for schedule 2 and clause 18 of Part 3 of that schedule I want to know what he told his officials to do if he was consulted because the State Services Commission consultation process was inadequate. If the Minister did tell his officials to make the appointment anyway I want him to own up to that. 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 47 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to the schedules be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Noes 55 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Noes 54 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Acting Minister responsible for the National Library) 
: I move  
That the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill replaces the current National Library Act of 1965. It clarifies the relationship between the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library and states that the Crown is to continue to own the Alexander Turnbull Library collections in perpetuity. A new body the Guardians Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library will provide assurance to the people of New Zealand about that library’s collections and services. The bill has been amended to allow for the temporary loan of items from the Alexander Turnbull Library’s collections for exhibitions in New Zealand or overseas. 
The bill establishes the Library and Information Advisory Commission. That body has the brief of advising the Minister on the rapidly changing field of libraries and information and of providing a national and an international overview. That move supports a more outward-looking National Library empowered by the legislation to work alongside other bodies with related aims. 
Maori interests are also addressed in the bill. The provisions go well beyond the addition of the library’s already commonly used Maori name and the inclusion of Maori names for the bodies established by the bill. Any person exercising powers and functions under this bill is required to protect the collections as documentary heritage and taonga and all references to knowledge and information in this bill are paralleled by references to taonga Maori. 
In passing this bill this Parliament will be just ahead of the United Kingdom in extending legal deposit to cover electronic as well as print materials. All around the world there is agreement that libraries must take appropriate steps to ensure that countries’ documentary heritage which is increasingly presented and stored in electronic form is collected and preserved and is accessible for future generations. What has been at issue is how the commercial interests of publishers can be safeguarded. It is acknowledged that access to electronic material is a very different matter from managing access to a limited number of copies of printed material. 
The world of information and communications technology changes at a dizzying rate and this bill has been designed to try to avoid the need for frequent revision to accommodate such changes. Those issues are addressed by providing for legal deposit requirements to be made by ministerial requirements that have the status of regulations under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act. Books and other print material will continue to be collected as comprehensively as possible in similar fashion to the current arrangements while electronic materials online and off-line will be addressed selectively by separate requirement. That requirement will be made following consultation with affected publishers about format and about terms and conditions of access. 
The final matter addressed by the bill is an amendment to the Official Information Act to deal with a conflict between that Act and certain oral histories commissioned by the library. With the passage of this bill the National Librarian will be required to comply with the conditions of access made by those donating such histories to the library. 
On behalf of the Hon Marian Hobbs I would like to express my thanks and hers to the Education and Science Committee for its detailed and collaborative work on that aspect of the bill as well as to the library community and the information community for their positive contributions. I would also like to thank the committee of advisers that the Minister called together chaired by Dr Lydia Wevers who have advised all the way through the process on this bill particularly on the protection of the Alexander Turnbull Library the Government’s relationship to that collection and the ongoing safeguarding of it. 
This bill fulfils a promise made when Labour came into power in 1999 both to secure the Alexander Turnbull Library and its collection’s unique status and to support the National Library as an institution of central and primary significance in New Zealand’s creative life and economy. We are pleased that the issues for the modern library and for the protection of our evolving heritage have engaged the interest and support of members on all sides of this House. The library community is eagerly awaiting the passage of this bill and I commend it to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill and I am very pleased to be able to commend the Minister for her comments on the fact that all parties in the House have supported this bill all the way through. I would particularly like to commend the members of the National Party who were on the Education and Science Committee Simon Power and Dr Paul Hutchison. I note that Dr Hutchison had the brilliant idea as a good practical man—he was formerly an obstetrician before coming to this House—that we should have a look at the library before we considered a bill about it. There is nothing like a little bit of fieldwork so to speak. [ 
Interruption 
] I note that young Darren Hughes is making a comment which is good. It is good to see that he is working. 
Library people—I note that there are several here today and hopefully many are listening at work—are a special breed of people. They are the people who in many ways keep a lot of our culture together. Culture is not just about the ability to play a violin to do a particular dance or to make a particular food. It is actually a lot about the way we live. Specific mention has been made about the need to clarify the status of oral history under the Official Information Act because it is very very important for the history of New Zealand and for the emerging of a New Zealand culture that we actually understand the histories and the reasons that certain things happened in this country and particularly also in politics. 
We all come from families that have oral histories. Some particular cultures in New Zealand have more of a history of oral culture because they did not actually have a culture that had writing or some other form of written communication and for them in particular oral history is most important. However today with our Official Information Act and Privacy Act it is also incredibly important that oral histories are kept because a lot of people do not want to write down too much in case it comes back to haunt them. I note Annette King is looking up at that comment. 
It is particularly pleasing to have a bill once in a while that we can actually support. I note the work of Mr Brian Donnelly who is here today and who was the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee and who helped steer this through. It is always difficult I am sure for any Government to be able to get full party support on a bill and it is very nice that we can finally say that there is in fact a promise that Labour made that it actually kept but obviously with the help of all the other parties in the House. [ 
Interruption 
] I can see that that particular member is now awake. 
I would particularly like to commend the bill to the House and to say that the National Party is particularly pleased to be able to support it and the librarians who do the wonderful work at the National Library. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Bernie Ogilvy. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that we have a bit of an energy crisis but the lobby is now in darkness. I wanted to have a look at the Official Information Act—I wanted to read it—but I cannot actually see in the lobby to be able to find the volume. It is a serious question. Turning the lights down so far that the lobby is in such darkness that members cannot get access to Acts is ridiculous— 
David Parker 
: Use the switch. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says to use the switch but they have actually been switched off. I think that the lobby lights should be turned up a bit so that I can actually find the Act I am looking for. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I support the member; I think the lights are turned down a little bit too low for safety and comfort. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. I am going to direct that the lights be turned up to sufficient luminosity to enable members to go about their work. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is just a clarification of the order of speaking. In allocating speeches the Speaker has consistently ruled that the United Future party is not a member of the Government—it occurred today during question time. Therefore I raise the question of why in this particular case the call has been given to United Future given the size of our party and given the role that New Zealand First played in terms of chairing the select committee. It is a matter of clarification; that is all. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. The procedure we run through is: first the Minister is called; we go to National as it is slightly bigger than New Zealand First; we then go back to Labour or United Future. It is normally a Labour call but it is either/or and that is why we are there. Next we will come to New Zealand First because it is well recognised that New Zealand First is the second-biggest Opposition party. We have always done that—certainly all this year. That is why the call is not going to United Future in its own right; that party is combined with Labour for this purpose. The next call was really Labour after National. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill. As a member of the Education and Science Committee I regard it as certainly one of the highlights of my introduction to Parliament to see my way through such a bill held in such affection. One of the things that certainly stood out during the time spent on this bill was the invitation to visit the National Library as well as the Alexander Turnbull Library. As we all went we became very conscious of the value the history and the tasks that everybody was doing there. In fact I was so impressed that I made a recommendation to the Clerk of the House that in the future when new MPs begin they all do a tour of the National Library in order to understand something of what is available both to us as MPs and to the nation as a whole. 
One of the things that I was most interested in and was able to see completed was that the legal deposit was extended to include electronic documents. That was a most useful inclusion and extension into this bill. Of course we have to realise—as those on the select committee realised and as those in the National Library will realise—that for those who live in far-flung regions of the country and are beyond practical access to local libraries resources such as a national database which is electronic and non-electronic and which is now accessible via the Internet has the potential to be incredibly valuable to everybody. Because of that we all felt very strongly that this had to be one of the highlights and purposes for strengthening this bill. 
The other thing that really stood out was the effort to share the treasures that lay within the library itself. I know that this bill does not address as yet at least this whole matter in full. It is one of those questions that will I think be a challenge for the National Library to extend itself beyond just what it has been doing in the past. I know it was the heart intention of one of those who made submissions that that certainly would be one of the great things that will occur as this bill is put in place. I certainly commend this bill to the House on behalf of United Future. As long as the present Government and future Governments think very carefully about the future of the library and the ways in which it best serves the citizens of this country this is a bill that will for ever be an encouragement for our nation. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 First I want to make it clear that my point of order earlier was for clarification not because I wanted to have priority over the previous speaker. New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill. We have in fact been supporting it in a practical way through its processes. A couple of members have mentioned the trip that the select committee made to the National Library. The library really is an icon. It is an incredible facility that New Zealand has. It is an invaluable national treasure. It preserves our cultural heritage. It preserves it by keeping material that tells us not only about what people did at certain times but also about what they thought what really drives us as a nation and what defines us as a nation. 
 It is really important that this bill is enacted because the existing organisational structure created some serious tensions within the organisation of the National Library itself around the governance of the Alexander Turnbull Library and around how they related to each other. New Zealand First believes that this does clarify those relationships and also the National Library’s operations and functions in terms of preserving our heritage ensuring that there is access to it—and there are still issues about access for people in rural areas—and protecting and developing our heritage which is so important. We congratulate the Friends of the Turnbull Library and the members of the National Library who went through some very hard times in coming to some conclusions and arrangements by which we will be able to move into the future. 
The second area of considerable debate and consideration was around the legal deposit of electronic publications. With the degree of electronic publications today to ignore the issue of legal deposits would really be to miss out on a huge portion of our current knowledge and heritage etc. There are some issues around copyright. The Newspaper Publishers Association of New Zealand was very concerned about the possibility that it would have stuff that different organisations had contracted in from overseas agencies etc. which the library would be able to access and which would then be accessed by other organisations. 
Firstly the National Library does not want a minute-by-minute update on every piece of information—it could not handle that; there would be an information overload—and secondly it would be inconsistent with the very purpose of the National Library to enable that access. It is now working on protocols in a constructive and cooperative fashion to ensure that the needs of all parties are met regarding that matter. 
I also raise the issue of oral history. Certainly within Maori heritage oral history is of extreme importance and it is extremely important that it is taken down and recorded in an appropriate fashion. The other issue relates very much to members of this House where the practice has always been to get an oral tape of an outgoing Prime Minister with the understanding that the tape would be kept for 50 years and that that would be accessible under the Official Information Act. As a result of that understanding there would obviously be reluctance by members leaving the House to be as open and honest as they possibly could be. 
Personally I am still aggrieved by the fact that the full history behind the negotiations in 1996 has never been made available to the public. As a result the public are in error in terms of their understanding of the mechanisms and rationale behind some of the decisions that were made at that particular time. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Correct the record right now. Tell us all. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I am running out of time. I just want to mention that within the bill itself there is a protection for people who are giving oral histories. A person giving an oral history can lay down conditions and the National Library has to stick by those conditions that are set down at the time the person provides the information. It is very important that we ensure that protection—not only for politicians but also in regard to Maori history. 
New Zealand First has some misgivings about the writing of the bill and with the way that some of the language used in the bill expresses some issues around what people are thinking. For example the Maori Television Service Bill which has just been debated has a clear title. When it refers to particular organisations that have a Maori name—such as Te Putahi Paoho—it uses that name. But in this bill there is confusion: people are trying to be so politically correct that they are corrupting the English language. For instance the Maori name for the National Library is put in the title of the bill which is in keeping with Maori interests but a lot more has to be done with it than that. 
Of even more concern is the fact that with some of the bodies that have been set up there is a blending together of Maori and English. For example the bill refers to the “Library and Information Advisory Commission Nga Kaiwhakamarama i nga Kohikohinga Korero”; what does that actually mean? It is not as if the second part is in brackets as if it is a translation of the original; it is all blended in together. What is even worse is that there used to be the Friends of the Turnbull Library but now we have come up with this other thing which is called the Guardians Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library—Maori and English are all blended into one. 
The Maori Language Commission raised various concerns about what we are doing with the English language here. English is very rich because it has the facility to import terms and expressions from other languages and to make them part of the English language. We have done that in New Zealand English with words like “whare” and “Maori” itself which have been imported into the language and which have become part of the English language. Yet what we have here is a word like “taonga” which is not referring to Maori treasures but which is now being asked to refer to everything that is in the library. If that is the case when we get to “Matauranga” and it comes across into English why not just use the word “Matauranga”? We know what that is referring to in English—but no that is not what is done here. The bill says “Matauranga Maori”. 
There is a lack of rigour in the thinking behind the language that is being used in this bill and that concerns us because it then raises questions about what is behind the bill. For example if the Minister of Maori Affairs and Te Puni Kokiri can come up with a bill for this House that does not make use of strange little language mechanisms and which does not corrupt either the Maori or English language then why do we have a National Library bill that does? 
As I say we have some very real concerns. We asked what is meant by “Matauranga Maori” and we asked whether a translation of Shakespeare into Maori would be matauranga Maori or whether Witi Ihimaera’s work—which is matauranga to me—would be considered matauranga Maori even though it is written in English. I asked what is being referred to here and the advisers could not give me an answer. That raises some questions about some fuzziness and a lack of rigour in the thinking behind this bill. 
New Zealand First is saying there needs to be some more rigorous thinking around all those language issues and around all the treaty issues. We should not just subscribe to those issues as though they are a new religion but establish what the realities are and what the outcomes of some severe rigorous thought would be. Nevertheless we will be fully supporting this bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I have just read the select committee report and I think it is a very good report. Members from all different parties in this House came together to work on it because this is an institution that is so well respected in our country and people know what a pivotal role they play in being the keepers and the guardians of all the materials that make up the story of our country. The people who work within the library have a very special role for us in this House and for our country and it is appropriate that we update the Act of Parliament that governs that institution because the current legislation is nearly 40 years old. Parliament has come together to pass a new bill for a modern age where the kind of information the library is responsible for has changed hugely. 
When the 1965 legislation was being debated by this Parliament the idea that information would be stored on CD-ROM on websites or in an electronic form would not have been considered by lawmakers. This bill brings those forms of storing information very firmly within the ambit of the National Library just as books periodicals and magazines have been in past times. 
I am very interested in the work that the Library and Information Advisory Commission which is established under this bill will do in the future. It will provide the Minister with advice on the rapidly changing field of information—not only here at home but also abroad. The bill not only recognises all the good work that has been done by Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa in the past but also sets it up well for the future. I support the bill’s third reading and I wish all involved with our National Library the best for the future. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 One observation I made during the Committee stage of this bill and indeed during its second reading was that MPs wondered why the National Library legislation was getting priority. I notice that it has been dealt with under urgency during most stages and in looking at the  
Hansard 
 I note that a comment was made that a bill going through Parliament can cost up to $800000. When one looks at this bill one sees that there is really nothing in it that requires legislation. There is no reason that the National Library could not proceed. There is only one requirement in this bill and only one reason the bill is going through Parliament and I call it the “Helen Clark protection clause”. 
 In fact it is quite clear that our Prime Minister has been giving an oral history. She gives it every month. In that oral history she has set out frankly all the coups and other things that go on within the Labour Party believing that it would never be discovered. She found out 2 years ago that actually all of those documents were discoverable under the Official Information Act. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Ha ha! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I ask the Hon Judith Tizard whether that is correct. The Prime Minister discovered that it was all discoverable under the Official Information Act. If we go to schedule 3 we find that it states under “Official Information Act 1982 (1982 No 156)” the following: “Omit from paragraph (e)(ii) of the definition of official information the word ‘; and’ and substitute the word ‘; or’. Add to paragraph (e) of the definition of official information: ‘(iii) any oral history provided to the National Library of New Zealand …”. This is the “Helen Clark Protection Bill”. It costs $800000. I would like to know what is in that official information which today could still be discovered but will not be able to be once it is gazetted that Helen Clark thinks the House should be put into urgency in order to— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Eh? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No I realise that the House is not in urgency today but this bill is getting priority. Here we are back from the Easter break and the most important matter facing the House is to pass a bill in which if one looks at it the only real change we are making to the statute law of New Zealand is that no longer is an oral history given by a person discoverable under the Official Information Act. The only oral histories that have been given that any of them would be worried about are the oral histories given by our Prime Minister. I understand she has done it thinking that conditions can be put on it that that oral history cannot be looked at until well after she has gone that she is intending to write her history based on it and that she was devastated to discover that other historians would be able to get it. 
I hate to break it to Helen Clark at this late stage after she has spent $800000 but it is my view that her oral histories are discoverable through High Court actions. I expect—Governments regularly get involved in High Court actions—that sooner or later some barrister is going to realise that in the oral histories of the National Library are the accounts by the Prime Minister of what really went on. I suspect that we will discover all sorts of things. For example we might find some very very interesting things about how this Government has been handling State-owned enterprises and how it has been taking all the money rather than building new electrical generation. If we were to go into the oral history we could well find that information there. We might discover for example the answer to one of the great mysteries—why is Judith Tizard in Cabinet? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I’m not. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is right. Why is she a Minister? Why does she carry the Prime Minister’s handbag? It may all be in the oral history. I have no doubt that the real reason is thoroughly embarrassing. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Why did I win Auckland Central and why did you get the sack? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is very interesting that the Minister thinks that is the reason. She says it is because she got Auckland Central and I got sacked. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Auckland Central and Wellington Central. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is an interesting reason as well. The Minister is now telling us that it had something to do with Wellington Central. I thought that she was the Minister responsible for Auckland Issues. Every time I get jammed on the motorways in Auckland I think: “Thanks to Judith Tizard nothing is moving.” No doubt if we were to have a look at the oral histories we might see the frustration that our Prime Minister no doubt feels with the Minister responsible for Auckland Issues because the longer that Judith Tizard has been in charge of the traffic the slower it has gone. 
It is very interesting that we are spending $800000 of taxpayers’ money in order to declare that an oral history is no longer official information. We have not had from any Minister an admission that that is what we are doing nor have we had at any stage in this bill a justification for it. We either believe in Official Information Acts or we do not. The Official Information Act actually states that all information that Ministers have including information they have in their heads is official information and ought to be able to be discoverable by the public. 
I have listened to members talk about how important information is but we have discovered in a National Library bill that we are passing legislation stating that those interesting documents are not available. I have to say in fairness to Helen Clark that Jim Bolger was also devastated to discover that all of his documents were discoverable under the Official Information Act and he apparently was very loquacious in giving his oral histories. It is probably fortunate for both Mr Bolger and Helen Clark that no historian or member of the media tumbled to the fact that if they had put in Official Information Act requests for their oral histories we could have discovered what Helen Clark really thinks of George Bush and why she really is going to Europe. We might have found out all sorts of things about what the Labour Party’s real policies are but now thanks to this bill Helen Clark’s oral histories are a State secret that cannot be revealed. 
Further into the bill there is a very interesting statement. Clause 10 states: “(2) If an oral history has been provided to the National Library by a person on conditions (for example conditions relating to access to the information)”—I bet she has got them—“that have been agreed to in writing by or on behalf of the National Librarian the Crown and its agents (including the National Librarian) must comply with those conditions. (3) This section—(a) applies whether or not the oral history was created or acquired by or on behalf of the Crown; and (b) does not limit the Archives Act 1957.” 
That is what this bill is all about. I say to the Minister promoting the bill that if there is a good argument as to why Helen Clark’s reminiscences should be kept secret for as long as she says why were we not told openly and frankly that this is why the bill has been given urgency—that that is why the Government regards this bill as the most urgent matter in front of the nation? What is in Helen Clark’s oral history that requires us to pass a special law to make sure that it remains secret? Why were Ministers not open and frank with the committee and the House as to the real reason for this bill that members have described as a feel-good bill? The rest of it is a feel-good bill but with two clauses in it to make Helen Clark feel good that New Zealanders are not to know the real history of this Labour Government. 
This is a Government that says it is in favour of history and that it is in favour of telling all yet here it is passing a bill to keep Helen Clark’s real history secret. I suspect that when it is finally opened probably in 80 years’ time we will discover a whole lot of reasons for Helen Clark thinking that Parliament should spend $800000 keeping her oral history secret. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 After listening to that speech all I can suggest is that the bats are a bit loose in the belfry. Winston Peters is the conspiracy theorist around this place and Mr Prebble does himself a disservice in trying to emulate him. I have had the pleasure of speaking on this bill before and the pleasure of sitting on the Education and Science Committee. We listened to very good submissions and advice we received on the bill. I know that the New Zealand library community is looking forward to this bill receiving its royal assent. I think the best thing we can do as members of Parliament is shut up sit down and get on with it. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
:  
On behalf of the Green Party I would like to say how pleased I am to see this National Library bill go through its third and final reading this afternoon—almost a year since it was first introduced to the House in May 2002. I am sure there will be a sense of relief and indeed celebration once this bill is passed given the years of uncertainty and at times distress faced by supporters of both the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library over the last decade or so. My heart has gone out to employees and friends of the two libraries who have had for example to try to stop the destruction of material the selling-off of books the cutting of funding the casting-out of good staff and so on. The cultural devastation which peaked in the “managerialist” era of the late 1990s has cast a long shadow over New Zealand’s recent library history. 
We are indeed fortunate to have had a Minister and a Government in power who have an understanding of the critical role that national libraries play in our society economy history and culture. I thank Marian Hobbs and those who worked with her for putting this bill forward in what I really believe was just the nick of time. The National Library bill is the culmination of years of hard work negotiation and compromise among and between people in organisations with a whole range of different vested interests but who all share a commitment to preserving and clarifying the status of both libraries. 
This was brought home to members of the Education and Science Committee during the hearings process when we heard what might truly be called a fairly eclectic assortment of heartfelt submissions from a whole variety of different viewpoints. I would like to pay my respects to all the submitters who made the effort to contribute to trying to improve the bill and I am glad that quite a large number of changes were subsequently made as a result of points raised by submitters. I realise that some people have been frustrated that their particular concerns have not been picked up on but a number of the issues raised were important but were not within the scope of the bill. I hope some of these will be dealt with elsewhere as appropriate. 
Overall the bill has presented a long-awaited opportunity to tidy up and make clear not only the overarching governance arrangements for the libraries but also a number of organisational details which are critical for implementing the underlying intent of the legislation to safeguard maintain and enhance the National Library and Alexander Turnbull Library in all aspects of their collections and work. I hope future Governments will not meddle with what is being established here today until such time as it is truly necessary to do so. The libraries deserve a long period of stability in which to build again on their many strengths and to incorporate the new provisions of the bill into the detail of their daily work. 
I think this is an appropriate moment to acknowledge the new National Librarian Penny Carnaby and the sense of optimism she brings to her position at this critical juncture in the library’s history. I would also like to acknowledge particularly the Friends of the Turnbull Library who have fought so hard and so long for the Alexander Turnbull Library to maintain and regain its rightful place as a unique independent and invaluable part of our country’s heritage. 
While I am on acknowledgments I would also like to thank all the library staff who gave up hours of their day to take select committee members on our own private and very informative tour at a time of day when I am sure they all had better things to do. I never like to assume that the work of MPs is more important than anyone else’s work but I hope the bill we are passing tonight will be the best concrete expression we could give of the genuine appreciation and support many of us have for the invaluable and irreplaceable work of the two libraries. 
Bill read a third time. 
Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2002/03 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations for the 2003/04 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 
. This motion brings before the House the recommendations from the Officers of Parliament Committee in a report presented on 25 March 2003. 
Section 17 of the Public Finance Act together with Standing Order 191 set out the procedures applying to votes for Offices of Parliament. Specified information is provided by the chief executive of each office of Parliament for consideration by the House. The Officers of Parliament Committee examines that information and makes recommendations to the House. The House recommends to the Governor-General by way of an address alterations to votes for offices of Parliament during a financial year and estimates for the next financial year. The Officers of Parliament Committee is chaired by the Speaker. All parties in the House except the Progressive Coalition are represented on the committee and the committee was unanimous in its recommendations. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I have pleasure on behalf of National in supporting this motion. The funding for the offices of Parliament—that is the Office of the Ombudsmen the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—is determined by the Officers of Parliament Committee rather than by Cabinet. National is pleased to support the motion. 
There are however a number of issues that arose during our discussions on the Auditor-General’s report. I want to mention these briefly. The Audit Office has experienced since the last election increasing demands on its time. Parliamentary and community expectation of public sector performance and accountability is always there and is increasing. With the number of new members of Parliament there probably will be increased demand on the services of the Audit Office. 
At the same time with regard to local government the public expectation is also increasing and that has been evidenced in the increased number of complaints that the office has received over the last 12 months. There has been a real challenge which will face not only the Audit Office but also accountancy firms—that is the reputation the credibility of the accounting and auditing professions. This has come about through the demise of a number of overseas companies—in particular Enron. There are international events that may have implications for both the New Zealand profession and the Audit Office. Work will need to be done in this area and we understand that the report by the Auditor-General to the select committee was that the Accounting Standards Review Board has recommended the adoption of the international financial reporting standards by 2007 and this may pose issues requiring particular attention for the public sector in New Zealand. There are some risks involved with this and these are the challenges that the Audit Office will have to contend with. 
There has been increased demand for the services of the Audit Office and I want to refer to the number of taxpayers who are using those services and also parliamentarians. As I mentioned earlier with a changeover of Government with the new Parliament new MPs have come in and that is placing increasing demands. There are between 250 to 300 inquiries received each year. These are mainly on the performance audits of public entities. Additional funds have been provided. National supports the additional funding. That will allow the office to get through the studies that have been commissioned. 
There is the provision for non-contested audit services and also the provision of contested audit and assurance services. If we read through the report on these we see the Auditor-General has a statutory duty to conduct an audit of the financial statements of more than 3900 public entities. So it is a huge operation. Audits are undertaken either by Audit New Zealand or by the private sector. 
Just to finish on this section class 3 which is referred to comprises the audits of approximately 400 public entities and class 4 is the remaining 3500 entities. Two thousand five hundred of those are schools. The Audit Office goes through a very important process. The Audit Office undertakes a number of studies and they are listed in its very comprehensive plan. National has much pleasure in supporting Vote Auditor-General. 
In moving to Vote Ombudsmen we see a number of issues have been resolved. Once again we are happy to support this vote. The new remuneration rates for the Chief Ombudsman and the Ombudsman Mel Smith were advised by the Higher Salaries Commission. They became effective last year on 1 October 2002 so there is an increased cost to the Permanent Legislative Authority and an extra $40000 has been allocated for that purpose. One should be aware that the remuneration of the other Ombudsman Judge Anand Satyanand actually comes out of Vote Courts. The Office of the Ombudsmen is not required to fund that. 
There has also been an interesting dilemma that the Office of the Ombudsmen has had to face and that has been court action that has been taken against it. Another $100000 has been appropriated to meet legal fees. It is unusual that the Crown Law Office working on behalf of Work and Income has taken a case against the Office of the Ombudsmen. We have allowed for $100000 for legal fees. The office does not have any contingency to fund and defend legal proceedings. Therefore it is important that that is fully funded and that has been achieved. 
The office has also allowed for another small legal firm adjacent to its primary tenancies to merge. This property is on The Terrace and a merger has taken place with a little reallocation of funds. That is a move in the right direction and certainly we have supported it. About $36000 has gone into that area. 
There are a number of increasing demands on the Office of the Ombudsmen and the objectives that have been set out for the year 2003-04 are interesting. The caseload at the moment has been between 6000 and 6500 investigations each year. Approximately 5500 are complaints lodged under the Ombudsmen Act the Official Information Act the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and the Protected Disclosures Act. It is a huge operation with 6500 complaints and investigations undertaken. The existing profiles have to be maintained there is an average of nine visits per year to penal institutions and there are about 2000 new complaints from prison inmates during that period. 
There is a huge commitment there and that goes along with the tertiary institutions. There are 40 tertiary institutions and the ombudsmen make two visits per year to each of those institutions. The ombudsmen expect that there will be an increase in parliamentary requests during the next year resulting from political interest positioning for the next general election. They make the comment that as we build up to the next election there will be other requests that the Office of the Ombudsmen will have to handle and that is to be expected in the run-up to the 2005 election. 
National is very happy to support the role that the Office of the Ombudsmen plays and the motion that the Minister has put forward. Two other risks that the office will be confronted with are the increased workload coming from the education sector and the increased demands on the office’s time under the Accident Compensation Corporation. The office has identified the issues that it will need to address and the challenges it will face. We believe that the funding provided for the office in these appropriations will be sufficient and National has great pleasure in supporting the motion. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support the first motion with regard to the approval in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. There is no doubt about that aspect of the matter. In keeping with our role as an Opposition party and perhaps I suggest even as a member of Parliament one should pay close attention to the matters that come before the House concerning the expenditure of public money and of course in this particular area the funds that will be needed by the various departments to carry out their functions in the forthcoming year. 
I was on the Officers of Parliament Committee when these matters were discussed. I wish to record my concern in so far as Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is concerned. As I recall it some funds were being made available for travel. One always becomes concerned as to just how far this travel will extend financially and literally what people will come to New Zealand to visit us in return and just how this might grow. I record that New Zealand First has expressed its concern with regard to the utilisation of public funds in the area of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We will make sure that it does not become excessive in the future. We have a very good Commission for the Environment and a very good concept. New Zealand has always been a place where the environment has been fully appreciated whether or not there has been some statutory body associated with it. 
I turn to Vote Ombudsmen. I am concerned as to whether sufficient funds would be available. I note in particular pages 27 28 and 29 of the Ombudsmen’s report for the year ended 30 June 2002 in relation to those aspects of the Official Information Act and advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister. The statement on page 27 states: “A significant issue arising this year has been the extent to which advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister may be withheld. A series of complaints were received regarding what was perceived to be a ‘class approach’ taken to the withholding of such information.” The report states that at the heart of the decision to withhold information was a fundamental concern that in order to carry out the role of Prime Minister effectively the incumbent must be able to receive and rely on with confidence free and frank advice from his or her advisers. Clearly that concern is valid. It is in the public interest for the Prime Minister of the day to receive such advice. 
The report states further: “However the Official Information Act does not provide any basis for blanket withholding of information generated by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as an exempt ‘class of information’. Requests for such information must be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the tests for withholding set out in the Act.” 
I wonder whether adequate funds are made available this year for example with regard to the letters written or not written by officials in the Prime Minister’s department in respect of the apology to President Bush. As an Opposition party we should be entitled in terms of the Official Information Act provisions of Vote Ombudsmen to have access to such letters. That is our parliamentary duty. I believe that it is set out in the principles of Vote Ombudsmen and in the principles of the Official Information Act. The withholding of such information which is set out in the Ombudsmen’s report is very valid. I ask the Prime Minister to get back to New Zealand and to let us have details of the letter or letters that may or may not have been written in terms of the Official Information Act requirements. We should have this information released to the public of New Zealand. It should not be withheld on the basis of her views on the matter. 
In terms of the funding in this particular area there should be adequate funds for the Ombudsman to have the money to obtain that information from the Prime Minister’s department. I ask the next Government member who takes a call to say whether he or she is satisfied that such funding is available. It would seem to be a very difficult and expensive task to have the time and facilities available to keep pursuing the Prime Minister to get this information from her. 
 I believe that there is not sufficient funding available in this vote to get this information. Why is the information not made available immediately to make it unnecessary to have such funding? Why is it that time and time again Opposition members have to make demands of the Prime Minister to get this information? I remember a time when the Prime Minister was very strong on things like open government. If she were still strong on open government then the question of funding would not arise. I remember a time when the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark was very strong on answerability by the Government to the Opposition. Well we want her to be answerable. Is there enough funding in this vote to enable us to pursue the question of whether we could make the Prime Minister answerable to the public of New Zealand? That point is raised as a criticism in this particular report. Perhaps it has not been noticed by other parties in this House. New Zealand First is concerned that in this report the Ombudsman has expressed a criticism of the way in which this Prime Minister and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet are handling its affairs. 
We know that the Ombudsman is loathe to criticise Ministers and would be even more loathe to criticise a Prime Minister. But there is clearly an implicit criticism of the way in which this department is handling the affairs of State. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet clearly is of concern to the Ombudsman and it is of concern to New Zealand First. We want to make sure that we can get access to those letters that have been written and that there is sufficient funding in this vote to have that access. 
We want the Prime Minister to tell us why she will make it so difficult for us to get this information. Why is she swanning around at services overseas when she is needed here in New Zealand to answer such questions and to answer the need for the funding to enable us to bring this information to hand? I wish to draw that matter to the attention of this House. The Ombudsman is very right in bringing this matter to the attention of the country and New Zealand First will be making sure that all steps are taken to ensure that there are adequate funds to get to the bottom of the matter. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise as a Green member of the Officers of Parliament Committee to support this motion. I have been very pleasantly surprised at how well the Officers of Parliament system works and how accountable the officers are. In terms of the budget provided by this Parliament there has been a very cooperative relationship between the three Officers of Parliament and the committee in achieving common ground on what the increases in their expenditure should be. I think that the three Officers of Parliament are all doing a good job. The last speaker indicated how they were willing to challenge authority in the case he referred to to make sure that advice provided to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is not as a class deemed confidential and unavailable to the public and that each case under the Official Information Act has to be provided on a case by case basis. I think that that in itself shows the importance of the Ombudsmen in helping the public to get access to public information. 
I do support what Mr Lindsay Tisch said earlier about the load on the Ombudsmen the efficiency of the Office of the Ombudsmen and the annual report. He mentioned the large number of complaints and the time the office spends on them with a relatively small staff. I and the last speaker have been talking about the application of the Official Information Act and in the 2002 annual report it is stated that there were 863 Official Information Act investigations 18 percent of them from members of Parliament. Out of those 863 cases 66 percent were resolved in favour of the complainant or some assistance was given to the complainant to get the information he or she required. I think that that in itself shows two things. It shows the importance of the Office of the Ombudsmen in terms of making sure there is access to the Official Information Act and it also shows I think that Government departments perhaps need to be a little more open with the provisions of the Official Information Act. 
There was reference in Mr Tisch’s speech to the work of the Office of the Ombudsmen in relation to prisoners. I think it is important that prisoners have the ability to make appeals to the Office of the Ombudsmen. It is difficult in a prison environment if things go wrong or if there is some mistreatment or injustice for prisoners to get proper redress. I think that the Office of the Ombudsmen is very valuable there and it has performed good work. The ombudsmen now cover all the local government agencies as well and I think that the ability of the ombudsmen to delve into those issues is ensuring greater transparency for local government. In the report the Ombudsman does raise an issue now that they do cover education agencies of the State. There is the question that they do make accountable and transparent the operation of education agencies but there are private training establishments that are provided with similar Government funds for the work they do and that are not subject to the Ombudsman’s investigations and there is a certain inequality there. So all in all I think that the Office of the Ombudsmen has done very well. 
I also want to talk about the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who has done excellent work. He has addressed many of the questions that we in this Parliament have to address and he provides information advice and analysis for our own work. Just today we have been talking about the electricity problems in this country. It is interesting to look at the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s annual report and see that the office is developing an electricity audit framework. It is trying to make sure that electricity generation and provision to the population is done in an environmentally sustainable manner. In the last annual report there is a sentence that is quite relevant. It states: “In the electricity sector where RMA resource consent processes focus on managing effects on the local environment” less account is taken of “environmental effects at a national or international level. This has the potential to lead to more thermal electricity generation being established rather than renewable energy sources such as hydro or wind.” I think that is very relevant in the light of our international commitment that we are developing to the Kyoto Protocol and the crisis we are in at the present time. We need much more national planning in terms of demand management and extra generating capacity and making sure as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment does project in its annual report that it should be more in the direction of renewable energy such as hydro or wind. 
If members read the annual report they will see that there is a section on public transport. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment led an 18-person study tour to the Brazilian town of Curitiba which has a model transport system. It has been on television in New Zealand. Around the world people are looking to Curitiba and that 18-person study tour has had huge flow-on effects. I know that in Auckland recently a seminar was initiated by some of the councillors who went on that study tour with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The ripple effects of that study tour are going out throughout the community. The report talks about the whole question of what measures we need to develop in order to get a balanced transport system—a balance between road and different alternatives to roads—and the importance the Parliamentary Commissioner says of adequately valuing the space requirements for different modes of transport adequately valuing pedestrian space as against parking spaces not just giving priority to parking spaces and how to value public transport corridors which I think is very important. I come from Auckland and I think the valuation that the citizens are now putting on the bus lanes is increasing month by month. People understand the importance of that space being given to buses even if it does take a lane off the car traffic. It has increased public transport usage dramatically and made transport more efficient. 
The parliamentary commissioner also produced a very important document last year:  
Creating our future: Sustainable development for New Zealand 
. It has important recommendations and some criticisms really that Governments to date have not really developed the sorts of approaches that are required. It talks about the need for much more long-term planning to protect our environment. The recommendations in this major document state that the Minister of Local Government in consultation with Local Government New Zealand should develop guidelines for local authorities on preparing long-term community plans dealing with environmental economic social and cultural sustainability consistent with the principles of Agenda 21 the Rio declaration. It proposes that the Prime Minister establish an advisory body responsible for overseeing and coordinating the implementation of the Government’s proposed New Zealand strategy on sustainable development. It goes on to explain some of the things that such a strategy should develop. There is a lack—it is pointed out by the parliamentary commissioner—of real national planning because environmental planning cannot be done just on a local level. It has to be done by the Government through this strategy through the harnessing of communities across the country and through the establishment of such an advisory body. 
I think that all three Officers of Parliament have done a good job. The Audit Office is doing a good job of course. I see in its work plan this year that it is doing a study of overseas development assistance. Auditing that will be very valuable. It is doing a study of private-public partnerships to see whether there is really much of an advantage to New Zealanders in going down that track. It is all very valuable work. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak on the appropriations for the three Offices of Parliament: the Audit Office the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. These offices of course are constitutional anomalies in a sense. They are offices that report directly to Parliament. They are intended to be watchdogs on the executive the Crown in theory for Parliament. It is the time of year when we should be reviewing to see whether we are getting value for money from those people employed by Parliament directly to allow Parliament to know that the Crown the executive the people who report to Cabinet Ministers are doing what the law says they should do and no more and that power is not being abused. 
I look at the offices that I know most about. I was an officer of the Office of the Ombudsmen for 2 years so there is a certain sentimental regard when I look at the appropriations for the Office of the Ombudsmen. I have to say I was a low-level investigating officer. I had no regard for its budget—I do not know what it was. But I always look at the work of the ombudsmen and the people who work in that office with a great degree of interest. I was intrigued to notice that $100000 extra is recommended for allocation by Parliament to enable the Office of the Ombudsmen to defend proceedings brought by the Crown Law Office against the decision that the Ministry of Social Development must release tenant address information to the Department for Courts so that tenancy judgment orders can be enforced. It seems so absolutely obvious that the Crown should be acting in what the Government is pleased to call—what is the term? It is “whole-of Government”. That is the funny term for it—a whole-of-Government approach. In other words the left hand should at least be supporting what the right hand is doing. People should be expecting the Government to be consistent. 
Here we have a situation where the Office of the Ombudsmen’s time energy and money appropriated by this Parliament will be used to defend a decision of the ombudsman that would seem to be so bleedingly obvious to use a recently sanctified phrase that it defies belief. That the Department for Courts has to get the Ombudsman to ask the Ministry of Social Development for tenant address information to enforce tenancy judgment orders is just unbelievable. How can anyone in the social policy area expect landlords of any kind to be willing to provide tenant accommodation if the Government colludes in looking after the tenancy bludgers—the ones who let all the others down the ones who put up the cost the ones who add to the risk of being a landlord the ones who create the environment where excessive rentals can be justified on the grounds of risk? Here we have the Office of the Ombudsmen making a sensible decision—that of course the Department for Courts should have access to the information the Government has. How many tenants would not expect the Government to work in that way? 
When I was in the Office of the Ombudsmen I dealt with complaints against the Inland Revenue Department. There was a very clear recognition that the Inland Revenue Department was different from all other departments that the information one gave to the Inland Revenue Department was held sacrosanct and that one could be a prostitute or a bookie or engaged in all kinds of activity that the rest of the State did not approve of but the Inland Revenue Department would keep it sacrosanct. Conversely I think citizens expected that if the Government got information in any other capacity it used it for proper Government purposes—and here we have to give the Office of the Ombudsmen $100000 to defend itself against the Crown Law Office on behalf of the social welfare Minister Mr Maharey. 
I am also fascinated by the appropriations for the Commissioner for the Environment. That is not because I know a great deal about what the commissioner has been up to but because I do not know a great deal about what he has been up to. Here I am a member of Parliament and I expected that our Commissioner for the Environment would be a guiding light and that he would have thrown a great deal of sunlight on some of the really hard issues. For example a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment I would have thought would have an active interest in the “corngate” affair. This is an issue where Parliament needs objective information. Instead a parliamentary select committee is embroiled in a political stoush over what is the reality or truth in the “corngate” affair. Was the Prime Minister involved in some sort of collusive activity with the Minister for the Environment to suppress information about the release of a genetically modified organism? I am surprised that we did not hear the Green speaker who has just finished asking why the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was not deep into this in order to make sure that Parliament really knew what had happened. 
I look at others. We are importing Indonesian coal to run our power stations—Indonesian coal from the people raping Indonesia as we hear. We are importing Indonesian coal to burn and to inject into the environment we all have to share. I have not heard a peep from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the consistency and whole-of-Government approach that has the Department of Conservation blocking coalmining on the West Coast. In another of my earlier existences I was on the board of Coal Corporation of New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] The United Future member is mentioning hydro schemes. The fact is that we should expect this commissioner to be the one who says: “Hey there’s an anomaly here. Parliament has three or four different kinds of legislation. It is getting various reports. Different departments are doing different things but it’s not hanging together.” The commissioner should be asking the Department of Conservation why it is blocking the mining of coal in New Zealand when we have what someone said in the House today was 800 years’ worth of coal. Instead of allowing New Zealand coal to be mined we are importing 600000 tonnes of coal into Auckland from Australia and Indonesia and we could have been providing that ourselves. 
If the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was using his $2 million in the way I had expected we would benefit for genuine environmentalism we might have had some idea of the value of time spent in traffic jams and about the emissions from time spent in traffic jams. We might have had an audit of the spurious claims about deaths from exhaust emissions based on overseas models and not properly applied to New Zealand conditions. We might have had a review of the claims about people dying of cold because power is not available to them. Again it may be that the commissioner has put out something clear and objective on this and I just have not come across it but he is our commissioner and I still do not know whether it is true that anyone in New Zealand dies of cold because they do not have enough electricity when they could have put a jersey on or put a hot water bottle in their bed. It is possible. I saw a claim very recently that New Zealand houses had to have a whole lot of fibreglass batts in them because we were dying in our homes because they were too cold. That seems to me eminently something that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment should have got into. 
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment should have been looking at the new local government bill the Resource Management Act. He should have been looking at the restraints on transmission and at the problem of the national grid not having enough capacity to move power between Auckland and Wellington or between the South Island and Auckland in a way that would allow more hydro and less gas and diesel generation. Probably we will see all over the country in the next few months inefficient diesel generation at an individual level. I believe that the $2 million the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is being paid should have been put under strict scrutiny. I see no reason in this report for continuing with this office. Though it is a godmother and apple pie thing it is time it was reviewed. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I could refer to the three votes in question in a general way as Stephen Franks has—as the watchdog functions of the New Zealand Parliament. I could also perhaps describe them as being a kind of triple bottom line accounting for the affairs of this nation: Vote Audit to ensure that the income and expenditure of the Crown has been accounted for in accordance with international best practice and the ethics that relate to good stewardship of those resources; Vote Ombudsman to ensure that the overall apparatus of the Government adheres to the principles of justice fair play and openness which is so much at the heart of our society; and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—which completes the troika—to ensure that all of us remain aware that we are merely guardians of the precious and beautiful environment that makes New Zealand not only the most beautiful country in the world but also a country that is great to live in to raise a family in and to come home to. 
Speaking about the Commissioner for the Environment I would like to endorse the comments made by Stephens Franks on behalf of the ACT party concerning the nonsense of having perfectly viable hydro electricity schemes in this country turned down by people who claim to be guarding the environment or to have an interest in conservation whilst concurrently this winter we will be importing fuel oil and coal to generate electricity. The reality is that the water in our rivers and lakes falls from the sky and is completely free and hydro is completely in line with very sensible conservation outcomes—by which I mean the management of natural resources in a way that enhances the environment. With those comments I signal United Future’s support of this motion. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I join with others in speaking to motion No. 1 which provides for the parliamentary vote for Vote Ombudsmen Vote Audit and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. As the National spokesperson on the environment I particularly want to focus on the vote for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. A number of speakers have commented on the issue of the power crisis and that is important in terms of the recommendations provided for in the report on the Offices of Parliament that there be an increase in the appropriation for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to provide specifically for a review of the electricity governance organisations and I want to speak to some of those issues. 
I commend the United Future party and the contribution that has just been made by Mr Copeland for highlighting the nonsense and the environmental lunacy that is currently going on whereby we are so pure in stopping sensible developments of sustainable energy in New Zealand that we end up in a crisis that has us burning oil and importing coal to meet this country’s energy needs. That is a fundamental failure of public policy. But I have to challenge my colleague from United Future because we have heard in terms of the changes to the Resource Management Act that his party is supporting— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can refer to those issues in so far as they concern these votes and whether the vote should be approved. It is not a general discussion on policy. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment provides for an increase specifically on the issue of electricity generation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the member can say whether he is in favour of that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me finish my point of order if I may. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is only using up his own time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What a touchy mood you are in today Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is just about to have his speech terminated. I ask him to please carry on with his speech. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My reference is this: the United Future party members cannot give speeches such as the speech that has just been given in respect of Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment expressing concerns about issues of energy while at the same time supporting law that will make the very issues of energy more difficult. We need a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for exactly those sorts of reasons—to hold those sorts of contradictions to account. I challenge that party if it is going to stand by the sort of contribution it has made to rethink its views about resource management because that party is part of the problem at the moment not part of the solution. 
I also want to challenge the Government in respect of the nonsense we have seen on issues such as the Resource Management Act. I want to see the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment look at the lunacy around such issues that is dragging Government agencies into debates about cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and chasing taniwha instead of focusing on key environmental issues. This country’s energy crisis is a very serious issue for this Parliament. It will have a very substantial effect on both the economic and social well-being of our country. It will have an adverse environmental impact. It is just the sort of work that is required of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and that is why National supports an increase in the vote specifically for that purpose—for Dr Morgan Williams and his team at the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 
There is a further issue that I specifically wish to raise in respect of this vote. Today I want to call on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to use the additional financial resources to carry out an inquiry into what I think is an environmental disaster for this country—that is what is going on with the Rotorua lakes. We have a beautiful set of lakes in the upper North Island—in Rotorua and in the area surrounding Hamilton. What occurred over this last summer—I refer to the blue-green algae—was an environmental disaster. It is a tragedy that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment or even the Green Party has shown a blind bit of interest in that environmental disaster. Last summer Lake Rotoiti one of the most used recreational lakes in New Zealand became so polluted from blue-green algae that people cannot swim in it or drink from it. It was estimated that up to 300000 people use that lake over the summer but this year that did not occur. If it were only Lake Rotoiti that was of concern we might not get so excited but the reality is that there are over 15 popular recreational lakes in the upper half of the North Island that are in one great environmental mess and in my view the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment should apply urgent attention to that issue. 
I get so frustrated that this Parliament and this Government spent so much time on an issue like genetic technology which is a non-issue posing no substantive threat to the health and well-being of the environment of this nation yet on an important issue like the environmental well-being of our lakes nobody seems to give a toss. The Minister for the Environment has even used her powers to stop sensible rules from being put in place. I have a photo here of stock openly wandering around those lakes contributing to the nutrification of those lakes and the Minister makes submissions to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council baulking at rules that would help fix up that sort of difficulty. So I challenge the Government and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in particular to give some attention to the national disaster that is taking place in those North Island lakes. I stress that those lakes are tremendous environmental and recreational assets for New Zealand. The way in which those lakes have been polluted and the way in which public authorities have failed to address the fundamental issues—the algae bloom that is causing the toxicity in the lakes the smell and the discolouration and the lack of the capacity to be able to drink or even swim in those waters—are matters that need attention. 
On behalf of National I compliment the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the Environment on the good work it does. It does need to keep a strong focus on science not politics. I bring the important issue of poor energy policy as well as the issues affecting the Rotorua lakes to the attention of that office in the hope that the financial resources which we are in support of will be wisely used to address those issues. 
Motion agreed to and Address agreed to. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to take Government notices of motion Nos. 2 to 4 as one question pursuant to discussion in the Business Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. Please move accordingly. Could I point out to the Leader of the House that if he cares to read them out I will put the question separately at the end of the debate. 
Retirements 
Chief Ombudsman 
Appointments 
Chief Ombudsman and Ombudsmen 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this House taking note of the forthcoming retirement of Sir Brian George Conway Elwood CBE as Chief Ombudsman place on record its appreciation of Sir Brian’s service as an Officer of Parliament since 1992; further note his earlier distinguished public and local government service including periods as Mayor of Palmerston North President of the Municipal Association of New Zealand and Chairman of the Local Government Commission; and wish Sir Brian and Lady Elwood a happy retirement 
. I think that the motion is long enough and actually covers the speech that I was going to make. 
Secondly I move  
That pursuant to section 3 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommends Her Excellency the Governor-General to appoint Maurice John Belgrave as an Ombudsman and to appoint him as Chief Ombudsman for a term commencing on 1 July 2003 
.  
I also move  
That pursuant to section 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommends Her Excellency the Governor-General to reappoint Melwyn Purefoy Smith of Wellington as an additional Ombudsman for a period of two years commencing on 5 June 2003 
.  
Obviously having touched upon Sir Brian’s long career I say that he served particularly as the head of the Local Government Commission during its most active period between 1985 and 1992 and while there was much bitter and indeed at times almost vicious political opposition to the reforms that Sir Brian headed I notice that not a single one of those reforms was subsequently undone and that some of those who were most active in opposing them now call very actively for them to be taken a great deal further in terms of local government reform and amalgamation of local authorities. 
In terms of John Belgrave I say that he has a very long distinguished career in the public sector with some brief periods in the private sector. John initially served with the Department of Trade and Industry and served in a number of roles overseas in London Melbourne and Tokyo. He then held senior executive positions in the public service: Assistant Secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry Assistant Director-General in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and chief executive positions as Comptroller of Customs Secretary to the Minister of Commerce Secretary to the Department of Commerce and then Secretary of the Ministry of Justice from 1994 to 1997. He was Executive Director of the New Zealand Bankers Association for a couple of years Executive Director of the Electricity Supply Association for 2 years chair of the Standards Council chair of the Institute of Policy Studies at Victoria University and since 1999 chair of the Commerce Commission. So he brings an enormous range of experience to the office of Chief Ombudsman—an office that inevitably brings him on occasions into conflict with all kinds of different people both Government and others. The Ombudsman’s position is one of those positions where one is never going to please everybody all the time but it is a matter of carrying it out with integrity and honour. I think it can clearly be said that Mr Belgrave has the qualifications for that task as Sir Brian Elwood has had the qualifications for the task since 1992. 
Mel Smith was appointed an additional Ombudsman at the end of 2001 for 18 months and this motion reappoints Mr Smith for a term of 2 years. He was previously a Deputy Secretary for Internal Affairs and then rather extraordinarily I think was the acting chief executive of four agencies—the Department of Justice the Government Superannuation Fund the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Policy. He has performed I think with distinction as an additional Ombudsman since his appointment. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 The National Party has pleasure in supporting motion No. 2 on Sir Brian Elwood’s retirement. As the House is aware there was a function before the Easter adjournment but time did not allow for the official recognition. 
Sir Brian as the Leader of the House has said was appointed Ombudsman in 1992 and was appointed Chief Ombudsman on 14 December 1994. Today this House records with gratitude Sir Brian’s unselfish devotion and distinguished public and local government service. The Office of the Ombudsmen has made considerable progress over the years and has earned the respect of the public and of this House. Sir Brian has enjoyed the confidence of all who have dealt with him and on behalf of the National Party I wish him and Lady Elwood the very best for a long and happy retirement. 
In speaking to motion No. 2 concerning the appointment of Mr John Belgrave I say that this parliamentary appointment has the support of the whole House. John Belgrave much like the person he succeeds has had a distinguished career. Many will know him and know of his qualifications—indeed they will know of his experience. The Leader of the House highlighted some of those positions but I want to add to that. Mr Belgrave has been involved deeply and directly in New Zealand economic and trade policy development and implementation both in New Zealand and overseas. In recent years he has been involved directly in the development and implementation of competition policy right across the economy. Mr Belgrave has had a comprehensive exposure to New Zealand commerce and industry particularly as Secretary of Commerce and through his work with the banking and electricity industries. He also has a good knowledge of consumer interests having had overall responsibility for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs which was part of the Ministry of Commerce. As a consequence he has a very good working knowledge in addition to the policy perspective of New Zealand’s economic regulatory statutes. Mr Belgrave is well suited to the role of Chief Ombudsman and National wishes him every success in this role. 
In speaking to motion No. 3 I say that Mr Mel Smith was appointed an Ombudsman in December 2001 and National supports his reappointment to that position for a period of 2 years commencing 5 June 2003. With Mr John Belgrave Judge Anand Satyanand and Mr Mel Smith as the three Ombudsmen we can be assured of the highest standard of service and commitment. National has pleasure in supporting all three motions. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I join with the other speakers in supporting the three motions. All three persons have been mentioned by the previous speakers. I can say that the public has been extremely well served by Sir Brian George Conway Elwood who made his name in local government and added to it with great excellence in his position as Chief Ombudsman. I am sure that the two new appointees in their continuation of terms and such like will perform excellently for New Zealand and the public as officers of Parliament. New Zealand First supports all the motions. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 For ACT I also state our intention to support these three motions. In relation to Sir Brian Elwood a retirement of this kind gives pause for reflection on a disability we now suffer under in relation to the replacements. It is highly suitable that we can commend Sir Brian. On National Radio over the weekend I heard Sir Brian interviewed about how he saw public affairs and the term “sir” could be used. 
I went to the Office of the Ombudsmen immediately after Sir Guy Powles. Sir Guy had established that office with a reputation that could easily have gone the other way. We had imported a mechanism an office—even a description—from Scandinavia and the first appointment was absolutely critical to establishing its clout. Because it had a recommending and reporting role not a compulsion role that clout came not from the legal provisions but from the personal qualities of the people who have held that office. Sir Guy was followed by Sir George Laking who I am pleased to say is still alive at 90 and still following public affairs actively. I have had a message from him today and I was very proud to have served under Sir George. Then there was Mr Lester Castle and others all of whom have upheld the honour of that office. It makes me very sorry to think that if Mr Belgrave and Mel Smith managed to maintain that high standard they will not be recognised or addressed by the public in terms of a status and office description. We should be able to offer to our honoured high officials more than the simple term “commissioner”. I think the commission itself is enhanced by the expectation that a worthy performer gets an honorific such as “sir”. 
I want to turn now to the particular things that will mark the term in office of the two individuals that the motions relate to. After Sir Brian’s retirement they will have to continue with the very difficult task of presiding over a regime in relation to the Official Information Act that is now out of fashion. In the late 1970s—as sunlight is a disinfectant—freedom of information New Zealand’s version of the Official Information Act and the extension of the Ombudsman’s role in relation to it were seen as natural developments of Government. Openness is one of the prices we ought to pay for having a healthy modern civilisation but in the last 10 years we have suddenly turned that principle on its head. Privacy has become a value that now supplants openness and the matter in the report of the Officers of Parliament Committee typifies that. I hope that Mel Smith and Mr Belgrave will wholeheartedly defend the action being brought against them by the Ministry of Social Policy and Work and Income New Zealand. That is a classic example of the tension I have mentioned and it is one that is particularly important when there are two senior internal appointments. 
Effectively Mr Belgrave and Mr Smith are internal appointments. They have both worked for many years in the public service—unlike Sir Brian who came from outside and had a long time as a lawyer in general practice. He then had a long period in local government and so could be expected to approach Government and the exercise of executive power from the perspective of someone who at times must have been frustrated by it and who knew what it was like to feel a helpless citizen against not only city hall but the central State. I think there is a bit of concern that we are dealing with two nominees both of whom have been loyal diligent effective public servants but have not had notable experience of the other side. It is a note of warning but it is not saying that they will not perform. 
Crown Law is suing the Office of the Ombudsmen to try to prevent the implementation of a decision that the Department of Social Welfare should allow the Department for Courts the addresses of dud tenants so that court judgments against them can be enforced. That is a touchstone issue and I earnestly hope that both the new ombudsmen will see it as a cause that they should take up with all energy. That is particularly important because Mr Smith has spent time recently in the justice portfolio and has had a very active involvement in looking at what the courts have been doing. I hope his natural inclination is to make sure that the courts are just as effective as they possibly can be. 
A further concern is that sometimes when people are appointed at the end of very long and successful careers and do not have reasonable assurance of their terms there is a possibility of too much power being preserved or too little independence. Maybe someone from the Officers of Parliament Committee can clarify that issue as I am not sure whether there is any formal or informal understanding about the length of term of these appointments. Certainly we got very good value from some of those people for a long time after their appointments. I hope it is not anticipated that there will be a regular and short-term turnover of those very important officers when they prove to be as good as some of the ones we have had—in particular Sir Brian Elwood. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I would like to mark the retirement of Sir Brian Elwood as our Chief Ombudsman by honouring the distinguished service he has rendered to that office and to the people of New Zealand since 1992. The role of Ombudsman is very much what its incumbent makes it. Sir Brian has enhanced the reputation and credibility of that office in the eyes of the citizens of this nation and that is the ultimate accolade to a person who has dedicated his life to public service. 
I also take the opportunity to congratulate John Belgrave on his appointment as Chief Ombudsman and to wish him well. He will have large shoes to fill and unless I am very much mistaken he will prove himself equal to the task and live up to the high standards established by his predecessor. 
Motion relating to Sir Brian Elwood agreed to. 
Motion relating to Mr John Belgrave agreed to. 
Motion relating to Mr Mel Smith agreed to. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Minimum Wage Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1Title  
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 While debating the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill clause by clause we are struck by the fact that there are only four clauses in this thin small bill which has had a chequered history through this House. We are concerned at the moment with the title and in particular the reference in the title clause to the Minimum Wage Act being the principal Act. I know that my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall will be formally tabling an amendment to the title of the bill but interestingly and as has been said many times when debating the title of any bill it is incumbent upon that title to reflect accurately what is contained in the bill. Unfortunately the title Minimum Wage Amendment Bill does not reflect what is in the bill at all. 
I will give a bit of background to what the title should be. This bill essentially removes the exemption from the minimum wage provision that applies to those who undertake at least 60 credits of training per year towards a qualification on the national qualifications framework. What is disturbing about that is the fact that this bill could well affect the numbers who undertake apprenticeship training and the system of that training in this country. That is what concerns members on this side of the Chamber. For the bill to reflect that concern it should be called either the “Repeal Training Exemption Bill” or alternatively the “Undermine the Apprenticeship Training Scheme Bill”. 
The biggest worry for those on this side of the Chamber is that the whole point of that previous exemption was that the cost to the employer of providing practical training was recognised. It was if one likes the first step on the ladder for young people entering an employment relationship and provided a practical way of offsetting some of the costs to the employer of the risk of taking on those young people. What would be a substantial concern to members on this side of the Chamber is that the long-term implications of this bill could well mean a decline in the amount of training provided by employers. That would worry us. On-site training has been proven to be a productive way to bring young people into any workforce to offer an opportunity that would otherwise not have been available to them and as I said earlier effectively to give that young person the ability to get his or her foot on the first rung of that ladder. 
This legislation which is somewhat wrongly entitled the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill removes the exemption that allows that apprenticeship training to occur. The greatest concern on this side of the Chamber is the fact that that could have the reverse effect to what is intended by this bill which is one would imagine to reward young people for work done at a rate similar to the minimum wage. We say that simply to take away the exemption could leave employers in a situation where they just do not take people on and where training is not an option that they consider. 
Who is that going to help? Will that help the young person who is trying to get his or her first step on that ladder to employment? Will it encourage the employer to take that first risk to give that young person a go and to give that young person the crucial experience he or she needs? We hear so often from a young person: “I can’t get my foot in the door because they tell me I haven’t got the experience to do the job.” What is this Government about to do? It is about to legislate to take away one of the tools available to the employer to provide that experience to those young people. We on this side of the Chamber say that that is a grave grave shame. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to give support to the broad intention of this bill. I rise also because the minimum wage issue before us in the title clause is one that is worthy in respect of the issues covered by the last speaker at the lower level or at the higher level worthy in respect of giving a real opportunity to people in training. 
My experience in working with such schemes over the last 12 years has been by and large that employers—or would-be employers in the training sense—are doing their utmost to try to keep within the framework envisaged by the training schemes. My experience has been not so much with apprenticeships unfortunately but with training providers. This bill will give sustenance and opportunity with regard to the financial rewards that such training deserves. The only problem that New Zealand First has is not with the provision of training schemes such as we have here but with the vision of those that do not meet these criteria and with the numerous shonky training schemes that we know of around the country. One scheme in Auckland recently mentioned in this Chamber had met no such provision and the trainees or so-called trainees were working virtually as slave labour. That is also the issue for other training schemes I can speak about as well. 
The clause is correctly named because these young people—and mostly they are young although they may be in a second-chance situation—are deserving of a reasonable opportunity not just for training but also for receiving a wage commensurate with that. In particular this bill was conceived and put together in 2001 but in 2003 when the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and unit standards are far more accepted as the broad qualifications for trade training and training of any sort this bill is needed more now than it was at its inception in 2001. 
On behalf of New Zealand First and on behalf of our spokesperson the Hon Brian Donnelly I say that we support and commend the title. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I want to make it very clear that the National Party in Opposition is opposing this bill. The reason we are opposing it is that it will cost jobs it will cost the taxpayers through increased benefits and it will cost business through additional compliance costs. Do members know how I know that? I know because in this piece of paper known as the bill the Government has told Parliament that that will happen. That is why the National Party is moving an amendment stating that the title of the bill should reflect what the bill does. 
Our amendment states that the bill should be referred to as the “Repeal of the Training Exemption Bill”. That is a fairer description of what this bill does. It could also be called “The Bill That is Going to Cost Young People Training Opportunities Bill”. That is exactly what it will do and I can justify that on the basis of the Government’s own report to this House. In the explanatory note to the bill under the heading “Statement of net benefit of this proposal” the Government says there will be an impact on the Government’s finances from increased benefit payments. That means the dole. That means that kids who at the moment are getting the training exemption—and the words “training exemption” should be in the title of the bill—are going to lose their jobs. The Government says so on page 3 of the explanatory note. 
On page 4 of the explanatory note our left-wing minority Labour Government says there will be a decline in the amount of training provided by employers. The bill states there will be a decline in the amount of training provided by employers. That is what this bill will do as a result of removing the minimum wage exemption for young people in training and what is more the Government’s own document says there will be additional costs on business. 
Members need to know what this bill does. Right now it says that young people who are learning skills the equivalent of 60 credits on the national framework will not be covered by the minimum wage. The reason they do that is that many of the job opportunities the on-the-job training opportunities for young people have an element of training that costs the employer and part of the deal is that there is a lower compensation for those workers because they are getting the added benefit of on-the-job training—and do we not need as much on-the-job training as possible? The Government’s own document says that all the money being spent on training schemes up and down the country is wasted because it is not contributing to people getting into work. 
The National Party is opposed to anything that will add increased costs to business cause inflexibility to the labour market and cost young people jobs. That is why we want to change the title of the bill. This bill is not about the minimum wage; it is about removing the exemption and that will affect a whole lot of young people—26000 young people the select committee was advised. The Government’s own documentation—the report that the Government has tabled in this Parliament—states there will be an adverse impact on the Government’s finances from increased benefit payments. That means that some of those 26000 young people will lose their training jobs and go on the dole. That is what the Government is telling Parliament. Is that the reason United Future members want to support this bill? Do they want to support it so that 26000 young people can lose their jobs? I will be shocked if United Future members support this bill. I ask them not to so that young people can have training opportunities. I ask New Zealand First members to give those 26000 young people an opportunity. I say to them: “Don’t don’t don’t support this bill.” because the Government itself says that young people will lose their jobs. This bill will add to the inflexibility and the rigidities in the labour market. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we are opposed to this bill and that we intend to support the amendment Mr Ryall has just given notice of. I know that titles are occasionally ruled out of order by the Chair as being frivolous but if the Chair were able to make such a ruling against the Government then I regard this as one occasion when the title—in this case the “Minimum Wage Amendment Bill”—could be ruled out of order because clearly it is not an appropriate title. The title that has been put forward by Mr Ryall more accurately describes the bill. 
The notion of supporting minimum wages was I guess illustrated by Mr Peters’ speech. He set out the romantic argument for it but it is not in fact logical. The reason this bill should go through—[ 
Interruption 
] It actually should be supported by the Greens. That is the party that has argued that there ought to be a minimum wage for students and it keeps on making that argument. Here we have a Labour Government that says to the quarter of a million adult students in New Zealand: “No you’ve got to pay for your own education. Take out a loan if you haven’t got enough. No we don’t support a minimum wage.”—and I agree with that position. However the Government is suddenly turning round to 26000 people who are getting training and saying: “But in your case we are going to tell the employer that you must be paid a wage even if that doesn’t give an economic return to an employer.” The reason that the National and ACT parties are telling the Government that this is a mistake is that we do have some knowledge of business. Sure employers want to extend and help with training but they are up against costs and are required to make a return on money that people have invested in their businesses. They are not there to be a charity. The Government itself admits that this bill will cost jobs. 
I ask members opposite those who can remember—and perhaps Mr Peters who is supporting this bill; even in the area of education one would have this experience—to think about their own adult experiences. Most people would concede that they learnt more not at university not at polytech not at school but at their first job. People’s first job is crucial to their careers—and it is the hardest job to get when they have no experience. That is the start people want. In the legal profession which I am sure will not be counted in this bill if a person wants to become a barrister that person has to approach a Queen’s Counsel very politely and say: “Please sir will you take me as your pupil?” [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is extremely disruptive for Government Ministers to come over to this side of the Chamber stand behind me and hold a long conversation as they try to get the Greens to support their legislation. A Government Minister and the chief whip are holding a loud conversation behind me while I am speaking. I regard that as totally thoughtless and disorderly and they should be asked to leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. It is not in order for conversations to take place in the Chamber especially in the cross benches. They muffle the sound and make it very difficult for the speaker. I ask those members who wish to carry on a conversation to please do so outside the Chamber. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I was just telling the Committee that if one wants to be a barrister one has to approach a Queen’s Counsel and ask to be his or her pupil. Then one works like a slave for nothing. Why do people do it? They do it because the training is worth so much. No one is actually suggesting making a change in that area. However the more valuable the training the greater the risk to the employer. If a person is a pupil working for a barrister he or she is a danger to shipping. One has to watch every single thing that person does because one is responsible for their actions. The same applies to a trainee. That person has to be watched and the idea that we are helping young people by costing them the opportunity to get a job is nonsense. 
The Government itself does not actually believe this bill. It is being put forward for ideological reasons. The Greens might believe in it and if they do why is the Government not applying a minimum wage to students? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: What’s the fundamentalist monetarist approach to that? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh that is the fundamental monetarist approach! Well that is very interesting. That is why it is not doing it—it is a fundamental monetarist approach. It is very interesting to hear that from the rather confused Government members. They cannot actually work out why they are doing nothing for students but they say they are doing something for a number of trainees. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 It is very interesting is it not that here we have a Government that wants to talk about growth in the economy wants to have investment wants to do all the things that Governments want to do and wants to give out money yet here is an opportunity for employers to take people on take on trainees to be involved in business at the coalface learning those skills that are so important in business— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: What does this member know? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That member has probably never been an employer. He has probably never employed anybody so how would he know? He is just a union man. He would not have a clue. He has never employed anyone never invested and never put his money at risk. Now he is telling young people what is best for them. 
At the moment if I want to employ somebody who does not have the skills I am prepared to give that person a go. I will take people on and give them those opportunities. I will allow them to get that work ethic learn those skills build that expertise and get involved at the coalface. 
 But what does this bill do? This bill says no. The title actually repeals the exemption so the bill could be called the “Minimum Wage (Repeal of Exemption) Bill”. This bill repeals that opportunity for young people and it repeals the opportunity for employers who make an investment by going out there and taking on these people. 
This Government is anti-business anti-growth and anti-employer. This is just another huge compliance cost along with the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill accident compensation levies and occupational safety and health regulations. This is just another anti-business anti-employer piece of legislation. What about the people involved? What about the trainees? They are the people we should be looking after. We have an opportunity to help them and what does this Government do? It takes away that exemption. 
Why would I want to take the risk of giving a young person an opportunity to learn some skills and to get some firsthand experience when this Government is saying that young people have to be given a minimum wage? There is a risk associated with it and part of risk management for people who are in business is to weigh up the pros and the cons. I am prepared to give someone a go; I am prepared to give someone the opportunity but I will not be stifled hamstrung and shackled in terms of what I can do in the long term. That is what the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill is about because it does away with the current exemption to make it an incentive for employers to take people on and to allow them to have opportunities. The bill removes that exemption. It is anti-business and anti-employer. 
As Tony Ryall has recommended the bill should be known as the “Minimum Wage (Repeal of Exemption) Bill”. That fairly reflects articulates and crystallises what this bill is about. If we look at the explanatory note we will see it states that a class of trainees will be exempt from the application of the principal Act. It goes on to state: “Currently trainees who are required in their employment to undertake at least 60 credits of training per year … are exempt from the principal Act.” That is fine. There are about 26000 trainees out there who will be affected by this. I will tell members what will happen if we move in and say there will be a minimum wage: employers will say “I’m not prepared to take the risk. I am not prepared to take these people on. I am prepared to give them a fair go at the moment because I have that opportunity.” 
As the Hon Richard Prebble said there is nothing better than hands-on training—that is where people learn life skills. That is where they get the best training they will ever have. They will not get that from either a training institution or a tertiary institution; it is when they are out there doing what has to be done that they learn life skills. This bill takes away that opportunity from these kids. 
I am concerned about the trainees—I am not worried about the employers because they will just find somebody else. I am concerned that this bill says: “Hey we’re not going to allow you to do this. We are going to make it difficult for you.” As the Hon Tony Ryall has said this bill should be regarded as the “Repeal of the Training Exemption Bill”—that is the true title. There is absolutely no way that this bill will help those 26000 trainees out there because it is anti-business. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of United Future. I do not want to shock Tony Ryall but we are not supporting this bill and we will be supporting his amendment. 
Training is a very important aspect of all of our lives. Personally I think we are always in training; if we do not continue to train we will not continue to progress. I believe it is important that even a young child should be trained in the correct manner in which to live. We did that with our own children. For example they would get pocket money but they had to work for it. Their mum trained them in how to make their beds then she would give them a list of jobs for the week. Let us say their pocket money was $5; if they did their jobs they got the $5. But if their mum had had to make the bed instead of them then their mum would take the money for making the bed and they would miss out. 
What can often happen with those sorts of things from an employer’s perspective is that people will then start looking for a job that has a larger amount of training than working at a favourable rate and they will go and take that job so that they can get some form of income. Then when it is all over they will leave the poor employer who will have got no benefit from it. We do not support this bill because we believe that training is a privilege. If a person can come alongside somebody and be trained in the skills for life the payment will always follow after that person is trained if he or she is a skilled worker. So United Future is not supporting this bill. We maintain that money should be paid for work rather than for training and we will therefore not be supporting this legislation. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 Like National speakers who have gone before me I rise to oppose this bill. This is absolutely hopeless legislation. It is another form of inflexibility in the labour market that we are becoming used to on this side of the Committee. Time and time again we see inflexibility driven into the labour market. 
The title of this bill should not be the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill; it should be the “Loss of Jobs For Some of Our Most Vulnerable Young People Bill”. This will attack the 26000 young people who rely on on-the-job training and the goodwill of employers to take them on and give them a chance. Members of this Committee should go and ask those 26000 people what they most want—do they want another dollar or another 50c potentially tacked on to their minimum wage do they want the opportunity to have a job through which they can show their skills and shine and grow into a wonderful career or do they want to go on the dole? The Government is telling us that as a result of this legislation some people will go on the dole. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s in writing. 
JOHN KEY 
: It is in writing. Is it good for the employers of this country to have a smaller pool of people to choose from and for them maybe to get people who have come from the dole and who have unfortunately had that experience rather than on-the-job training? I say no. Is it good for the young people of New Zealand who are out there excitedly looking for a job and who are prepared to put their nose to the grindstone and work hard? I say no. Is it good for the taxpayers of New Zealand who are having to fork out for the thousands of people who are on the dole under this Labour Government? There are 135000 people on the dole already and that number will be going up as a result of passing this bill whose title we are discussing here tonight. That number will be going up and it is in writing in the commentary. 
This should not be called the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill—that is a ridiculous title for this bill. It should be called the “Loss of Job Opportunities For Vulnerable Young People Bill”. 
Mr Hughes is a young man— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is he on a training rate? 
JOHN KEY 
: Maybe Mr Hughes has pushed this bill through because he is scared that his rate will get dropped down because he is the youngest member of Parliament in this House and all of a sudden the boss—who is over in Paris at the moment—has seen that young members in the European Parliament get paid less. Darren Hughes has gone and spoken to Mr Swain and various other Ministers and said: “Look push through this bill before the boss gets back and all of a sudden my wage is down.” Mr Hughes mixes with a lot of young people. He knows the value of on-the-job training. He is learning his skills and his craft just like those 26000 other people are across the country. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: He’s got his training wheels on now. 
JOHN KEY 
: He has his training wheels on right now but we hear he is doing a wonderful job and that is the kind of on-the-job feedback that comes through. He and his Government will rob young people of that opportunity. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: He worked for Judy Keall. He should get double the rate. 
JOHN KEY 
: That probably says it all. This bill will rob those young people of that opportunity. 
I will go back to my earlier point. The young people of New Zealand would like an opportunity to have a job. I know that when I was in commercial practice I had many people who came in and offered to work for nothing. That opportunity to work for nothing was valued far more than whatever the wage was. They did not want to talk about whether there was a minimum wage. They did not care about whether the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill was appropriately titled; they cared about the opportunity to have a job. That was the most important thing because when they went to get another job their future employer looked at their resume to see what their past work had been—not what they had earned not whether the minimum wage had been applied and not whether they had got $5.85 an hour or $5.95 an hour but what experience and opportunities they had had. This bill will rob those young people of that job opportunity. That is a disgrace. Young people are being sent the wrong message when they are told that it is better to go on the dole than to be paid a little bit less. That is how the thinking that the dole is good for this country is indoctrinated. It is not good for this country—working is. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is with some pleasure that I rise to oppose the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill and particularly the title which is so misleading. 
There are some things that one learns through life experience that clearly one cannot get from attending all the academic institutions in this country. If ever there was evidence of that it is there in the current Government. The reason Government members are here now in the dead of night trying to ram through legislation that would be much better titled the “Minimum Wage Repeal of Training Exemption Bill” as proposed by the Hon Tony Ryall is that they do not have that life experience. One can have all the PhDs in the world but if one does not have some kind of life experience or a PhD in life experience then one is without any knowledge at all. 
One of the areas where people get that knowledge—and without a doubt this is so in the farming sector—is through on-the-job training. I know that that comes as a surprise to most of those on the Government side because none of them has experienced anything like that. I also know that some members of this Parliament are genuinely concerned about the exploitation of young people in the workforce and for that reason I have some sympathy with where they want to go but the bottom line is that what is being proposed in this legislation—particularly with the title it has been given—will achieve exactly the opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Even more young people will be unemployed and denied the opportunity to go out and earn a living and to be part of a constructive and credible workforce. 
One need look no further than the comments made recently by some major business interests in the country to find that employers will not take the risk—and I know that is absolutely so in the farming industry. I appeal to members opposite and to the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Swain to take a call and tell me why a farmer with an $80000 tractor a $20000 feed-out wagon and the potential for a $20000 penalty for putting penicillin in the milk by accident or a penalty for allowing stock to wander in a way that they should not—and we have just seen a recent case of bad farming practices and the $200000 fine that went with it—would take on an untrained young person at the minimum wage that is likely to be prescribed by some socialist group based in Wellington. Why would people do that? What incentive is there for them to do that? Clearly people take a lot of risk in taking someone on. At the moment in the farming sector in particular people take that risk: they spend the money they spend the time in training and in some cases they even pay for those young people to go on to further academic and practical training through various institutions in the country because they need those young people to come through. Why would they take that risk if there is a huge financial penalty in doing so? I appeal to the Minister to take a call and tell us why he thinks that to be the case. 
The select committee was told that 26000 young people in New Zealand would be affected by this measure. The judgment call that any Government has to make is whether those people will benefit or whether they will not. The overwhelming evidence is that they will not. So why is the Government here at this point in time proposing a bill that clearly will not have the desired outcome? Why is it that this bill is named the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill when it will clearly achieve the exact opposite of that objective? I hope the Minister will take a call and clear that up for the Committee because I know that a lot of people are curious about that. 
Also I know that a large number of young people out there need some kind of encouragement to get from where they are into meaningful employment. One of the things that encourages young people to go into employment is when people from industry approach them and say: “You look as though you are capable. We’re not willing to take the risk under employment law but if you come and work for us for nothing for a few days or for a week or so on a trial basis we will take that risk and we will give you a go. We will give you that opportunity.” This legislation and its title in particular will stop that from happening. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 76 
Noes 40 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Tony Ryall to subclause (1) be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by inserting after the words “Minimum Wage” the words “(Repeal of Training Exemption)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 40 
Noes 76 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
Noes 40 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8 
Clause 2 Commencement 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition will be opposing the commencement date in the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. We have tabled an amendment that will defer the commencement date until after the election of the next National-led Government in 2005. With a commencement date of 30 November 2005 the next National-led Government will have an opportunity to repeal this bill. The reasons we want to defer the commencement date are set out very clearly in the regulatory impact statement that the Government itself has tabled in this Chamber. People listening on their radios tonight should know— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows he cannot refer to radios. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is a new ruling is it not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Speaker’s ruling 39/1. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: People who are listening tonight in the gallery will want to know that this bill proposes to remove the exemption whereby up to 26000 young New Zealanders receive on-the-job training and as such get a payment that is lower than the minimum wage. The Government has advised Parliament that the proposed change will have an impact on the Government’s finances which will come from increased benefit payments as a result of job losses over time. The Government has also advised Parliament that there will be a decline in the amount of training provided by employers and that that will have an effect on training and has further advised that that will increase compliance costs for employers and business in general. 
The National Party asks why we would want to deny young New Zealanders the opportunity to have on-the-job training to increase the number of people on the dole to reduce the amount of training in the economy and to make business compliance costs higher than they already are. The National Party asks why we would do that. I think it is clear that this Government is doing it as part of its continual programme of payback to the trade union movement. There is no doubt that this legislation is union-driven promoted by the hard left of the Labour Party. If one looks at the introductory debate we see that the Ministers Margaret Wilson and Laila Harré crowed about this bill. They represent the politically correct spa-pool liberals who make up the Government and they were the people who most promoted this bill. 
This bill is anti-business it is anti-growth and it is anti-training. Why would we want to support legislation that as the Government knows will put young people on the dole? The Government has told us that. It is on page 3 of the explanatory note. Why would we want to support legislation that will lead to a decline in the amount of training in the economy? The Government has told us that. It is on page 4 of the explanatory note and further on on that page is the advice that this legislation will add to the compliance cost for employers. The National Party says that those are compelling arguments made by the Government not to support this legislation. 
The National Party stands very clearly on the side of young people who want to have an opportunity and the chance to get ahead. My colleague Judith Collins will be attempting to take a call to outline to the Committee what the Government will be doing. What it will be doing will be forcing a whole lot of people to stop being lower-paid trainees and to become volunteers. They will become volunteers in the workplace and they will not get any payment at all. They will be on the dole. They will be volunteers in the workplace learning those skills and they will not get paid. That is the point. They will miss the opportunity to get some compensation while they are training because this legislation will drive significant numbers of young people into being volunteers in the workforce—where they will get no payment—and an increased number of people on to the unemployment benefit. What this country needs to lift its growth prospects is a National-led Government and a flexible labour market. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the commencement date as set out in the amendment. Briefly I say with regard to some of the comment that I have heard this evening that I wonder where some people have been for the last decade—particularly those people involved in the agricultural industry. There seems to be a misconception that workers out there in the dairy-farming industry in particular are being exploited. In actual fact the situation is by far the opposite of that. Anybody who is prepared to get out there and handle a cup or jump on a tractor is readily wanted and I assure the Committee is paid far above any minimum wage in order to be able to fill the intense demands of the dairy industry at the present time. It is the same for the meat industry and the wool industry. 
Again I come back to the fact that a balance is required which relates to the opportunity provided by the employer and the educational opportunities and further training that the young person—whether male or female—gets and the end result is a fair and equitable opportunity for those involved. Although I would hesitate to look at perhaps just one industry the land use industry one could also look at the hospitality industry or the supermarkets—that whole area of food servicing—where there is a history in earlier years of the exploitation of young people. Today that has been remedied slightly but in the same way a training opportunity needs to go with a fair job and a consistent and reasonable salary or wage. On behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly who is our party spokesperson on those matters I support the amendment. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to support Mr Ryall’s amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment although I do have a quibble with it which I will raise with Mr Ryall in a moment. 
I also want to express my disappointment—but not surprise—that the New Zealand First Party continues to be economically illiterate. The fact of the matter is that by supporting the paying of minimum wages to trainees that party will limit the number of people who can get training. 
Jim Peters 
: Rubbish! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says “Rubbish!”— 
Mark Peck 
: I agree. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: —and so does Mr Peck yet they are supporting a bill that states that. If they cared to read the explanatory note of the bill which I ask Mr Peck whether he has read— 
Mark Peck 
: You bet! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: He says that he has read it. Does he not agree with the explanatory notes of the bills of the Government that he belongs to? 
Mark Peck 
: I agree with everything in the bill. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: There was an incoherent answer to that question but let me draw to the member’s attention that on page 3 the explanatory note states: “The proposed change may have a small adverse impact on the Government’s fiscal position. The fiscal impact would come from increased benefit payments that may occur as a result of potential job losses over time.” That is there in the Government’s own legislation. One could bet that Ministers hated every word of that; that is how far they could get it watered down. I guarantee that if we could see the first draft it would be much harder— 
Shane Ardern 
: Much harder. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Those former ministers know what I am saying. But the Ministers could not get the officials to take that comment out because the officials know that this bill will cost jobs. I say it is a great shame that New Zealand First and the Labour Party back bench are economically illiterate. 
I have a comment and a quibble to make to Mr Ryall who wants to move the commencement date from November 2003 to November 2005. My quibble is twofold. First 2005 is far too soon. But Mr Ryall then says that November 2005 will be after the election of a National Government. The second part of my quibble then is why is he so pessimistic? This is a minority Labour Government. It cannot even handle the power crisis and it has the economy going down the gurgler. I am coming to the commencement date; it is a question of whether that date could be safely made November 2004. This is a minority Government. It is supported by the Greens but at some point they will take a stand over genetic modification and it is also supported by the United Future party but at some point the members of that party will look at the polls and say that they are going down the gurgler with that lot. 
 No MMP Government has lasted for the whole full term. New Zealand First will not save the Government. The member could take a risk and make the commencement date November 2004. I think the Government will last about another year. But when we have a second winter power crisis and people realise that the Government says we have market prices but that the Government actually owns 70 percent of the generators—we do not have enough generators—and owns all of the grid and that this is a Government crisis we could see this Government fall. 
I say while ACT will vote for the National Party’s amendment it is a bit on the pessimistic side. The National Party should be a bit more optimistic. We should be getting ready for the possibility of an early election. I see signs of this Government falling. One of the reasons for that is this bill itself. The reason the Government will fall is that it is economically illiterate. This Government has no idea whether it has done well economically. It has benefited from things it had no control of and now that the economy is going sour on it the Government has no idea what to do about that. If it has then let us hear one idea in terms of what it will do about the power crisis. We have not heard one idea. We heard the Government say on the  
Holmes 
 show that we should wait for some weeks for it to give us an answer. 
John Key 
: They’re in the dark. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes the Government is in the dark. The Government itself acknowledges that by passing this bill it will deprive young people of training. November of this year is far too soon to introduce such a harsh measure and November 2005 is still too soon. We will support the amendment. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 This is an interesting commencement date. When we read the bill we see that it was to have come into effect on 30 November 2001. The points that have been made this evening have shown that the Government is anti-business. It is anti-investment and it has no idea of what it is to run a business. In fact 85 percent of all businesses in New Zealand are small businesses employing less than five people. 
When an employer takes somebody on at the end of the day there has to be a reward. I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. A member on the Government side of the Chamber is using a cellphone. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The use of cellphones in the Chamber is not permitted. I have been assured that the cellphone is not being used in the Chamber. The word of all members here is accepted unreservedly; their word is their bond. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The person whom you are referring to is not the person I was referring to. The person— 
Jill Pettis 
: Stop wasting time! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member says that we are wasting time. It is a very important precedent that members do not use cellphones in the Chamber. I have brought that to the attention of the Chairman. If the member would like to stand and apologise then I will accept that. It is not me who is wasting time; it is the member who has been using the cellphone who is wasting time. I have asked for a ruling and have suggested that an easy way out is for the member who was on the cellphone— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How about naming the member? It will make things a lot easier for everyone. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It was Steve Chadwick who is sitting in the front row. If she would like to stand and apologise for using the cellphone we can then get on with this very important bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member used a cellphone in the Chamber that is unacceptable. The member will stand withdraw and apologise if that was the case. 
Steve Chadwick 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The point I was making was that if I am prepared to employ somebody—and it will cost me money to employ that person—then there has to be a return. I would expect that the return that I will get from that person’s contribution to my business is that he or she has to pay his or her way. That is just the basis of employing people. This Government expects that every time I want to employ people they will think I will exploit them. I have never paid minimum wages to the staff whom I have employed over the years. I have always paid them more than the minimum because they have been worth more than that. 
At the moment people will take staff on and give them a go but they expect a return on that investment—that is if they are employing people for whatever the figure is per hour those people will need to contribute. Employers are prepared to put in the time and the training. However under this bill that initiative will be taken away. There are young people who are prepared to go and knock on doors and to ask employers for a job. Employers have said they are prepared to give them a go because they have shown some initiative. This bill states that people cannot do that because if they do they will be exploited. But if employers want to have people working for them and to get the best return from them they will look after their staff. 
This bill takes that away. The tenure of this bill simply states to young people who are out there looking for a job that if they go when there is no protection for them through minimum wages when employers have a training budget and put effort in and to spend time with them— 
Jill Pettis 
: This member hasn’t mentioned the commencement date once. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I mentioned the commencement date right at the beginning of my speech. If the member did not interrupt so often she would actually hear what I was saying. The member does not understand the basis of business. That is the trouble with this Government: it has no idea what makes the world go round. Government members have never been in business themselves they have never invested a dollar and they have no idea— 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s totally incorrect. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That member has never employed anyone. Government members have absolutely no idea of the costs—of what is involved in employing staff. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I refer members on my right to Speakers’ ruling 51/5. If those members want to make a speech they can take the call next time and do so. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I would appreciate them taking a call. I would like the Minister to take a call as well. It seems to me that every time people want to go for a job they need protection because otherwise the view of this Government and its members is that every time people go for a job they will be exploited. That is what the bill states. The Government does not allow for the initiative of young people seeking to have a go. 
That is why it is so very important that the commencement date as the Hon Tony Ryall has mentioned should be after the next election. That will allow those trainees who are out there now to appreciate and be able to show exactly what is involved in obtaining a job and to show how the current system works. What is happening today is that employers are not prepared to take anybody on because it will become too difficult. We have the Holidays Act the 4 weeks’ holiday amendment bill paid parental leave and the Resource Management Act. People will say they are not prepared to take on a young person. They will ask why they should carry all the risk all the time. Employers will contract work out. There is huge demand out there now and people are saying they will not give young people a chance by taking them on. Employers are saying they are not prepared to train young people because once they have taken them on they will have to meet these compliance costs. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The commencement date of 2001 in this bill has already passed. That is just another example of a date that is completely out of date and a bill that is completely out of date. As my colleague Mr Lindsay Tisch has said not all employers are exploiters. In fact one would hardly ever find an employer who is an exploiter these days; the situation is quite the opposite of that. 
One of the interesting things with this bill is the date and I would like to speak now to the amendment that the Hon Tony Ryall has put up. I disagree with him because I think we will just give this legislation another few months after we win the next election on 30 November 2005. I disagree with a commencement date in November 2005. I have already checked this with my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall and he is happy with my suggestion that we move the commencement date to 1 April 2006. 
The reason for that is that we will have so much legislation to repeal. I do take Richard Prebble’s point about that. We have to accept Richard that we will have to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not refer to a person by his or her Christian name. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We will have so much legislation to repeal that I think the commencement of this legislation will have to wait until 1 April 2006. Now why would we want to do that? For a start as has been pointed out we have the official record that states that the costs will be too high and there will be a decline in the amount of training provided by employers. We will have to tell employees who need training that they might not have a job. 
It is very interesting on looking at a bill like this to see just how much consultation has taken place. Maybe more time is needed for consultation. The consultation has been with the Ministry of Economic Development the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs the Ministry of Women’s Affairs the Ministry of Youth Affairs Skill New Zealand Te Puni Kokiri and Treasury. Well I do not think any of those agencies are employers. Not one of those agencies has ever mortgaged its house put its house on the line to go and set up a business— 
Shane Ardern 
: Gone broke! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is true that not one of them has ever done that. I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. My understanding is that a running commentary of interjections is disorderly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3). I have already referred the Government member on my right to it. I now refer the member to Standing Order 85. That member has her first yellow card. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: So we have a situation where there has been insufficient consultation. Not one of the agencies consulted with has ever been or actually is an employer. They are all Government agencies. 
Jill Pettis 
: And councils! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member on the Government side of the Chamber is continuing with the objections obviously contrary to your advice. I think that is disorderly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member was doing that the member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Mark Peck 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It was not that member Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member stand withdraw and apologise. 
Mark Peck 
: I stand withdraw and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: I stand withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would Mr Peck please be seated. Jill Pettis— 
Jill Pettis 
: I did stand withdraw and apologise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: So there really has not been enough time for any consultation with employers. I would like to know whether anyone has actually asked for the views of any of the freezing works or of any of the lawyers who as Richard Prebble has very very carefully advised take on a lot of people to receive training in their offices. Who has actually asked anybody—anyone who actually employs people—for a bit of consultation? In fact no one has even consulted with the youth whom we are talking about—the people actually receiving the training. That is one of the points. The date that we are talking about in the bill will not be possible because it has already passed for a start. Secondly I say there has not been enough consultation with anyone whose job is probably on the line. 
One of the points I would like to raise—and I would like to hear from the Minister on this—is whether the Minister has considered the effect of this legislation on volunteers. One of the things that will happen is that a prospective employee will be told the employer does not want him or her as an employee because the employer cannot afford to pay the employee while he or she is training with the employer but that he or she will be taken on as a volunteer. And that is the point: this bill does not protect volunteers. The people who are currently receiving some money while they are training with an employer will turn into volunteers—unpaid workers who will be on the dole or on some sort of training allowance. That is what will happen. The very people who have had jobs even if they were not very well paid but who have done that because they were being trained will have to lose those jobs become volunteers and add to the dole list. In fact any smart employer and any smart person wanting to be trained will get around this legislation. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the commencement date of this bill and I think it is probably time that somebody pointed out to the Committee that despite the fact that the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark can have a view on major international events I do not think she has the ability yet to put in place legislation—which we are debating in the Committee here today on 29 April—that has a commencement date of 30 November 2001. I see there is a Supplementary Order Paper and I think that that is absolutely why the public of New Zealand need to know what it is that they have governing this country at the moment. The commencement date of this bill has well and truly passed and we have Supplementary Order Paper 245 to amend that date to a time that hopefully the Government might be able to achieve. That Supplementary Order Paper states “the day after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent” which could be anywhere in the never-never—who knows? 
My colleague has put a date on this legislation of 2005 and another member has amended that to 2006. I think that is sensible because at least people will have some indication of when this bill might become law even though most people will be opposing it. They will at least have some idea of when it might come into law. 
But this bill demonstrates to the Committee today that we have a Government that introduces great socialist ideas and goes out and puts up a kite to find out what the public polls are saying. During the knowledge wave conference in Auckland Labour members sampled the business sector to see what it was saying. They found out that the business sector was not very happy with where the Government was going so they buried this legislation somewhere on the Order Paper and forgot about it. Then in the middle of the night when they did not think anybody would be taking any notice—and certainly nobody is listening on the crystal sets in Taranaki - King Country or on the cowshed communication systems at the moment—they try to rush this bill through with a commencement date of 2001 and with Supplementary Order Paper 245 to amend that to the never-never—until it receives the royal assent. This is legislation that politically the Minister in the chair knows will sink like a lead balloon. 
We have here a Government that goes out to the business sector and pretends to be friendly to know what people want and to know what will generate growth in the economy. It talks the talk but comes back to the Parliament here and returns to its true natural socialist roots which we have all known it would eventually do. We have all known the Government would have to do that; it could not keep up the facade for very long. Eventually the Government would have to come home to its roots; that is what always happens. Here we have a bill with a commencement date of 30 November 2001 which is long gone and with a Supplementary Order Paper to state that the bill will come into force when it receives the royal assent. 
The National Opposition opposes this bill and is recommending amendments. We are recommending amendments to the commencement date. The Hon Tony Ryall has put forward an amendment that will change that date from 30 November 2001—and I am sure the Minister will be happy with that because even the honourable Minister will have trouble getting this legislation in place by 2001—to 30 November 2005. 
 The reason for that is very obvious to those who are taking an interest in this bill tonight and who are listening in to this debate on various mechanisms. It is because that date will be after the next election and there will be a change of Government. Most of those people know that the new Government will repeal this legislation. There will be a flood of repeals as has been mentioned before. But so be it; that is what happens. There will be a new Government this silly legislation will be kicked into touch and the new Government will be able to bring in sensible legislation that will allow the 26000 young people whom we are speaking of here—that is quite a substantial figure—to go through what has been a traditional pathway to a successful career that is hands-on workforce training. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
Noes 32 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 245 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Noes 40 
Amendment agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendments in the names of the Hon Tony Ryall and of Judith Collins and Shane Ardern to clause 2 are out of order as they are inconsistent with the previous decision just taken. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(2)Notwithstanding any order made under subsection (1) no minimum rates of wages will apply to classes of workers who are employed under contracts of service under which they are required to undergo training instruction or examination for the purpose of becoming qualified for the occupation to which their contract of service relates. 
A party votewas called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 32 
Noes 82 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Clause 2 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 245 agreed to. 
Noes 40 
Clause 2 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 245 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Clause 3 Prescription of minimum wages 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I want to state very clearly that the National Party in Opposition is strongly opposed to clause 3 and to this bill. Clause 3 is the operative feature of the bill which will enable the Government to overrule employment and training contracts entered into by 26000 young people and enforce a new minimum wage on those undertaking training. The National Party is opposed to that and we base our case on other documents than the explanatory notes to this bill. The test for this bill is what will it do to training in New Zealand what will it do for opportunities for young New Zealanders and what will it do to business compliance costs? 
Let us check each of those three features off using the advice that the Government itself has provided to Parliament. The Government has told us that this bill will cost jobs. It has advised us that there will be an increase in benefit payments as young people currently in training go on the dole. It has mentioned that itself in its own explanatory note so it has failed that test—this bill will cost jobs and put kids on the dole. The next issue is what the bill does for business compliance costs. The Government itself says there will be increases in ongoing compliance costs as a result of this legislation so it fails that section as well. The third test is what the bill will do to the amount of training provided by employers in the New Zealand economy and the advice here is that there will be a reduction in the overall level of employment-based training in New Zealand. 
Three strikes—this bill should be out! It should be out because it will cost young New Zealanders their jobs; it is anti-business anti-training and anti the growth this country needs. My colleague Mr Shane Ardern the MP for Taranaki-King Country and I have moved amendments that will limit the power provided by clause 3 to allow this Government to set minimum wages and remove the trainee exemption for young people. I am asking the other parties in this Chamber to consider supporting those amendments because we should be able to neuter the part of the bill that will cause the problem—that will cost young people their training opportunities and add business compliance costs. 
The problem with this Government is that it does not realise that to get a high-performing growing economy in this country we have to back the productive sector. We have to back the people who are creating the jobs and the wealth this country needs. The one thing we do not need to do to those people is tie them up with added bureaucracy complexity and inflexible labour laws and training rules—and that is what this bill does. 
The National Party in Opposition wants to be very clear with the Government: we will oppose this bill vociferously through its continuing stages in the House and it will be repealed with the change of Government. When we get rid of this two-term left-wing minority Labour Government and have a Government that is prepared to back the productive sector and have pride in and support the New Zealand business community this bill will go. We know from the Government’s own advice—and I notice the junior Minister from the Hutt Valley taking notes of this—that this bill will cost jobs. It will put people on the dole and it will add to compliance costs. A lot of the people affected will be Maori and that will open the gaps not close them. Nanaia Mahuta should take a call to tell us why Maori should support other Maori losing their training opportunities. They should not do it and that is why we urge them not to support this bill. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Associate Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Methinks the Opposition doth protest too much. Basically it is the old whinge whine grizzle and groan. What happened when the Government adjusted the adult minimum wage? We heard that it would be the end of civilisation as we know it and that dole queues would increase. What actually happened? Unemployment went down. Then the Government adjusted the youth minimum wage. Again we heard that it would mean the end of civilisation and increase the dole queues. What happened? Again the dole queues went down—to their lowest level in decades. The reason was that a progressive Government was working in partnership with business to ensure that people’s potential was realised. 
This bill says that those aged between 16 and 17 who are doing more than 60 credits or more for a recognised training programme will be able to receive the official youth minimum rate which stands at $6.80 per hour. Those members on the other side of the Chamber are saying that the 16 or 17-year-old who goes into training and does 60 credits should get less than the person who is going out and doing an ordinary old job. That argument is totally fatuous and anti-training. Those members are anti-growth and anti-business. 
This bill will lead to the improvement of skills training in this country which is what we need. Those members opposite abolished the apprenticeships system. The single biggest thing this Government has done for the Labour market is to reintroduce the apprenticeship system whereas the previous National Government abolished apprenticeships. This bill will lead to important advantages in training. We have heard it all before from the Opposition—the crocodile tears the whingeing the whining the wailing about the increase in the dole queues. What we have seen is the reverse. This is an example of a good Government doing another good thing for the progress and development of the New Zealand economy. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I must take issue with one of the comments the Minister made about how this Government has created a new apprenticeship system. As the Minister well knows the training and qualifications of people under the Modern Apprenticeships scheme are exactly the same as under the Industry Training Act. There is no difference whatsoever. Nevertheless that is not what I am here to talk about. I came down to the Chamber to take a call because having listened to some of the speeches made in the debate on the first two clauses it is pretty obvious that people are not very clear what this bill actually does. In fact prior to this legislation there was an exemption. 
Richard Prebble claims that New Zealand First is economically illiterate. The theory he espouses has already been tried in 19th century Europe Britain and elsewhere. The effects were clearly chronicled by Charles Dickens Benjamin Disraeli Elizabeth Gaskell and all of those sorts of people. Every responsible Government should set minimum standards against the exploitation of workers and National recognises that. The National Government set a minimum wage and had it all through the 1990s. However there was a loophole that affected people on training agreements. I am not talking about training such as Mr Tisch provided for his workers but about formal training agreements under industry training organisations. Under those agreements there was no minimum wage but the record shows that most employers did not exploit their workers under those circumstances. They paid them minimum wages or even more. But a small proportion of employers did exploit their workers and was no protection for them in that circumstance. This bill provides that protection. It is not for 16 and 17-year-olds; it is for all people who are in training agreements and aiming for 60 or more credits. 
I see Jill Pettis making funny gesticulations across the Chamber. It is probably better that she uses sign language than yells out so I am quite happy for her to do that. The point is that this bill clearly recognises that there is a cost to employers in allowing people off for that training. They are therefore not required to pay the minimum wage they would pay to an adult. They are required to pay a lesser minimum wage in recognition of the fact that there is a training component in the employment they offer. However there is at least a minimum rate to ensure that workers are not exploited. A small number of employers had been doing that in the absence of any mechanism to ensure that it did not happen. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Name one! 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: There was plenty of information about it but once again I say that it was the exception rather than the rule. New Zealand First agrees with this measure because it at least provides minimum protection for those who are caught in that loophole. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party—partly to respond to the remarks just made by Brian Donnelly of New Zealand First but also to say that ACT will vote to support the Hon Tony Ryall’s amendments. I think the case he has made against this bill is a very good one. 
My colleague from New Zealand First said I had accused his party of being economically illiterate. He then cited two sources to support his economic arguments. The first was Charles Dickens. I hate to be the first to break it to the member but Charles Dickens was a novelist and Oliver Twist is not a true story. 
Hon Member 
: Isn’t it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No! Shock horror!—it is not a true story. The member’s next source as an economist was Benjamin Disraeli. I hate to break this to him as well but Benjamin Disraeli was a Tory and he never ever voted for a minimum wage bill. It just shows how much difficulty we have when New Zealand First has as economists a novelist and a Tory Prime Minister. I say to the member that the evidence is overwhelming and that a great deal of research has been done on this matter. 
I heard the Minister imply that the fall in unemployment numbers was because his Government had lifted the minimum wage. If Government members opposite really think that why do they not lift it further? If they really think that lifting the minimum wage has resulted in more employment why are they stopping at the level they are? Even the Minister in the chair Mr Swain does not believe that. When he reads his own bill—and presumably he has not put a false document in front of us—he knows that his own officials have said that the effect of this bill will be to destroy jobs and training opportunities. 
I also make this point to the member: yes we can say that dole numbers have fallen but if we then look at the total number of able-bodied adults on benefits we find that that figure is going up. We have disguised unemployment occurring under a Labour Government. The Minister shakes his head. It is a great shame that Ministers do not know that and have to rely on the ACT party to tell them. If we look at the sickness beneficiary figures I would have to say to the Minister that the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) has already reached New Zealand. Alternatively we need another explanation of why people are becoming more and more ill under a Labour Government. Of course it is disguised unemployment! 
I want to point out to members opposite that clause 3 is a measure of a centrally planned economy. It states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council prescribe the minimum rates of wages payable …” and then follows a series of classes. That is a centrally controlled economy. We are having a group of Ministers sitting in the Beehive and deciding how much money people will be paid. That is the measure that this Government is putting forward. 
Then we have New Zealand First members saying to us that a small number of employers are exploiting their workers. Well we have free speech. I have asked Mr Donnelly to get up and name these scoundrels. Members opposite should let us know who they are. No they are not prepared to do that because they have not found any. They are making it up because it sounds a good thing to say: “Oh most employers are good but there are some scoundrels.” Well who are they? They are very odd scoundrels are they not? According to this bill they are actually providing young people with training opportunities and yet some members say they are exploiting young people. 
If we are going to pay a wage to people who are training then why is the Government not extending that payment to university and polytechnic students? Why are Government members not saying that those students are being exploited? They are not getting paid. Why is the Government applying a double standard? 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose this bill in particular clause 3. This bill makes a mockery of the saying “good things come in small packages.” because it contains less than 200 words yet all of them are bad. The bill is anti-business anti-growth and not good for New Zealand. Mr Swain the Minister who was in the chair earlier took a call. He was as misguided as the very bill itself. The Minister told the House that the bill would lead to an increase in employment and training. That is what he told us. He was on his feet—the only time he has been in this entire debate—and he proclaimed to the House that the bill would lead to an increase in employment and training. I have this message for the Minister. He should read the advice his Government had from his own officials because that advice does not say that the bill will lead to an increase in employment and training. It does not say that it will build on the 26500 young people in New Zealand who will be affected by this bill. It does not say that it will add to making this a more employer and employee-friendly market. It says there will be a fiscal cost to this legislation and the Government will have to pay out more on the dole. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Rubbish! 
JOHN KEY 
: Well that is what the legislation says. The Minister should read it. It says exactly that in the explanatory note—that the fiscal position of the Government will deteriorate as a result of passing this bill. The Ministers are reading it for the first time. The explanatory note states: “The proposed change may have a small adverse impact on the Government’s fiscal position. The fiscal impact would come from increased benefit payments …”. That is not what the Minister told us when he took a call. The Minister—the former Minister of Commerce—told us— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Junior Minister from the Hutt Valley. 
JOHN KEY 
: The “junior Minister from the Hutt Valley” told us that this bill would lead to an increase in employment and training. That is just not right. That is not what the officials have told the Minister. That is not what the officials are telling us in their own document in the Chamber tonight. The Minister told us that when they put a minimum adult rate into the provision that somehow managed to help the economy. I hate to break it to the Minister but I will tell him what has made the economy stronger over the last 3 or 4 years. It has not been the minimum adult wage and it will not be the minimum wages inflicted on employers across the country because of this bill. It is for three reasons: the lower Kiwi dollar higher global commodity prices and good weather down on the farm. If the Government has not actually noticed a number of those factors have reversed and—guess what—the Minister of Finance is going around the country telling people that the picture is bleak going forward. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: He has no idea how to fix it. 
JOHN KEY 
: He has no idea what to do about it. He did not even want to pass the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill because if members have a look at the commencement date they will see that it was 2001. The bill is 200 words and we have had to wait 2 years past the commencement date to even get it somewhere near the House. That is how good for New Zealand businesses it is! 
This is a Government that cannot define when our economy will go back into the top half of the OECD. It cannot tell us even though it told us for a while that it would be in the next decade. But it has reneged on that little promise. It cannot define when our country will be back up there at a civilised standard for all New Zealanders. The Government cannot define that but it can define a minimum wage because it is so misguided in its economic policy that it thinks this bill will somehow take it to the land of milk and honey. 
Well this is not the future for the young people of New Zealand who rely on a vibrant economy and a flexible labour market. Relying on this Government to provide a labour market that will give them opportunities are 26500 young New Zealanders—much to their peril. As a result of this bill they are losers because by this Government’s own advice from its officials some of those people will lose their jobs. If we go around and ask them what they would rather have—the job opportunity at any rate and the opportunity to grow a career and show their skills and merit or the opportunity to be guaranteed to earn $6.80 an hour—I think that they will take the opportunity to work over the opportunity to earn $6.80 any day. If we look at the legislation at clause 3 and at what it is telling the Committee— 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that the Government has not decided to take a call on such important legislation. Members know that it is businesses that create jobs. It is businesses that create wealth and growth in the economy. That is where employment comes from. I would have thought that this Government—which says it is business-friendly but in fact is anti-business anti-employer and anti-anything that we actually get growth from—would have stood up in support of this legislation. As my colleagues have said tonight this bill will allow by Order in Council a change to the minimum wage conditions of employees. That is what it says. The explanatory note goes further to state—and this is the point that John Key and Tony Ryall have made and I want to read it out because the Minister when in the chair seemed to refute the fact that it would happen—“The proposed change may have a small adverse impact on the Government’s fiscal position—” 
Hon Rick Barker 
: “May”! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: This is what it says; I am reading it word for word. The member cannot say “No.” I am reading what it says. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: It says “may”. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I tell the Minister I am reading what the officials have got here. It then goes on to say—and members should take note of this because this is important; I have underlined it in my notes because that is how important it is—“The fiscal impact would come from increased benefit payments that may occur as a result of potential job losses over time. It is therefore unclear what the overall fiscal impact would be.” Simply what this bill will do is move people away from training opportunities and they will go on to unemployment queues— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Scrap heaps! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: —on to scrap heaps. They will be left. There is no place for initiative. We have young people out there who are prepared to have a go. They are prepared to knock on the doors and employers are prepared to give them a go. They will say “Yes—” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: You’ve done it. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: They have done it. I have done it myself. I have been prepared to give people a go. At the end of the day though there must be a cost benefit to this so I am prepared to give people a go just as are hundreds of other employers around the country. There are 250000 small business employers out there employing fewer than 5 people. That is where the market is. They are prepared to give young people a go. But the important thing is that if I am going to take somebody on there has to be a return. I am making an investment in those people. I am prepared to put them through a training course. For example if I am a retailer I may put them on a Kiwi Host course so that they understand what customer service is about in the business. I am prepared to give them those opportunities; at the same time I know that that investment in their future will pay off and I will be able to recoup that because they will be able to add value to the business and make my business grow. Unfortunately this bill does not do that at all. It is anti those opportunities to take on people. 
Who would want to take on staff in this current environment? I have mentioned before in previous debates that with compliance costs that businesses are having to face today there is no incentive. We are now seeing so many businesses that are retrenching. Business confidence in the latest surveys is at a 15-year low. Look at what was on television tonight with power prices. Goodness gracious who wants to be in business when we have a Government that does not understand the basis of doing business does not understand where the wealth comes from where the growth comes from and at the same time it wants to bring in those minimum conditions that are anti-business anti-employers and anti - young people? The worst part is that young people are affected by this legislation. It is those 26000 young people who are looking to us for an opportunity to give them a start. Those are the ones that will be on the scrap heap. Those are the ones that we should be nurturing and looking after because they are the future. 
The bill states—and the Minister disagreed with that—that it will increase benefit payments and the fiscal impact will come from increased benefit payments. If that means more people will go on a benefit then there is something radically wrong with legislation that allows that to happen to our young folk. National will not be supporting this bill. 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 84 
Noes 32 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9 United Future 8 Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Shane Ardern to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 4(1) by omitting the words after the word “payable” and substituting the words “to workers defined in order of reference to the age of workers excluding those undergoing training or instruction”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That 
the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 40 
Noes 76 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 4(1) by omitting paragraph (b).  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 40 
Noes 76 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
Noes 40 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9 Progressive 2. 
National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Clause 4Workers to whom Act does not apply 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition is strongly opposed to the proposals in clause 4 as we are opposed to this bill in general. The Minimum Wage Amendment Bill will remove the exemption that young people on training have from the youth minimum wage. The reason that they are exempted is that part of their remuneration is the training they are receiving from their employers. The Government’s own advisers and in turn the Government itself have advised the Parliament through the explanatory note to the bill that there will be an impact on the Government’s finances as a result of this bill by dint of the fact that a number of young people will lose their jobs and move on to the unemployment benefit. The Government has further advised that the amount of training that will be provided by employers in the economy will reduce and we have been advised further that there will be added compliance costs. 
Clause 4 removes those previous categories of workers to whom the Act did not apply. In the past the minimum wage never applied to apprentices who were employed under the Apprenticeship Act. It never applied to people who were being employed as apprentices under the Maori Housing Amendment Act under the Railways Corporation the Defence Act the Post Office or the State services nor to anybody else who was under a contract for training instruction or examination or to the inmates of any charitable institution. With this bill we are removing all those exemptions. The National Party says that this will cost young people their jobs. We know that about 26000 young New Zealanders are affected by those agreements and the concern the National Party Opposition has is that not only will we cost a number of young people their jobs we will also deny the opportunity for more young people to enter into those sorts of training contracts. 
 We think this is symptomatic of the fact that this is a Government that does not understand business and does not appreciate the pressures on those running business; nor does it appreciate what drives job growth in the economy. What drives job growth in the economy is flexible labour markets and strong consumer demand lower interest rates and lower taxes. Those are the prescriptions that the economic recovery that we saw in the country in the early 2000s has been based on. It has been based on sound economic policies that were put in place by the previous Government and this Government has to realise that bit by bit it has been unpicking the formula that has been delivering the goods for this economy. 
I say to this Government that there is always a time lag with economic policy and legislation and the costs of the decisions that this Government has made tying up the labour market with added flexibility and setting much higher minimum wages than is necessary will be visited upon the economy over the next 3 or 4 years. There is always a time lag and the costs will be visited upon the economy in the next 3 or 4 years. It will be the responsibility of the incoming National Government to tidy up the mess that this Government is giving New Zealand by simply hamstringing the New Zealand economy the producers the people whom we rely on to generate wealth in this country. 
This Government is undermining every opportunity for that and it is undermining the opportunity for young people to get jobs. We know that that is the truth because the Government has told us that in its own explanatory note on the bill and that is why the National Party has strongly opposed this bill from day one. We know that it will cost jobs. A number of those 26000 young New Zealanders will lose their jobs as a result of this bill and we know that because the Government has told us. The Government has told us that some of those 26000 young New Zealanders will lose their jobs and go on the dole. This Government has told us that more young people will lose that opportunity 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support clause 4. Firstly it is consistent with the thrust and intention of the other clauses in the bill. Secondly as one who has recently come from employment and recently been involved in a number of both industry training organisations and other training opportunities I say to my colleagues on my right that this is not the opportunity this is not the right way to conduct the economic debates that they intend to conduct or are conducting. This is a sane sensible equitable way of giving balance both to the employer and to the employee in the training sense. We support this clause. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I say to Mr Peters as kindly as I can that both he and Mr Donnelly have come out of the education sector. They make the mistake of thinking that because they have been in educational training organisations they therefore know the situation that exists with regard to employers. I say to Mr Peters that the Government is making a very grave mistake in picking on 26000 out of the 250000-odd people who are in training and saying that because this particular group is employed in the private sector they are going to have their wages fixed by the Government but the Government does not of course apply that to those people who are in the training organisations that Mr Peters used to have some experience of. 
Then when we look at this particular clause I think the Government is making a mistake in removing section 9(c). For those who have not bothered to have a look at it clause 4 states: “Section 9 of the principal Act is amended by repealing paragraph (c).” What does paragraph (c) state? It states: “Persons of any class prescribed by regulations under this Act who are employed under contracts of service under which they are required to undergo any training instruction or examination for the purpose of becoming qualified for the occupation to which the contract of service relates:”. 
Even if the Government wants to be able to apply some minimum wages to certain people in training it is making a mistake to take away the ability to have certain classes of people still being prescribed by regulation as not being covered by the minimum wage. There could well be some classes that the Government would like to exempt. I would be interested to know from the member. Is it intended to apply this to lawyers? I gave the example that lawyers at the moment have a longstanding tradition—I do not know how far back it goes but it probably runs back hundreds of years. If one wants to be a barrister one is trained as a pupil. Are they going to be prescribed or not? If they are not why do we not at least keep that ability? I have never heard of any young barrister complaining about the situation. It is just a reality that one works one’s way through. I think that clause 4 is not needed. 
The Government should still be able to keep the power by regulation even if it wants to have its centralised Government-knows-best approach. Why remove section 9(c) of the principal Act which enables the Government to decide to exempt by regulation any class of training people from being included within the minimum wage? I think the Government has done it as a drafting point. I do not think it is required. If the Minister thinks it through there is absolutely no reason we could not keep section 9(c). 
Why is the ACT party taking this view? We do it because as the Government’s own advisers have told the House this bill will cost young people their opportunity to get training. Mr Ryall is absolutely right. Who are those young people who are going to lose out? It is the very people whom Labour says it supports. Young Maori are going to miss out; young Pacific Islanders are going to miss out. It will be those people who have the most difficulty even getting into training and they will be the first out. 
But of course the Labour Party and its trade union mates have made many many speeches saying that they are in favour of full employment and are in favour of extending justice but in fact when it comes to the crunch they have always been in favour of the closed shop they have always been in favour of privilege and they do not extend those opportunities. It is one of the great shames that when we look at it the Government’s performance in education and in training is worse when it comes to Maori. Why Maori support this Government is beyond me. The Government cannot even produce any evidence that it is closing the gaps. I say that this clause is going to work against the very people whom the Government says it supports. That is not just my opinion. It cannot be dismissed by members opposite. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of National to continue to oppose this hapless legislation. Clause 4 talks about the people in this country to whom employers will apply a minimum wage. They are young people 16 and 17-year-olds who are in apprenticeship schemes across the country. 
Why is the Labour Government pushing through this legislation? It is not because it is right to do so; the Government’s own advisers have told the Government that this legislation is wrong. The Government’s own advisers have told the Government that this legislation will lead to a reduction in employment for very young New Zealanders. The Government’s own advisers have told it this legislation will fiscally cost it more money. So Government members are not enacting this legislation because it is right. They are not doing it because they have a lot of evidence that one day this legislation may be right. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the officials could not actually produce a lot of evidence because they had not done a lot of empirical research on what the results of this legislation would be. They just knew it would be wrong. That is why they wrote that up in the commentary on the bill—they just knew that fundamentally it would add to unemployment and add to the Government’s fiscal costs. So Government members did not proceed with this legislation because they knew it was right. They did it and they are doing it for one reason alone: they hold an ideological view that this legislation will be right. 
Well I have a message for the Labour Government: it should go back and look to see when the number of people on apprenticeships started rising in this country. It was in 1992 when the Employment Contracts Act was passed by the previous National Government and flexibility started coming back. Government members are shaking their heads but they should go and look at the numbers. Since I have been in this House I do not know how many Labour members have been on their feet telling us what a wonderful job they have done by having more people in apprenticeships across New Zealand. We have heard speech after speech—and they have been right. The number of apprenticeships has been rising but not because there has been a minimum wage. The Government’s own advisers tell it there will now be fewer apprenticeships and would have been fewer apprenticeships if the previous Government had had legislation like this in place. 
In 1992 when flexibility was introduced right across the labour market New Zealanders of all ages of all educational backgrounds and in all areas of employment had a better opportunity of gaining employment. What this Government is doing will reverse that. So I do not think I want to hear any more Government members on their feet in the weeks ahead telling us why there will be an increase in the number of apprenticeships. There will be no such increase. The Government’s own advisers are telling us that because they know there will not be an increase. 
This legislation will apply to very young New Zealanders—to 16 and 17-year-olds. One thing we know about 16 and 17-year-olds is that they are leaving school without a full education through to year 13 or what was the seventh form in my day. They are leaving school without the equivalent of School Certificate—the National Certificate of Educational Achievement—very possibly. They are certainly not leaving with University Entrance or with a bursary. They would not have had time to do that so they are leaving school without the full set of educational skills in their toolbox. They are leaving without those skills. They are taking a statistical risk against all advice given by the Department of Labour in this country and by agencies in every country in the world that the probability is that they will be paid less and that their chances of gaining employment will be less than if they had gained higher educational qualifications. Their only hope for employment is to gain some skills that will provide them with a chance to convince future employers that they are good at a job. That is their only hope. 
What does this legislation tell us? It tells us that it is more important that those young people are guaranteed to receive $6.80 an hour than to have the chance to get a job. I say that that is completely wrong. If I was a 16-year-old New Zealander leaving school without the full educational skill-set in my toolbox I would not care whether I was receiving $6.60 $6.70 or $6.80 an hour. What I would want is to know that I would have the opportunity to be able to earn a good wage in the years to come because I would know I did not have the educational skills to fall back on. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to clause 4. I know that this will come as a surprise to the Government! The reason is that it repeals section 9(c) of the principal Act which deals with people who are in training. That is what clause 4 does. I would like either of the Ministers in the Chamber but particularly the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker who I know has a genuine concern for young New Zealanders in the workforce to take a call and explain to us why he believes that passing this legislation here tonight in the dead of night is going to help young New Zealanders. 
The Government’s own advisers have said that the proposed change may have a small impact on the Government’s fiscal position. The fiscal position would come from increased benefit payments that may occur from passing this legislation. That to me says there are going to be more young New Zealanders on an unemployment benefit than there are now. Maybe the Minister can clear this up for me but that is how I read it. That is what is says in this legislation we are looking at. I would like the Minister or some of the Labour members across the Chamber to take a call and explain to us why that will not happen. All the evidence to the select committee and all those who spoke on behalf of the 26000 New Zealanders who will be affected by this said that that will be the outcome. There will be fewer people in training fewer people in employment fewer people in the productive sector and fewer people given an opportunity to go forward and be productive New Zealanders—not more. Yet as the Hon Richard Prebble said the very vulnerable people whom the Labour Party purports to represent and look after are those who will be the most adversely affected by what is being proposed here tonight. 
It is beyond the comprehension I think of wider society which may be taking an interest in this legislation that a Labour socialist Government would do this—a Labour socialist Government that is predominantly occupied by former trade unionists and people who are supposedly going to look after those people. That fact was never brought home more clearly to me than when I was walking down to the Chamber tonight with the Hon Matt Robson. There is not a member in this House who is more philosophically at odds with me than the Hon Matt Robson but he is not a bad guy; he is quite a nice guy. 
John Key 
: Keith Locke? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Oh Keith Locke is probably an exception. The member is right. I take that point. There is one member who goes further than Matt Robson; I accept that. Matt Robson and I do not agree on much but he is quite a nice guy. What a sorry sight he was coming down to the House tonight—and he was one of two. That is how the socialists treat their own. When one looks at this legislation one can see how that happens. Who would want to be protected by this lot? That is what they do to the people whom they purport to protect. They go about the country talking to businesses and spinning the spin—the Prime Minister is an expert at this. They talk to businesses about how they are pro-growth— 
John Key 
: With her allies in France. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is exactly right. She has been overseas drumming up business with the French and selling dairy products in France. I agree with that; my colleague is absolutely right. She is meeting the coalition of the European unwilling. As we speak tonight the Prime Minister is drumming up dairy business with the French. 
Here we are with a Prime Minister who purports to represent the business sector of this country after having been told by the majority of businesses that this legislation will be detrimental to growth and detrimental to young people and training. We should pause for a moment and consider that. My colleague touched on a very good point: the number of people who have come into industry training through employment because they have been given an opportunity via a very minimum entry point has increased amazingly. 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
Noes 32 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Noes 40 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The House adjourned at 9.44 p.m.