Volume 677 Week 2 - Wednesday 8 February 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 677 Week 2 - Wednesday 8 February 2012 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 8 February 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Richard Francis Walls QSO 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I regret to inform the House of the death on 30 October 2011 of Richard Francis Walls QSO who represented the electorate of Dunedin North from 1975 to 1978. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the suspension for the dinner break to be delayed to allow for the conclusion of all maiden speeches on all days on which they are scheduled from Wednesday 8 February 2012 to Thursday 16 February 2012. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions Effect on Supplementary Questions 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before we get on to the first question I would like to raise with you in advance of question No. 11 to allow you to give the matter some thought a question—and it will take me a minute to get to it—and it is effectively whether the breadth of supplementary questions is restricted as a result of the transfer of a question. 
As I have indicated to your office there is a degree of concern at the transfer of question No. 11. We are not asking for the longstop provisions that are outlined on page 558 of the third edition of  
McGee 
 to be brought in—I think those are the ones particularly Speakers’ rulings 151/5 and 151/6—because we do not think that necessarily they apply in this case although it is close. I also say that given the fact that the Government has a right to transfer we accept there has to be a wording change in order to make sense of the fact that it is Mr Foss and not Mr Key answering the question. 
But the quote that is given which is the basis for the question says “the vast array of appointments we make.” The Prime Minister indicated that it was the question of who “we” applies to when the question was transferred from the Prime Minister who chairs the appointments committee and chairs Cabinet and therefore is responsible as he has indicated for a broad range of appointments. He I think referred to New Zealand Post. Certainly he did refer to diplomatic appointments of Mike Moore—an area in which Mr Speaker I am sure you have some interest. We could and were intending to raise other appointments because of the nature of the quotation which would be available if the Prime Minister was answering—for example the appropriateness of the appointment of Sir Wira Gardiner to head the consultation process. What I am seeking is an assurance from you that Opposition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members know they must not interject. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it a point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order that has been raised. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: What I am seeking is an assurance from you that Opposition supplementary questions will not be restricted to broadcasting matters and broadcasting appointments as a result of the decision of the Prime Minister to transfer this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that the issue the member has raised is an issue of order and it is an issue that is not uncommonly a matter of concern in this House. But I think the member must accept that just as questioners often may try to pin a question to a certain Minister—maybe the Prime Minister—and try to apply certain tactics to achieve that it is the Government’s responsibility in terms of which Minister answers a question. That is I think accepted except should—as and the member has already alluded to this Speakers’ rulings 151/5 and 151/6 point out and as I think I have also reiterated in this House—a question be transferred away from a Minister who was the only Minister who could possibly have the information necessary to answer that question. That would be unacceptable. That is also I think accepted. 
In this case what thought has to be given to is if the intent of the questioner was to ask about appointments then the primary question needs to be focused exactly on that and it is the reality that the responsible Minister should be the Minister who answers it. Trying to use a tactic to get at that process may or may not be helpful. On this occasion I must rule that I believe that there is nothing untoward in this question having been transferred to the Minister of Broadcasting. The question simply asks whether the Minister of Broadcasting agrees with a statement the Prime Minister made. That is the question. I will have to listen to the supplementary questions as they arise but that is the substance of that question—whether the Minister of Broadcasting agrees with a statement the Prime Minister made. I realise this is a difficult issue. I realise that trying to direct questions where questioners want them directed is not always easy but my best advice would be—not that the Speaker should be giving advice—that if the substance of the question is serious the question should really be based on that substance and the responsible Minister has to be the one whom it is addressed to. That is by far the safest way to get questions answered by the responsible Minister.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you came close but did not quite give the assurance that we were seeking and that is that the supplementary questions we could make relate to the appointments the Prime Minister makes not the appointments that the Minister of Broadcasting makes because that is where the quote comes from. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The issue is the member must now reflect on the question being asked. The question being asked is whether the Minister of Broadcasting agrees with a statement made by the Prime Minister. That is all the question is. I will have to listen to the supplementary questions as they come up but that is what the question asks and the supplementary questions obviously have to relate to why the Minister of Broadcasting might agree with the Prime Minister or might not agree with the Prime Minister. But that is what the question asks. 
Questions to Ministers 
State-owned Assets Sales—Effect on Economy 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday in answer to Oral Question No 2 that his Government is selling assets because “New Zealanders want less debt more productive assets and an economy that is going to function not a load more debt”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 What I actually said was that one of the reasons National has 59 MPs and the Labour Party has very few is “because New Zealanders want less debt more productive assets and an economy that is going to function not a load more debt as Phil Goff was promising and I have no doubt David Shearer is as well.” I certainly stand by that statement. 
David Shearer 
: Does he believe that his asset sale policy is not about paying off debt; it is just about not borrowing more? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think there are a range of reasons why the mixed-ownership model makes so much sense. It is because I think the companies will perform better it is because New Zealand will have less debt and it is because we will have $5 billion to $7 billion to put into the Future Investment Fund. So there are a variety of reasons to build out the capital markets and of course there are now approximately 1.8 million KiwiSaver accounts—mums and dads who want to invest in real New Zealand assets. Those New Zealanders are dying to invest in New Zealand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very precise question about the repayment of debt. You might want to ask my colleague to ask it again. It was a specific question and very narrow and it was not even addressed. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I will hear briefly the honourable Leader of the House. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think it is pretty clear that the order of the day is a bit of disruption around this particular series of questions— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is a not a point of order. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No it is an observation. I apologise and I will withdraw as well. But to the point of order what I would say is simply that the Prime Minister’s answer in  
Hansard 
 will bear it out when I am sure you read some of that later as I know you do that he gave a range of responses to the question that Mr Shearer asked. There is no reason why an assumption should be made that the strict one prescription inside the question was what had to be agreed to—not at all. He asked whether he believed something. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point that the honourable Leader of the House has made. The question asked whether a certain reason was the reason for certain actions taking place and the Prime Minister pointed out that actually there were other reasons as well. I think that is a perfectly reasonable answer. 
David Shearer 
: Has the Prime Minister read comments by economic commentator Brian Fallow that the asset sales are certainly not the solution to fiscal problems—in relation to his last answer? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How is it fiscally rational to sell assets that Treasury tells us are earning 15 percent in order to substitute for debt which would cost us 4 percent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: All of that will be clear when the Budget Policy Statement is released on 16 February. But in broad terms the cost of funding of debt that would otherwise have to be incurred by the country if there were not the resources coming from the mixed-ownership model is actually slightly more expensive than the dividend return overall. Some years there have been super-profits earned by State-owned enterprises but in fact they are embedded in the future price likely to be paid by investors. 
David Shearer 
: Could he square his answer to supplementary question No. 1 with the latest Crown assets portfolio report which found that 2011 dividends were a record for the last 5 years and that the energy companies “have wider benefits to New Zealand” including “securing New Zealand’s future electricity supply”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen that report but I do recall the year where there probably were the most super-profits and that was the year when Meridian Energy sold Southern Hydro—so a bit like selling 49 percent in an exceptional time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Prime Minister tell the country what more “productive assets” to use his words he has in mind than those four power companies he intends to sell to mum and dad investors who own them already as the KiwiSaver account holders own those companies already? What are the more productive assets he is talking about? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well firstly I think it is an interesting point to recognise what the Crown balance sheet actually looks like because at the moment it sits at $245 billion and over the next 4 years it will net increase by a further $22 billion. So New Zealand mums and dads as he put it in 4 years’ time under the leadership of this Government will have $267 billion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very precise. It asked the Prime Minister to tell the country what the more productive assets are—in his words—he has in mind for the people who already own those power companies he intends to flog off. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable Leader of the House. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: This is every question getting challenged which is not a good circumstance for the House to get itself into but I would have thought that if he was asking the question about what productive assets— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No—more productive. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: —mum and dad New Zealanders are going to have—more productive; whichever way you want to put it—the Prime Minister was outlining quite considerable increases in the assets they are going to have. Perfectly reasonable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member should not be adding that kind of opinion into a point of order. But the member asked about matters to do with assets. The Prime Minister was actually answering in a very rational way about the balance sheet and he had not finished yet. I think the Prime Minister should be given the opportunity to finish. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: So firstly the proposition that the member makes is factually incorrect and he should know that. It is $267 billion in assets not $245 billion as today. Secondly if you want my view $1 billion being taken out of some of these assets and put into 21st century schools to educate the future of our young kids is actually more important than owning 100 percent of Meridian Energy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now look I did not enumerate any figure as to the assets; he made it up himself. The second thing I asked for the more productive assets. That means in a commercial scale of things what would be more productive than the 15-plus percent assets of the four power companies— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now seeking to debate the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member; I am obviously stupid but if talking about returns on assets is not debating the matter then forgive me. But the member asked a question about the more productive assets the Prime Minister answered in relation to the whole balance sheets and actually talked about the assets that are important to the Government and he talked about school assets. That was the Prime Minister’s answer to the question. It is not for me to judge that answer. It is definitely an answer to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Prime Minister tell us what the commercial rate of return is for the school assets he proposes for this country? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are a number of dividends that come from having schoolchildren educated in 21st century schools and if the member does not know that— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked him what was the commercial rate of return—not a whole lot of social valuations but the commercial rate of return—and I am asking you to make him answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot expect an answer to be exactly what he would like the answer to be. If a member asks a question like that the Minister in answering it will give what the Minister sees as being a rational answer. I believe the Prime Minister was giving a rational answer to the question asked. Question time is not about members being able to elicit from Ministers exactly the answer they want. They ask questions and the better the question the better the answer. That is the way it works. Members need to think about their questions. 
David Shearer 
: Given his answer to supplementary question No. 1 has the Prime Minister read the Treasury report that found “little evidence to suggest privatisation would significantly improve the financial performance of many of the SOE companies”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and where I would draw some difference of opinion would be in the potential opportunity of many of these companies. If we go and take a look at Mighty River Power as a good example here is a company with world-class geothermal technology looking to take that to the world.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why can’t they do that if they’re in Crown ownership? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We are a capital-strapped Government so we are not going to invest in that way but others might. Interestingly enough when that monkey over there making all that noise was in Government he was actually proposing they do exactly that because he wanted to float the offshoot subsidiaries on the stock exchange. He promoted it but now he is in Opposition he just goes like this. 
David Shearer 
: Is it his intention for the Crown to indemnify the privatised companies and shareholders for their losses resulting from Treaty issues? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the member clearly demonstrated yesterday he does not have an answer to who owns water and today he does not understand the Treaty which is a compact between the Crown and Maori. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it was a very clear question about whether it is the Government’s intention to indemnify those companies for any losses that they suffer. That was not addressed. In fact the answer was offensive. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The question carried an implication that under strict Standing Orders would make the question out of order. The Prime Minister’s response was appropriate and because he was implying there would be losses because of the Treaty of Waitangi that is not a factual position at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have had enough on this issue. I accept the concern that the answer was perhaps unnecessarily unhelpful but it did actually answer the question in that the Prime Minister’s answer was arguing that in fact because the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter between the Crown and Maori the Prime Minister would seem to be arguing that there would not be therefore losses to private companies as a consequence. If members think that is not a very good answer ask the Prime Minister in even more detail about it; that is what question time is about. The answer may not have been the greatest answer but I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is capable of asking further pointed questions to dig into it further. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: If the Government has the duty of active protection and upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi why would it propose the removal of section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act which in effect lets not just investors but the Government off the hook? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government has absolutely no intention of removing section 9 from the State-Owned Enterprises Act. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister telling this House that Treasury is wrong when in its 2011 Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit report it reports that these companies are earning a total return for the Government of 15 percent per annum on average over the last 5 years? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No what I am telling the country is that the dividend flow is broadly in terms of the forgone interest payments that would be required if debt was secured remembering that the Government will always retain 51 percent or more of those dividends because of its investment and that there may be some other super-profits earned but they are captured in the value of the company and will be in the valuations. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What would the Prime Minister’s advice be to someone who received financial advice from an adviser who told them they should sell assets returning 15 percent in order to pay down debt that cost them 4 percent? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure about the Prime Minister’s ministerial responsibility; however— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I’m seeking an opinion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to prevent the Prime Minister from being able to answer the question where he is asked an opinion.  
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If it was like that I might tell them not to do it but that is not the case because in this case the value difference the person is talking about is off some pretty ropey numbers I might say to start off. Just to give you an idea that same valuation unit he is talking about moves Solid Energy’s valuation from $475 million in 2007 to $2954 million in 2008. I know they had a good year but it was not quite that good and secondly any other kind of change is implied in the value that would be paid by shareholders. 
Economic Growth—Progress 
2. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What progress is the Government making in implementing its economic growth agenda? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
The Government is making very good progress in addressing the barriers that prevent businesses from getting ahead. Prior to the election we released our 120-point economic development action plan that detailed key steps the Government is taking to build modern productive infrastructure cut red tape build industries innovation and trade and build a skilled workforce. A number of these steps are already complete and 2012 will be about further progressing them across all sectors. The agenda is built around the straightforward premise that if we want more and better jobs for New Zealanders we need to encourage more businesses to be based here.  
Paul Goldsmith 
: What are the key determinants of business success and what can the Government do about them? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I see it businesses depend on a combination of six key things: ideas and innovation to create the business; capital to build the business; access to raw materials; skilled people; public infrastructure such as power broadband and transport; and most importantly access to markets and customers who want to buy their products. The Government can help by making access to the ingredients in any business plan simple and easier and that is what our 120-point action plan is aiming to deliver so that our businesses have a better platform to compete in the wider world. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: What barriers to success does the Minister see? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Unfortunately there are a number of people who lack understanding and realism about economic growth and who say: “We want jobs we want jobs.” but in the next breath say: “But you can’t do that. You can’t build that here. You can’t expand that you can’t explore for that you can’t invest in property here and you can’t do that.” That is the attitude that made it much harder to pay our way in the world during the 2000s and as a result we went into recession before the rest of the world in early 2008. We should not offer carte blanche for any development but we need to acknowledge that every time we say no that has direct consequences in terms of jobs and growth. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that despite National’s 2008 election promise the wage gap with Australia has grown substantially since his Government was elected whether measured on wages or purchase price parity—[ 
Interruption 
]—yes it has Mr Key; and does the absence of reference to closing the wage gap with Australia in the Speech from the Throne in the Prime Minister’s speech in the Address in Reply debate or by National during the recent election mean that his Government has admitted failure and given up on this promise? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In regard to the first part of the question I understand that the member is incorrect on an after-tax basis. But actually the member makes an interesting point. [ 
Interruption 
] You either want to hear it David or you do not. The member makes an interesting point when talking about growth in Australia because what drives a lot of that growth are many of the things that have been turned down here by the Opposition right across that side of the House. I think that inadvertently makes the point that if you want economic growth you have to be prepared to let businesses grow and expand. 
Transport Funding—Cost-effectiveness and Return on Investment 
3. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does the Government consider it important for its transport spending to be cost-effective and provide a good return on investment? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has the Minister read his incoming briefing which shows in figure 10 on page 22 the trend for cost-benefit ratios of approved State highway projects over the past few years and is he concerned with the trend that graph shows of increasingly poor quality investment? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and no. 
Phil Twyford 
: Can the Minister confirm that in the 2007-08 year before the current Government came to power over 75 percent of State highway expenditure was on projects with high cost-benefit ratios but by 2009-10 less than 10 percent of State highway expenditure was on projects with high cost-benefit ratios and is he concerned by this trend? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In answer to the back part no. What I do know is that if this country had people like Mr Twyford around in earlier times perhaps even in the Vogel times this country would still be walking around on dirt tracks. 
Phil Twyford 
: At a time when the Government is cutting back spending left right and centre can the Minister explain why ever-increasing amounts of money are being spent on State highway projects with ever-lower returns on investment or will he take a more sensible and balanced approach than his predecessor Steven Joyce? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will agree with him that my predecessor Steven Joyce was an excellent transport Minister and I am happy that the standards he set inside the Ministry of Transport will be continued under my watch. Might I just say that if benefit-cost ratios were all-important  then you would have to ask why David Shearer does not support the western ring route in Auckland because that has a very good benefit-cost ratio. 
State-owned Energy Companies—Financial Returns 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: What according to the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit was the average total shareholder return of Genesis Meridian Mighty River Power and Solid Energy over the last five years and how does that compare to the average cost of borrowing to the Government right now? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 The Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit (COMU) estimates that the weighted average total shareholder return of the four energy companies over the last 5 years is 18.5 percent. This does include major non-cash items one-off items revaluations and changes in accounting methodology. It includes for example the 521 percent revaluation of Solid Energy which the Prime Minister spoke about earlier and also the $600 million one-off sale of Southern Hydro. So that figure is unusable. A better summary is the weighted average dividend yield of the 2007-11 years which is 4.1 percent. COMU advises that the average cost of Crown borrowing over the last year is 4.5 percent. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How is it fiscally rational for the Government to sell assets that earn 18.5 percent in order to avoid taking on debt that costs around 4 percent? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think what the member needs to be clear on is that that is not a valid comparison. The 18.5 percent includes a whole lot of one-off items significant changes in accounting policy in the way that these valuations are determined and a number of non-cash items. So these are not strictly comparable in the way that he is seeking to present it.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why did the Government’s Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update book the revenue from the asset sales while not taking into account the forgone dividends? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: My advice to the member would be that I think the best response to that would be when the Budget Policy Statement is released. I think the Prime Minister said that would be on 16 February.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he saying that he disagrees with COMU when it stated that it is moving to the use of total shareholder value as the key measure of company and portfolio performance? Is the Government accepting that assessment or is it rejecting it? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well the Government accepts it in the sense that it is moving towards total shareholder funds but the number of these years over 5 years do not use methodologies that are exactly comparable. It is inconceivable that the value of Solid Energy could go from sort of $475 million one year to nearly $3 billion the next and not be attributed to accounting changes. Over time the measurement of total shareholders’ funds will become a more comparable figure but currently the changes in methodology the frequent non-cash items and the number of one-off items mean that that figure is not comparable in the way that the member seeks to use it. 
Local Authorities—Rates Increases over Last Two Decades 
5. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What reports has he received on how much rates increased nationally in the decade since the Local Government Act 2002 and how does this compare to the previous decade? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Average rates increased by 6.8 percent per annum since the big changes were made in a whole series of local government laws in 2002. In the previous decade rates increased by an average of 3.9 percent per annum. It is noteworthy that if rates had gone up at the pre-2002 rate householders would today be paying $500 a year less in rates and the economy as a whole would be spending a billion dollars a year less in rates. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How does the 6.8 percent national average rates increase compare with other components of the Consumers Price Index over the last decade? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Rates have gone up by more than any other component of the Consumers Price Index. The 6.8 percent annual increase in rates compares with a CPI overall increase of 3 percent food of 3.8 percent transport of 2.6 percent clothing of 0.1 percent furniture and appliances of 0.1 percent and housing costs of 5 percent. The only cost increase that is nearly as great over the past decade is energy costs which have increased by 6.5 percent per annum although I note that in the last 3 years that energy price increase with the reforms made by my colleague Gerry Brownlee has dropped to just 3.3 percent per year. The Government is working on a package of reforms for local government to ensure that those ongoing large increases do not continue. 
Ship Grounding [Rena]—Prosecution Under Resource Management Act 
6. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he stand by his statement made in the House yesterday in relation to the grounding of the  
Rena 
 that “the statute sets down very clearly that I as Minister for the Environment should not be encouraging or discouraging a proper independent decision by Environment Bay of Plenty as to whether they should or should not take a prosecution”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes although it would be useful to clarify that the prosecutions over the  
Rena 
 grounding involve both the Maritime Transport Act as well as the Resource Management Act and involve both Maritime New Zealand and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Charges have been laid before the courts under both the Maritime Transport Act and the Resource Management Act and also under the Crimes Act. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why then did the Minister tell the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 2 November in relation to the Resource Management Act: “In fact it would be remiss given that it is New Zealand’s worst maritime environmental disaster if there was not a prosecution under the RMA.” which is clearly an encouragement for a decision from Environment Bay of Plenty and is a breach of the statute? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member completely misses the point that the decision to prosecute under the Resource Management Act had already been made. 
Grant Robertson 
: No no it hadn’t. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes it had. In fact if the member checks the record on 2 November when I made that comment he will see it was in response to a question by a journalist in response to the fact that charges had been laid under the Resource Management Act and was perfectly proper—perfectly proper—for me to say as Minister. As—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes that is entirely appropriate. In fact I think every member of this House would say it would be remiss if charges were not laid under the Resource Management Act given that this is New Zealand’s worst maritime environmental disaster. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister recall on 2 November 2011— [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I say to the National Party backbenchers that the noise is unreasonable there. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister recall on 2 November 2011 making the statement in the primary question after being asked about a prosecution against the company that had not been laid? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: On 2 November the captain and navigation officer appeared before the Tauranga District Court under charges under the Resource Management Act. The comments I made were I think made in an interview at the press conference at the control centre on that afternoon. The idea that I made those comments and then very quickly the agencies whipped around the back door and suddenly put the documents together—I was advised the night before that charges were being lodged under the Resource Management Act and my comments were in respect of that and were entirely appropriate. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister accept that the comments he made directly encouraging Environment Bay of Plenty to lay charges were in relation to laying charges against the company—not against the skipper but against the company—which is an encouragement to Environment Bay of Plenty and which is a breach of the statute? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I point out that the very day—2 November—that I made those comments was the day on which the ship’s captain and navigation officer were facing charges under the Resource Management Act. To somehow pretend that there is some other story which the member is now trying to make up is entirely inconsistent. 
Television Switch-over to Digital—Going Digital Targeted Assistance Package 
7. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Last month I announced details of the Government’s Going Digital Targeted Assistance Package. To keep watching TV all New Zealanders need to go digital by getting FreeView Sky TelstraClear or similar by the end of 2013. Over 80 percent of Kiwis have already done so and are already enjoying more channels better pictures and new services. However the Government recognises that a small group of people need financial physical or technical help to switch over. Our targeted assistance package is focused on those most likely to be in genuine need and will directly help elderly people on fixed incomes and people with disabilities to make the transition to digital television. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What are the benefits of the switch to digital television for New Zealand?  
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: As we move further into the digital age the digital switch-over will deliver more enhanced reception and better picture quality as well as freeing up radio spectrum. The total economic benefits from this are estimated to be around $2 billion over 20 years.  
Whanau Ora Minister—Confidence 
8. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of the $1 billion proposed for Whanau Ora does the Prime Minister think it appropriate that Whanau Ora funding and services are not allocated by a Government department but brokered by private individuals known as “navigators” who are also agents for providers? Is that not a massive invitation for conflict of interest?  
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I think it is worth pointing out that the Whanau Ora funding is not $1 billion. If the member wants to refer to the Budget he will see it is in the order of just over $100 million over 4 years. Secondly whenever Government expenditure is used it is absolutely appropriate that it is done in a way that is rigidly and clearly accountable to the public and in all cases whether Whanau Ora or others that process is followed.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Prime Minister outline what that process could possibly be if the money is to be paid into trusts? Where is the audit trail once it gets there?  
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is asking me a hypothetical question. He can either present it to the Minister for Whanau Ora or actually present the facts. Do not ask me a hypothetical question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not asking him a hypothetical question. This is a statement under his name on 11 December 2011 where he articulates— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Quoting press statements is certainly not a matter of order. The member asked a very general question to the Prime Minister—“Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers?”—and now wants the Prime Minister to answer a very detailed supplementary question about payments into trust funds. That is simply not going to work. There is no way that a Minister can be expected to have the detailed information to answer that kind of detailed question. If the member wants to pursue the issue which is absolutely his right during question time the question should be lodged to the Minister responsible and the primary question should make it clear what the issue is about so that the Minister can have the information necessary to answer the question in the House; otherwise we just waste the time of the House.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect this is not detailed information at all. Any competent Minister knows that when public money is given out— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I want to finish my analogy here.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am sorry I have heard enough. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member does not argue about the detail of whether or not certain information is detailed information by way of point of order. The Speaker has already ruled that and there is no further point of order to be dealt with on the matter. It is simple sense that where a primary question is as broad as this one there is no way a Minister can be expected to have detailed information about payments into trust funds. The remedy is in the member’s own hands. If he wants to pursue the matter there is a way of doing it and that is by making a primary question clear and asking all the detail he likes of the appropriate Minister.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister remember a press statement under his name on 11 December 2011 where all the details are set out in page after page after page about an “evolving focus and ongoing implementation of Whanau Ora” and a whole lot of projects as well and is it too complicated for him to get up and confirm that although it has been the public practice now for decades that where money is dispersed from public funds there is an audit trail he is not aware of one in the case of Whanau Ora? Yes or no?  
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the first part of the question yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 9 the Hon Lianne Dalziel.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will have some order in the House. The member will resume his seat for the moment. I say to Ministers on my right that the member has every right to call a point of order and it will be heard in silence.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I just want an answer to my question which you know was not too detailed and I expect that you will ask the Prime Minister to give it to me. I have been told there has been progress in question time in this House; I want to see it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to reflect back on his—I am on my feet and I invite the member to reflect back on his question. He asked the Prime Minister whether he remembers I think a press statement in his name and the Prime Minister said he did. He is required to answer only one part of a supplementary question which he did very clearly. 
Christchurch Recovery—Feedback on Draft Recovery Plan for Central Business District 
9. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: How many written comments were received on the draft Recovery Plan for the Christchurch CBD and is it his intention to consider them all before making a decision on the draft Recovery Plan for the CBD in accordance with the process set out on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s website? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I am advised that there were 79 and the answer is yes. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will his consideration include the written comments from engineer John Scarry who has raised serious concerns about the need for seismic-resistant design including seismic separation between buildings area-wide deep soil improvement and the impact that deep alluvial deposits have on surface seismic acceleration; if so how will these be addressed in a draft plan that has failed to even mention them? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Consideration will be given to all submissions. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does he agree that the draft central city plan seismic-resistant design for the rebuild and the founding soils of the central business district are within his remit as Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery; if so why did he refer the 30 January letter from John Scarry sent to him about these matters to the Minister for Building and Construction saying that the issue fell within his portfolio? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If the member would for a moment recall the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act it makes it clear that Ministers still retain primary portfolio responsibility in their particular portfolio areas. It is within the remit of the Minister for Building and Construction to deal with the matters raised by this particular engineer and that work is being done. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What confidence can the people of Christchurch have in the recovery process when a design of a draft city plan can completely ignore this submission it can be referred to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and he can refer it to the Minister for Building and Construction when it is indeed his responsibility as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to sign off on the central city plan? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The draft plan was prepared by the Christchurch City Council. My job once again is to ask for submissions. I have done that. We have received them; this is one of those submissions. It is quite appropriate that that submission would be forwarded to the Department of Building and Housing for its advice before any further consideration is given to making the draft plan a plan. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the letter from John Scarry Engineering addressed to the Hon Gerry Brownlee His Worship the Mayor of Christchurch and Mr Roger Sutton the Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority together with the submission that they made on the central city plan and finally the third item: the letter from the Minister’s office simply referring this to the Minister for Building and Construction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Citizenship—Promotion to Migrants 
10. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What recent steps have there been to promote New Zealand citizenship as a successful settlement pathway for migrants? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise that on Monday His Excellency the Governor-General as part of his first Waitangi Day programme hosted a citizenship ceremony at Government House in Wellington. I was delighted to play a part in the event as 24 people from 19 countries became New Zealand citizens. Having the opportunity to welcome new New Zealanders who have chosen to make Aotearoa their home was a fitting way to mark our national day. 
Melissa Lee 
: Why do people apply for citizenship rather than remain on permanent residency? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: Becoming a citizen—[ 
Interruption 
] When they are ready! Becoming a citizen shows that a person has made an indelible commitment to making New Zealand their home and it shows the rest of the world that they are proud to call themselves a Kiwi. For one 9-year-old boy at Monday’s ceremony becoming a citizen means the chance to one day become an All Black. New Zealanders as a group are intensely proud of our distinct identity traditions values and culture which are reflected and bound in the notion of our citizenship and the rights and responsibilities it brings with it. 
NZ On Air Board—Appointments 
11. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement in relation to the appointment of the Prime Minister’s electorate chairman Stephen McElrea to the NZ On Air board that “if you look at the vast array of appointments we make I think the balance is about right”? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Yes. 
Clare Curran 
: Did Mr McElrea when making a complaint to the New Zealand On Air chief executive officer and the board chair about the child poverty documentary screened on TV3 give a perception of political interference; if not why? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: Decisions of the board are of the board. I deal with the chair of the board. That is a matter for the board. 
Clare Curran 
: Is he aware that Mr McElrea is part of an operational working group within New Zealand On Air which includes staff and a representative of MediaWorks and which is determining the content of four documentaries funded by more than $1 million by New Zealand On Air? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I have full confidence in the chair of the board and the six members of the board three of whom have been appointed under the National Government and three of whom were appointed under the previous Labour Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question began with the words “Is he aware …”. He may be or he may not be but he did not actually address the question of his awareness of that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has some reasonable grievance in the point of order raised I think because the question did indeed start that way and there was no indication whether the Minister was aware or not. I invite the member to repeat her question. 
Clare Curran 
: Is he aware that Mr McElrea is part of an operational working group within New Zealand On Air which includes staff and a representative of MediaWorks and which is determining the content of four documentaries funded by more than $1 million by New Zealand On Air? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The decisions and processes and structures set up by the board under the Crown Entities Act 2004 therefore are of the board and it is not appropriate for me to comment on those matters of the board’s internal structures. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order. It is a very simple question. It might not be appropriate for him to interfere. All he was asked was whether he is aware. Most Ministers would read reports of board minutes of that sort and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now debating the issue. I mean the question was a very simple question. It asked whether the Minister was aware. The Minister’s answer was that he does not get involved in matters to do with the board. Now that could be interpreted that he is not aware. My suggestion in solving this sort of dilemma is to sharpen the question down even more. The question went on to contain a whole lot of information about what this board member may or may not be involved in. It contained detail and gives the Minister more out. If the question is sharpened down to whether he is aware that a certain board member is involved in a certain group full stop it is very difficult then for the Minister to—but the more detail that is built into the question about what might be going on within the organisation that the board is responsible for the more opportunity for the Minister to give the kind of answer the Minister did because Ministers are not responsible for what goes on in there. So I feel there are still further supplementary questions. I have given a fair hint where I might be even more supportive. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The more specificity in the question the easier it is for the Minister to deny that he is aware. The extra specificity is already in the question and all the Minister has to do is say whether he is aware or not aware in order to address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma though with the rules around answering questions is that the more material that is in a question the more opportunity there is for the Minister to focus on that material rather than the bit that the member wanted answered. I believe there is a way. The Minister has given an answer. I accept the dissatisfaction; I understand the dissatisfaction with the answer. But there are more supplementary questions available and rather than having me try to decide whether or not the Minister has given an adequate answer I would rather give the member the chance to dig even more precisely into the matter. 
Clare Curran 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am happy to rephrase the question with more specificity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has more supplementary questions so she is perfectly at liberty— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why should she have to use her supplementary question because he is not answering his questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member certainly has one more supplementary question. It is not my fault if the member’s party has given away some supplementary questions. 
Clare Curran 
: Why is it appropriate for Mr McElrea the Prime Minister’s electorate chair to be part of a working group within New Zealand On Air that is making decisions on the content programming and other operational decisions of a taxpayer-funded documentary entitled  
Whanau Ora 
 which is described as a “behind-the-scenes look at the implementation of this new initiative that seeks to deliver positive social outcomes for Maori.”? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: Again I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on individual members of the board. The board operates under the Crown Entities Act 2004 and it follows due process and due diligence on its appointments and the monitoring and management thereof. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister please tell the country as to whether anybody over there knows anything about this very expensive brown elephant in the name of the Maori Party and has he discussed it with the Prime Minister? After all this man is his electorate chairman and presumably has the odd discussion with his now sometime visitor to Helensville. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been called. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: At very best a little bit of that question might be in order but most certainly the first part was not nor was the last. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think in fairness the point of order is reasonably well made. I am not going to take a supplementary question away from the member but I invite him to repeat the supplementary question in a way that makes it possible for a Minister to answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Minister’s last answer which was that he did not want to answer could he please tell me who over there— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Now the member will lose a supplementary question if he is not careful. That is not how supplementary questions are asked. The member will now ask his supplementary question in an intelligible way.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister tell us whether he or any of his colleagues is prepared to tell the country as to what is happening with Whanau Ora funding and why it justifies a documentary on it at this point in time involving someone who is so close to the Prime Minister as to be his electorate chairperson? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The first part of that question remains completely out of order. The next bit may just sneak in but by your previous rulings I would doubt it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With great respect I think parliamentary question time is when Ministers are required to answer. This idea— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. I absolutely agree with the member that Ministers should answer questions and in fact I have been trying to insist on that. Maybe I have let a few get away with a little bit too much in that regard but the member knows he has to ask a Minister a question on a subject for which the Minister is responsible. This Minister is not responsible for Whanau Ora if I understand what is going on. The primary part of that supplementary question asked the Minister whether he could tell the House what is going on with this programme called  
Whanau Ora 
. That is not— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I did not ask that at all. I asked what justified it being a documentary. What justified it being a documentary was the question. Please listen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I accept it is the second day back and sometimes changed procedures take a little while but we do not behave that way. I am going to invite the member to phrase his question in a way that makes it clearly the responsibility of this Minister. I am still on my feet. Ask a question that is in order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. There are two points that I want to make and I want to be careful about relitigating the decision you have just made. But asking what is special about a programme that justifies a documentary I think is something that is the responsibility of the Minister of Broadcasting . The second point I would make is you are narrowing matters down when in fact if this question had been allowed to go through by the Government and the Prime Minister had not ducked it it would be clearly within his responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may have noticed that I did not rule out any of the supplementary questions of his colleague. I felt they were perfectly within the responsibility of the Minister. All I am asking the right honourable member to do is ask a question that is clearly within the responsibility of the Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Again to the Minister what in his portfolio gives him to believe that a documentary which is part of the portfolio that he is administering should be allocated to a social or economic programme in respect of Maori affairs and be of such importance as to engage the chairman of the Prime Minister’s electorate and whether that in any way is appropriate? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh look at this! Here comes the member having a go. He knows nothing about the subject matter or the wording. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Peters I know an awful lot— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Both members will be leaving this House very shortly. That will cease immediately. I will not tolerate that kind of nonsense and the honourable Leader of the House should know better even if other members do not. I have ruled that the question is in order. How intelligible it is is another matter but it is in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect that is totally out of order and it is in line with— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Speaker decides whether a matter is in order or not and the member has tested my patience quite sufficiently. The member only needs to reflect; I suggest he reads the  
Hansard 
. I have ruled the question is in order I have overruled the objections of the Leader of the House and I am inviting the Minister to answer it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to support the right honourable gentleman. Your rulings were absolutely right. As an umpire you perform superbly. The problem was you added a role as a commentator which put a member down. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable Leader of the House—and we will not take this much further. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No but quite clearly you were suggesting that I was unable to make an intelligent assessment of the question and I do not have any grudge against you at all for that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I recall asking you for a considered ruling I think in the last term on the matter and I am going to ask the same thing. Are you now saying as Speaker—quite rightly you judge what is in order or not—that it is now in order for you to abuse a member of Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think members—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The whole House just should take a deep breath and not be so childish for goodness’ sake. I listen carefully to every question. I have to assess whether or not a Minister answers it. If I find it difficult to understand what the question is—and I am not exactly that stupid—then sometimes it is difficult to assess whether or not the Minister has answered it. I have accepted the question is in order. I am not going to take any further points of order on this. I have warned the member. I have asked the member to answer it and I want him to give his best effort to answer it. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: As far as I remember it. Ministers do not make decisions about what programmes New Zealand On Air funds or shows. It is a contestable funding model at arm’s length from the Government. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table four documents from New Zealand On Air released under the Official Information Act. The first is dated 26 May 2011 and is titled “A record of decisions made at working group meeting”. The second is dated 22 September 2011 and is titled “Agreement between MediaWorks and NZ On Air”. The third is dated 10 November 2011 and is “A record of decision of working group meeting” and the fourth is dated 18 November 2011 and is a record of an email conversation between Stephen McElrea and members of the working group. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those four documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Schools Class Sizes—Treasury Advice 
12. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Will she rule out implementing Treasury’s advice to increase class sizes in schools? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Tena koe. No because Treasury’s independent observation was actually that “Student achievement can be raised by improving the quality of teaching … Increasing student/teacher ratios and consolidation of the school network can free up funding that could be used to support initiatives to enhance the quality of teaching”. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Have any parents asked for an increase in class sizes? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Not of me. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does she agree with Massey University professor of education John O’Neill that class size matters most for socioeconomically disadvantaged children—the very group the Government said it is most concerned about? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I would refer him and the member to Professor John Hattie who said we need to direct attention at higher-quality teaching—exactly what we are considering. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will charter schools have a defined class size determined by the Ministry of Education? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: We are waiting on the establishment of a working group which will consider that and all other features. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister’s answer mean that the private sector led by Catherine Isaac  will decide critical educational issues such as class size for charter schools? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: My answer means exactly what it said which is that a working group will canvass that range of features. 
Chris Hipkins 
: In light of her answer to the substantive question in which she quoted Treasury’s report is she confirming that school rationalisation is back on the agenda and that the National Government intends to close more schools? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: In the years 2003-08 over 200 schools were closed. In the years 2009-12 49 schools have been closed. Really what that reflects is that the education sector is a dynamic one and its responsiveness should be to the needs of the learner the best evidence and the parameters of the Budget. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Those were very interesting numbers. However they do not actually address the question that I asked as to whether the Government intended to adopt Treasury’s advice and close more schools. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that is exactly the question the member asked. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable member further. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I referred to the Minister’s answer to the substantive question in which she quoted the Treasury advice which was to close more schools. I asked her in my original question whether in fact that was the Government’s intention—whether school rationalisation was back on the agenda and the National Government intended to close more schools. She gave me some numbers for what has— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister actually gave some numbers indeed and went on to say that education is a dynamic matter and that these things change. Although that may not have been exactly the answer the member wanted I think it was a reasonable answer to the question because clearly the closure of schools is not being ruled out. The Minister pointed out that schools have closed during the last 12 years. A number of schools have closed and she did not rule out that happening in the future. Although that may not have been exactly the answer the member wanted I think it was an answer to the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Having criticised you for giving a commentary earlier I want to thank you for that one. It means that our understanding is enhanced. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table an academic paper from the University of London website titled  
Do low attaining and younger students benefit most from small classes? 
 by Blatchford Bassett and Brown. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Address in Reply 
Debate resumed from 7 February. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Seventy-five days ago New Zealand gave its support to the Rt Hon John Key in re-electing National to office. I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of the Taupo electorate for their increased support for me and I pledge to continue my hard work in representing them.  
National is committed to building a brighter future where New Zealanders have the jobs have the incomes and have the public services that we all aspire to. We started this work in 2008 and with an increase in support in the recent election we are happy to continue delivering this. One of the four main priorities over the next 3 years is to build a more competitive and productive economy. Really what that means is growing our exports. That is the focus. It is very appropriate coming from the Taupo electorate where the main sources of employment come from farming forestry and tourism that this is very close to my heart.  
Part of our 120-point economic action plan is ensuring that we sell what the world wants but that has to be done at a competitive price so that is why we have this export-focused economy. What we know from conversations with people up and down New Zealand is that people want to see more jobs and they want to see higher incomes but actually we know that those will come from having better international trade links and that will lead to a stronger economy and create more jobs with higher incomes. That is one of the fundamental reasons that New Zealanders voted for a National-led Government.  
Part of our strategy around those high-quality relationships is with emerging economies like China and India as well as our more traditional trading partners. We have had some conversations in the media in the last few weeks about making the most of our free-trade agreements and in particular the one with China. Here in Parliament today we are recognising the Chinese New Year so I felt it important to make sure that we stress this point of how important they are to us.  
One of the things that is important to note though is that this focus needs to be clearly on the export sector and the tradable sector because that is where the sustainable jobs will come from over time. We do not want to see what we saw under 9 years of Labour which was an increase in the jobs in the non-tradable sector so that is clearly why we have an export focus.  
I want to give an example of a company in my electorate a dairy processing plant that was opened in August last year which I took the Prime Minister to in November. It is called Miraka which is Maori for milk. It is a really interesting joint venture because it combines the Maori landowners with strategic partners and investors that include the Maori Trustee the Global Dairy Network and the Viet Namese milk and dairy manufacturing company Vinamilk. Ninety million dollars was invested in the electorate in this absolutely state-of-the-art milk processing factory. The two key markets for its processed goods are customers in Asia and the Middle East. It has been a fantastic example of a local business that is now employing 30 people who would not have been employed otherwise as well as $90 million that went into the construction of that milk processing plant.  
But there are some other aspects of it that I am really excited about and one of them is the fact that it is powered by renewable steam and electricity from the Tuaropaki Trust’s nearby geothermal power station which is a power station that is owned by the trust and Mighty River Power. It is even better from an environmental perspective because what it also does with its waste water is that it goes on to a neighbouring farmland and the solid waste is being disposed of on a worm farm. 
 This is a business a local business a Maori-owned business—54 percent of it owned by Maori—there is a connection with a State-owned enterprise it has a fantastic environmental record it is exporting our goods to the world it is employing local people and that is exactly what we want to see more of not just in my electorate but across New Zealand.  
We need investment. In this case some of it has been foreign investment. Again it is something that has been debated at length over the last few weeks and I was pleased that our Minister for Economic Development spoke about that more today because actually we do not talk enough about the benefits of foreign investment. If we continue to have New Zealanders—as we will for many years to come—demanding higher-paying jobs we actually have to look for foreign investment. That is why it is really important. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Mallard might think it is not important to have foreign investment; actually I think that side of the House has not figured out what their position is on foreign investment because it seems to change daily or actually several times a day.  
If I look at my electorate we want to look at foreign investment we want the opportunities that it brings. Part of it is the sustainability of the jobs. One of the things that I love about my electorate is the fantastic ideas that are generated and I have just given you some examples with the Miraka dairy plant. It is not just about having ideas and innovation; it is actually about delivering on those ideas. Whether it is in high-value wood processing whether it is alternative uses for geothermal energy—of which there are multiple examples in my electorate—new farming techniques creating interesting trading relationships between nitrogen and carbon which we have seen in the south of the Taupo electorate and which are mitigating environmental issues or whether it is software development we have some world-leading businesses in Taupo that are born out of ideas and they are exporting from their homes their offices and their businesses on the side of our great lake.  
This side of the House knows what is important to those individuals and to those businesses and knows that to get some of those businesses up and running and off the ground requires foreign investment. We actually want to encourage them not discourage them which is why I am quite staggered by the fact that those on the other side of the House do not seem that interested in what the advantages of foreign investment will bring. We want to encourage those businesses to be based here. We have to make sure that the resources are available to them and we are looking at some exciting opportunities with geothermal energy. We have got to have the infrastructure available to them to keep things moving and we need to ensure that our people have the right skills and access to capital for them to make it happen.  
There is another example in my electorate of another dairy project that was not quite so successful or has not been yet. It had the idea it had the location and it was looking at jobs during construction and jobs during production. It is very exciting for a small part of my electorate that does not have a lot of jobs currently and it would be very helpful to have this sort of opportunity. Unfortunately there have been too many people who have been opposing it—the location—and really slowing the whole process down which creates significant issues.  
I did want to touch on the Crafar farms very briefly. For the people of my electorate it is an exciting opportunity that those farms have finally been sold. So instead of the farms languishing in the hands of the receiver we will now see investment we will now see jobs we will now see the opportunities that that investment in skills in training and in capital development will provide. It is so important that that sale means things can get moving and it means that people in my area can be better off. It was quite interesting because we get the odd comment from the other side of the House about why this was not a good idea. But I think they continue to be confused because we heard yesterday from David Parker that in 3 years—2006-08—they had approved four times what we have approved in only the first term.  
It is kind of puzzling I do not know whether Labour members want new jobs. They obviously do not want any foreign investment or at least they do not in this hour. Clearly they do not want better environmental practices on farms. We need to encourage the development of all our opportunities if we are to prosper. This is what will create the jobs that we want long term. This Government is about less spending less debt. It is about more investment more exports and more jobs. That is what New Zealanders voted for 75 days ago and that is what we will deliver. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I have been paying quite a bit of attention not only obviously to the Speech from the Throne but to the Address in Reply speeches that have come since and in particular John Key’s address to this House. I have been left with one particular question and that is where has all the aspiration gone? As I recall back in 2008 the National Government was absolutely brimming with it but now today we are left with some pale imitation called “muddling through”. That is what the aspiration has been replaced with. It is a hands-in-your-pocket approach to economic management and despite that member over there saying that they have a 120-point plan the average New Zealander is feeling no benefit from that 120-point plan. Instead all they feel is the muddling through. So I think instead that it is timely to remind the National Government of what it is it seems to have forgotten that it promised New Zealand.  
We were told that we should not be tenants in our own country. Now from where I am sitting it seems to be the Prime Minister who has been inconsistent when it comes to his rhetoric and then his policy. There is no finer example of that than the Crafar farms decisions which that member has just touched on. That is the ultimate example of where decisions are being made that are not in the best strategic interests of New Zealanders. We had a local group willing to purchase that significant parcel of land and that member on behalf of her constituents claims that they are happy with the decision that has been made around the Crafar farms sale. I would really question that; in fact I would like to see a survey of those constituents. Obviously I do not believe that member is in fact speaking on behalf of those constituents involved with Ngati Tuwharetoa because they take a very different perspective on that sale of land.  
In Labour we have been absolutely clear and indeed we were in the election. We need to start making decisions that allow us to own our own future particularly when it comes to these strategic assets. We are not a party against foreign investment; in fact we recognise that in New Zealand because of our poor savings we cannot afford to invest in ourselves. When it comes to research and development in particular we do need investment from abroad. But there are clear distinctions between the example that the member brought up around a strategic milk project and the sale of this strategic asset. I do not think we could be any clearer.  
 What else has the National Government told the public of New Zealand since 2008? Well we heard that education was key—it was key to aspiration and it was key to providing opportunities particularly to our youngest New Zealanders. And what do we see now? We see now Treasury suggesting that we should have larger classrooms in order to improve our education system— 
Hon Annette King 
: Larger class sizes. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Larger class sizes. And as the member pointed out in question time who can name one parent who thinks that that will improve educational outcomes for their child? Not only that but the major platform that this Government campaigned on around education was to tell 6-year-olds that they were failing in primary education before they even started. Now we are going to ignore international evidence in favour of a coalition deal by bringing in charter schools. That was the aspiration this Government has delivered in education. 
What about the aspiration around building assets? Members in this House may remember that John Key said that that was the track we were going to go down. Instead we see ourselves paying an extraordinary amount to sell them with no guarantee as to whom. Not only has that sparked a debate about the future of the Treaty clause as it relates to our State-owned enterprises but there has not been unfortunately enough discussion about the removal of the social responsibility clause. That Government may claim that this is a strategic public-private partnership of sorts—partial privatisation—but when you remove from any dictate around the way these assets are run anything that says that we will continue to have a public interest in the way these State-owned enterprises operate that is just a private deal. That is privatisation in costume. We have consistently pointed out to this Government that that is privatisation by any other name. 
What about the aspiration that National had to keep families in New Zealand to try to stem the tide of Kiwis going to Australia? You need only ask members like Parekura Horomia how many families have been lost on the East Coast and are travelling abroad for better opportunities. That is because the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia has grown by $32 per week since this Government came into office. How is that aspirational for New Zealand? Not only has our economic credibility been downgraded—we are facing an $18 billion deficit—but this Government’s expectations and aspirations for itself have been downgraded considerably. 
I believe it is time New Zealanders asked for what they were promised. It is time they asked where the better life they were promised by this Government actually is. I am not talking just about the most vulnerable New Zealanders—I think their plight is probably plain for all to see. I am talking about the people in the middle. I am talking about the 66 percent of the population who earn $40000 or less per annum the people who cannot even save let alone own their own home. It is time this House acknowledged that we have reached a tipping point in New Zealand. Gone are the days when parents believed that they could leave their children better off than they themselves were. In those days hard work was enough to get ahead. Poverty did not have to last for longer than one generation. Those days sadly are gone. Now according to the Ministry of Social Development’s briefing for the incoming Minister two out of every five children living in poverty are in households where there is a full-time worker. This is not about just families who are reliant on benefits to survive; this is also about families who are working every hour they are given and still cannot get ahead let alone give their own children a decent start. Where is the aspiration for those families on behalf of that Government? 
We have to also acknowledge that that means that choices are being removed from families. It is no longer a choice for many families as to whether or not one parent works and one parent remains at home. Choices are now being made not necessarily for their own interest or the interests of their children but out of desperation to survive. It is time that we strived to give choices back to those families—choices for them to make in the best interests of their children. 
But what has the Government’s response been to the situation we find ourselves in—this dramatic change in the make-up of the way New Zealanders are having to operate and the fact that many families hold down not just one job and not just two jobs but multiple jobs to survive? What has its response been? Well in the last term of Government we saw an increase in the most regressive form of taxation we have and we now see that families as a result are suffering because they spend most of their discretionary income directly on GST. We have seen inflation increase dramatically while income levels stagnate. We have seen the Government tinker around with the minimum wage even though the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that he could not survive on it. So I ask again: where is the aspiration for New Zealand families? This is not a Government I believe that is in the process of giving hope. A Government that stands on the sidelines and waits for the trickle-down theory obviously is not a Government that can offer these New Zealand families much hope. That is something that we stand against and in fact in direct contrast we think it is time to tackle these significant issues. It is time to tackle the fact that a full day’s wage can still equal poverty. It is time to tackle the fact that families no longer have many of these choices.  
Instead of relying on a ministerial inquiry into poverty which the Government agreed to because the Maori Party asked for it as part of a coalition deal—and I question whether it will continue if the Maori Party removes itself from this coalition—we want to see more rhetoric. You will hear this side of the House talk about higher wages not just racing to the bottom; better jobs not more jobs by one person to make ends meet; a boat that will go faster not a boat that we are putting up for sale; and a clean green clever New Zealand to achieve all of that. That is aspirational and that is what the Labour Party stands for. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kaore au i konei inanahi nga mihi o te Paremata tau hou ki a tatou tena koutou.[ 
Interruption 
] Huaki i tetahi kura hou i Kawerau pai tena hoki. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not here yesterday so parliamentary New Year greetings to us all and to you collectively.  
[Interruption] 
 I was opening a new school at Kawerau. That was a great event as well. 
] 
Well the political year has started with the Treaty and Maori issues right up front and centre stage right where they belong. Debate is hot; debate is hot over how the Treaty affects the Government’s plans to partially privatise a number of State-owned enterprises. Once again the issue of Maori customary interests and rights in fresh water has come up. The place of the Treaty in our constitution is up for debate with national consultations getting under way this year. Meanwhile Maori are working on strategies for language growth and Maori economic development. Whanau Ora is in its roll-out stage at this time.  
The big question is how do all these things make a difference for the people of Aotearoa who are living in an increasingly divided and polarised society where the rich are getting richer and more and more families are struggling to make it through? The Maori Party is proud to be at the centre of the action. We have come to Parliament to represent our constituents’ views to take them to Cabinet fight them through and to work with the Parliament as a whole to make a difference for New Zealand.  
So that leads me to the question of poverty. We are happy that the Maori Party has been able to arrange with National a joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can we join you? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: We will certainly work with you. Minister Turia and Minister English co-chair this committee and I am a member as well. We have already started with Te Puni Kokiri out there working very very hard and showing what a good ministry it is doing the job.  
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That’s right. You’re closing it down. What a disgrace! 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Oh rubbish! Parekura you know that’s not true. In working with Te Puni Kokiri I have already initiated a number of activities in the areas of housing and housing help of jobs and training initiatives and education initiatives.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Cuts. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: “Developed” is the word. It is in the most early stages at this time but it is really quite exciting to see that sections of the community are prepared to come forward and contribute although these are still hard times.  
So this brings me to Whanau Ora—that beautiful beautiful policy that is so admired by all the members in this House. It is so disappointing to see the redneck of racism emerging around Whanau Ora. There have been questions asked about one family of some 180 members who received $6000 which is a fairly meagre amount when we think of the scale of the transformation that they are commencing. I have to wonder what motivates a man to cast doubt on the capacity of families to turn their lives round. Why would any politician attack whanau who are doing the best they can to improve their situation and in the long term reduce reliance on State dependency especially since I have been informed that the member who raised this issue knows full well that his partner received sizable remuneration for advising one of those Whanau Ora collectives?  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it has been a long tradition and a matter that has been reinforced a number of times by Speakers that members’ families are not brought into debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That point of order is upheld. Can I just also caution the member that he used a term initially when he raised this particular matter in his speech which could lead to disorder. I let him get away with it because it was not attributed to a party or an individual but he did use a word that is unacceptable to attribute to a member or a party. So I just raise that consciousness with him. Continue Dr Sharples. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: What I have seen occurring through Whanau Ora is real change tangible outcomes that show families taking responsibilities for themselves. This funding is about whanau transformation. The value in that is priceless.  
Transforming the relationship between whanau and the State may take a lot of time but we cannot continue to waste Government spending on interventions that make no lasting difference but just create dependency. Whanau Ora is about bringing whanau together to collectively plan to improve their well-being. The outcomes that we have seen are widespread: they span education employment health and social transformation. We have whanau who have looked at ways to address family violence others who have focused on rheumatic fever and others who have looked at rebuilding their lives after the Christchurch earthquake. The outcomes for these whanau show they are getting results. They are turning round trends which decades of failed Government funding have been unable to address.  
The Maori Party is about creating real transformation in whanau not just propping up a system that obviously has not worked for our people over the many decades past. Whanau Ora is the greatest opportunity that we have had to take back responsibility for ourselves. So why would anyone want to undermine that?  
Another major activity that the Maori Party is involved with and I am involved with is the constitutional review. This is a review of the constitution of New Zealand which will take place over 2 years. There is a panel of about 12 people led by Sir Tipene O’Regan and Emeritus Professor John Burrows and members such as Peter Chin Dr Ranginui Walker Peter Tennent Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith Hinurewa Poutu Dr Leonie Pihama Bernice Mene John Luxton Dr Michael Cullen and Deborah Coddington. So those will be the groups and they will go out over 2 years and hold meetings with the community. Parallel to this the iwi leaders have set up another team and they are going to formulate their views on what the constitutional review should look like and then I guess they will bring the two together and see what happens. So that is happening over the period of 2 years and it will take time for us to get this back.  
We have put the call out to iwi to make sure that they wananga on this topic because for years at Waitangi the question of where the Treaty does fit has come up with protests and even more recently the question is really relevant when you consider the State-owned enterprises. The first of these consultation meetings over the State-owned enterprises has been held today in Rotorua. There were over 300 people there— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Paul Quinn was there putting the chairs out! 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: —and unanimous by the people present— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Paul Quinn was there putting the chairs out. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: —the whole lot. Do you want to hear this? The unanimous result by all the people present was that they support section 9 being included in the new bill—that it should remain there. I think this might be a warning for us— 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Government support section 9A? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I beg your pardon? 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Government support section 9A? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: This might be a warning for us and for the Government that this could be indicative—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes that is right. That is why I am in the Government mate. That is exactly why I am there so I can sit at the table and challenge them on everything. That is the relationship we have: totally above board. So at the end of the day it will be decided in Cabinet and Tariana and I whatever the result is will be in there in that discussion full on acting our part and so on.  
Also carrying on at this time because I am a busy boy is the economic review.  
Hon Member 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: You remember last time I had a task force on Maori economics and we looked at quite a few initiatives set up trading lines to China and a lot of Maori initiatives over there as well as the economy. We reviewed it and found it to be a $36.9 billion asset base which is growing fast. We are now progressing to phase two to mobilise the Maori economy asset base by developing a Maori economic strategy which was announced last year. The objectives of this strategy and action plan will produce strategic recommendations on improving the overall collaboration and infrastructure of the Maori iwi economy and secondly Maori iwi economic developments in the context of the Treaty of Waitangi New Zealand and the wider global economy. So the strategic and action plan will actually produce specific and practical recommendations on the following: improving the performance and productivity of the Maori economic sector clarifying the role and identity and the contribution that the Government can make to improving the performance of the Maori economic sector and thirdly considering the role and contribution of Maori to their own economic development. That team is led by Ngahiwi Tomoana—I think I have met him before—Greg Whittred Debbie Packer Roger Pikia Graham Stuart Gina Rangi Glen Tupuhi June McCabe Mark Solomon and Bevan Graham.  
So that is all happening and as well as that there is the language review that we are involved in totally. You know we had set up Te Paepae Motuhake which was a panel by the people and they are at an interesting stage of this development at this time. I have just been waved down so thank you for listening and for your support especially from that side. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: With regard to? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: With regard to the allegations made by the Hon Pita Sharples. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: In my absence in the last address Mr Sharples made a number of statements that are demonstratively and palpability false and I wish to put the circumstances on the record with regard to an associate. This person was asked by John Tamihere of Waipareira Trust to address a senior management group on 12 February 2010 to present management competencies competencies of a large corporation—that is J and J—and that was a 3-hour presentation. He was asked also to attend— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just a point of clarification: when the member says “this member” is he referring to himself? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I am referring to the circumstances about which this allegation was made which sought to impugn my integrity and suggest that I was being a hypocrite. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just a moment; I am on my feet. The member cannot relitigate statements that other members make. He has sought leave to make a personal statement that relates to him and that is what he should do.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is related to me because I am very much aware of this matter. The next attendance was at a business planning meeting the next day 13 February as an observer to provide feedback to the chief executive officer on the competency of senior management. This was a meeting unrelated to Whanau Ora which I attended myself in the evening. Mr Tamihere asked again in February 2011 for advice on one of his senior managers. Again this was not aligned to Whanau Ora in any way; it was a human resources issue associated with the organisation and a particular individual and at no time were there any dealings at all on the issue of Whanau Ora Although Mr Sharples and his party colleagues have made those claims today to the media they are demonstratively false. I would ask him to withdraw and apologise if he feels he is up to it. 
Hon Dr Pita Sharples 
: Point of order—in response. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the member has made a personal statement. It is not up for debate. He sought leave the House granted leave and we will now move on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there was clearly offence taken by Mr Peters about comments made about a member of his family. He did ask for an apology from Dr Sharples and I think that to give Dr Sharples the opportunity to apologise all he has to do is to stand up and seek the leave of the House and the House will grant that leave to Dr Sharples to apologise. 
Hon Dr Pita Sharples 
: I seek the leave of the House to respond. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. The member cannot respond to a personal statement. The only avenue open to the member is if he is seeking to withdraw apologise or do something of that nature. The member is not bound to do that; it has been an offer that has been put to him. So if that is not happening is some member seeking the call? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. This has been a miserable start for Maori politics in Parliament in 2012. We have had the unedifying spectacle of the three members of the Maori Party who claim to be the mantle of iwi scurrying from this House and refusing to face the music on the first sitting day of 2012. Now it might come to pass that they will use the excuse that they were opening schools saving the language finding the stars and launching rockets but the reality is that they did nothing to save the education system which suffered grievously under Anne Tolley. If there is one small thing that can be said about Hekia Parata it is that she has got every prospect of improving on the dismal record of her predecessor but that is another matter.  
It is very difficult to take the Maori Party members seriously when on one side they are saying to some iwi leaders “OK we’ll try to find an opportunity for you to buy into the shares in this sell-off in this creation of a new economic cast of commercial mandarins within Maoridom.” That is the first message they are giving. The second message they are giving is that they did not know about the most signal elements of Maori jurisprudence—section 9 and the Lord Cooke pronouncements of the late 1980s—and they did not realise it was so important that it should have formed a key part of their negotiations as they scurried back to the leather seats of the chauffeur-driven cars in order to prop up this Government. That was the second thing. The third thing was that they have then turned round and quietly mentioned to a number of our leaders “We can’t actually do much. Can you take the issue to court? We can’t actually do much.”  
There are members in this House who never particularly got on with those four totara trees Sir Tipene O’Regan Matiu Rata Sir Graham Latimer and Sir Bob Mahuta. I will put my hand up for having the odd stoush with he of Irish extraction in the south. But I will tell you what: those totara trees were a massive contrast to these weak timid and ill-grown pieces of scrub we see representing our people in the Maori Party. If they have any integrity about the Treaty— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All members are honourable members. The member is actually making some assertions that could be interpreted as bringing disorder. I just caution the member to reflect on his language. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I was just showing my botanical prowess Mr Deputy Speaker. Coming from the north we know that tumatakuru and gorse do not generate wealth. There are very few totara trees and they are in slim—modest—supply here in the House. That is not to mention anything about the bulky puriri kauri or rimu trees on this side of the House. But that is another matter. Your admonition is taken on board Mr Deputy Speaker.  
I want to come back to the Maori Party. Part of the reason it was away yesterday is that its members are negotiating with Hone Harawira who announced the formation of a new entity: Mana-Maori. So just as John Key watched the unedifying spectacle of Don Brash trying to take over the ACT Party I fear that what we are going to see is a collision between Hone Harawira and the Maori Party before the Maori Party members as a consequence of betraying the people who sent them here on this issue of State-owned enterprise sales. You cannot say “We don’t agree with the State-owned enterprise sales but we expect to be a part of the Government that is going to gorge at the trough as a consequence of the proceeds that will come from this foul policy.” You cannot have it both ways.  
It could be that a number of Maori whanau look for some sort of remedy in Whanau Ora but you cannot say that you are entitled to run a Whanau Ora programme beyond the purview or scrutiny of this House. That is not how the system works. There have been a number of criticisms that perhaps a number of the Maori on this side of the House have been a tad too mute. Well we are now into a competitive struggle because with the arrival of the hammerhead shark from Ngati Wai obviously there is a big act to follow in that regard. But the man has laid down a kaupapa. If you are going to drive Maori development outcomes and you are going to rely on the budgetary allocation of money on a year-by-year basis unfortunately these sorts of challenges will come to pass. When Dr Cullen originally made those sorts of invitations for an explanation from Tariana Turia in 2009 she was protected. But this time there is no protection. So if we are going to run with these various policies—and elements of Whanau Ora have found some support from our side of the House. But once those challenges are made you cannot scurry from this place and not respond to them.  
I want to talk a little bit about Te Puni Kokiri. Te Puni Kokiri is a modest-sized organisation. It actually held a very important role with the ability to arotake—to audit—or to check on what other Government departments were doing in the pursuit of Maori outcomes. I think it is very disappointing that the regional managers are telling members of this House that they did not know they were about to be either extinct or liquidated prior to the arrival of the information into the media. That is the first thing.  
The second thing is: what is to happen with the functions—and a lot of them are very valuable functions—currently located in that institution as they are dissipated through other parts of the State? Those other organs of the State will themselves probably identify their Maori programmes as some of the first programmes that need to be shelved as they struggle to deal with the costs of running their department under this very odious approach that Bill English has taken. It is very bad news for a number of the people working in that particular area and it is an invitation for Dr Sharples who in certain aspects of Te Ao Maori is a peerless leader. But on this question it is not right for him to put Leith Comer up to face the political music. He is a paid civil servant. I do not remember Tau Henare putting up Ngatata Love although he had considerable bulk that Tau could have hidden behind had he chosen that course of action. I do not remember Luxton or those Ministers hiding behind Wira Gardiner—no sir. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That’s right. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: And I certainly do not recall Parekura Horomia inviting anyone to stand in front of him so that he could hide. Unfortunately that is a physical impossibility but that is a term of affection. The key point is that Leith Comer has to front and suffer the derogatory language from Hone Harawira—which unfortunately is his political dialect—as he calls him a variety of names. The target was Dr Sharples.  
Let us talk a little bit about this constitutional review. At a time when Maori boys are not being well trained far too many are going to jail and those who have got some money from the whanau are going to Australia and not finding jobs the focus of this man’s talk is the constitutional review. Now I do not want to deprecate the importance of language etc. but if you want language to survive use it at the kitchen table. If you want language to survive use it as an ordinary part of daily life. Do not use those projects to obfuscate the fact that very little if anything is happening to deal with the real tragedy facing our whanau and facing New Zealand: there are far too many brown young men ending up with a poor set of skills which is sending them only one way to Ngawha. And that is not for a hot bath; that is into hot water which scars them for the rest of their lives. Let us hear some plans; let us hear some commitment from our friends in the Maori Party to deal with that particular issue.  
It might be said that you should not raise these issues because you can end up either being negative or diminishing the status of Maori. The diminution is taking place and this diversion into a debate about a section regarding the Treaty overlooks the fact I say to our colleagues from the Maori Party that if there is no privatisation the issue does not arise. Find the courage and find the technique to stop the privatisation! The economic rationale has been laid out—by the co-leader of the Greens much to my disappointment but that is another matter—that there is no upside to the overarching structure of the Crown statements for the sale of these assets. We know that in the event that these assets do get sold—as we learnt in the Finance and Expenditure Committee; it took the Audit Office using an enormous amount of power to get Air New Zealand to come and front before that particular committee—once the 49 percent transfers to a host of Kiwi and possible foreign owners rest assured that control and influence will lie there and it is only one small step further along that inexorable slope towards full privatisation.  
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Come back!  
Hon SHANE JONES 
: He has no doubt gone back to Kawerau which actually means “to carry too many things at once”.  
This reflects the fact that this is an opportunity to have this policy stop. The key people who can prevent that sit over there. They will not do that because they mistakenly believe that there is a host of social concessions and a host of other cultural opportunities but I say that the real opportunity which is being overlooked is to grow the human capital. You can have a million Treaty reviews and you can have a million constitutional reviews—because you cannot change the constitution via fiat; you have to actually enable it to come as a consequence of organic change and of people being willing to focus on it because their other needs have been addressed. Like that famous Ngapuhi saying goes “Pluck the tender shoot of the flax bush and where will the bellbird call? It will say from the coast to the land the greatest gift of all is people is people …”—it is time for the Maori Party to remember people. Kia ora tatou.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Can I say happy New Year to all members and can I say to the Hon Shane Jones: awesome speech bro. It is a pity that that sort of speech was not around when he was a Minister—a pity that that speech was not around when Labour was in Government—but it was a good speech none the less apart from the last 2 minutes of drivel on State-owned enterprise sales.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You’re for it now are you?  
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You’re for sales now? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. Do you know why? Because we are in charge. I do not know where that member has been in the last 3 years and I do not want to know but the fact is that this is the first time that we have actually had a sale of State-owned enterprises in a way that we will keep ownership of 51 percent and 49 percent is sold to mums dads and whomever.  
Here is something else that has not been parroted about the State-owned enterprises sale: no one is going to be able to buy own or control more than 10 percent. Is that not a good thing? Is it not a great thing that we are still able to control 51 percent? Just imagine if we had been able to do that with Telecom. Just imagine if we had been able to do that with the New Zealand Railways Corporation. My old man would have still worked on the railways instead of being let go by none other than that lot over there.  
I do not bear any grudges but I tell you what: what can we look forward to in this term of the National Government? Well only one thing: back in black by 2014. At least that is our target and we will stick to that target. Issues that have to be dealt with along the way on that journey are these: the Treaty clause obviously; the State-owned enterprises; mining; and Waitangi Day our country’s birthday. If nobody was listening the other day I say happy birthday New Zealand. Not happy Waitangi Day but happy birthday. If those are the words we are looking for then I implore people in this House to next Waitangi Day wake up and say happy birthday to our beloved country.  
I tell you what: this is the best country in the world and I ain’t going anywhere. Some of us will be going somewhere to look for better opportunities offshore. But here is the thing. The Opposition loves to say that our people are going off to Australia where there are better opportunities. Well here is something to realise: the Australian mining industry is a $400 billion industry. Why do you think—sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. Why do people think that our young people go to Australia? It is because there are jobs there. All of those people in this House and outside it who protest against drilling mining and creating opportunities are the reason—they are the reason—why our young people are going overseas. They do nothing to employ those young people and employment opportunities in the Public Service are not going to get us out of the situation that we are in.  
I understand the Greens’ position in terms of the environment—absolutely—and I believe that we should do everything in our power to keep New Zealand green and pure but also I have to say this: you are dealing with between 16 and 20 percent of the population who just happen to be the indigenous population of this country. Those people are looking for a job and an opportunity. I can guarantee that there would be those people up and down the East Coast and people in the north—two zones I think we should actually call “special economic zones” where we should do our utmost to help those people. So I believe that we do need to have a look at what is under the ground and I believe that we do need to drill. I think we do need to do all of those things to make sure that our— 
Grant Robertson 
: Schedule 4? Schedule 4 lands? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: You know schedule 4 is not the whole of the country OK?  
Grant Robertson 
: Are you ruling that out? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I do not rule anything out. Hell I am not even in Cabinet mate; I am on the backbench. I cannot rule anything in or out these days.  
But I tell you what: the other thing that I want to talk about is foreign investment. I tell you that for a small country of only 4 million people we need foreign investment. We need everybody around the world investing in our country investing in our young people and investing in the two zones that I have spoken about. Now I would love for Heinz to come to the north. I would love it because that would offer some of our people some jobs. I know that the north is the jewel in the crown of New Zealand. Well let us get in behind it. Let us make sure that we open up opportunities for our young people and their families.  
Catherine Delahunty 
: Go to Otorohanga. They’ve sorted it out. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes absolutely—absolutely. There are schemes that abound around New Zealand that are good for people. But I have to say to those who protest against mining and protest against drilling and who turn up in their big four-wheel drives saying “No drilling!” and “No mining!”—and it is OK because they want to be able to use the resources of Australia Singapore and everywhere else except here—that I find that hypocritical just as I find hypocritical xenophobic and verging on racist the attitude towards the Crafar farms.  
Grant Robertson 
: From whom? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: From those who oppose the Crafar farms—those who oppose the sale of the Crafar farms. I am appalled but I also laugh at the same time at those same people who are saying “We don’t want the Chinese to buy.” That is what they are saying; that is what it comes down to. If it was an American or an Australian not a problem because we have been there we have done that we have bought the T-shirt and we sold the land for a golf course—we sold the land for this that and the other thing. But when the poor old Chinese person wants to buy it they say “Oh no we don’t want any part of it.” So look deep inside your hearts when you say you are against the sale of the Crafar farms and look also at whom you are supporting: the Michael Fays of this nation. 
Hon Members 
: Tuwharetoa. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right. No not that member. No not that member; those guys over there. I know how that member feels about Sir Michael Fay but let us not go back into history.  
We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity in this country to do good for our kids our grandchildren and the generations after.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In China. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Hang on. Let us not put too many roadblocks in front of them so that they cannot succeed where we should have been able to allow them to succeed. Mining is a good thing. Mining practices these days do not resemble anything of the past 30 40 or 50 years.  
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tell that to the West Coast. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: You know the West Coast wants jobs as well and if the member got off her backside had a look at the West Coast and went and asked all those unemployed people what they want would to do it would be this: “I want a job.”—“I want a job.” And do you know how to get the criminal statistics down? Give the person a job. That will sort them out.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and first of all may I greet you and say happy New Year and welcome back to that position in the Speaker’s Chair.  
The Prime Minister’s speech at the beginning of a parliamentary session should be visionary. It should provide leadership. It should provide the outline of a plan that will navigate this country through some of its most difficult years. And yet all of that was lacking in the speech that came from the Prime Minister late last year.  
Our economy has been downgraded twice under this Government’s watch. The Government’s own forecasts for our economic productivity have had to be downgraded. We have moved from 4 percent 8 months ago down to 3.5 percent and then down to 3 percent and I get the distinct impression that the Government is simply trying to make sure that the country is warmed up to the fact that there will be very little growth in the next 3 years under its stewardship. The Government’s projections are being downgraded by Treasury in the same way that our economy has been downgraded by international agencies under its watch.  
I want to address a couple of issues in particular that demonstrate some of the paucity of leadership that was shown in the Prime Minister’s speech. First of all we come to the vexed issue of the sale of State assets. This is the only plan that the Government would seem to have and it is one that most New Zealanders do not approve of. Regardless of the outcome of the election it is not inconsistent to say that although the Government won the number of seats it did and managed to cobble together a majority it did not win the hearts and minds of people over the issue of the sale of State assets. People oppose this. And why do they oppose it? It is not to do with xenophobia. It is not to do with some kind of racism which the National Government has latched on to in order to frighten people away from debating the issues of ownership and sovereignty in this country. We will not be deterred from talking about sovereignty in this country because Ministers opposite wish to blacken and besmirch the argument with accusations of racism which none of us of course wish to be tarred with because it is not true; we in this country are not racist by practice or racist by inclination.  
But there is no sense in what the Government is planning. The economic sense is not present. Why would we sell or partially sell State assets that over the last few years have been delivering double-digit—15 percent—dividends on average and use that kind of revenue to pay off debt? If we are going to pay off debt that comes in at around about 4.5 percent on average—4 percent generally for short-term loans and 6 percent for long-term loans—if we are going to sell assets that bring us dividends on average of 15 percent in order to offset debt that is costing us somewhere between 4 percent and 6 percent there is no sense. There is no superior economic acumen applying here and there is no plan for recovery in that proposition.  
The other thing that is important about this asset sales debate—which also goes to the question of the Crafar farms which is a different issue in that that is about private property—is the underlying theme that makes this a touchstone for New Zealanders. It is the underlying point around sovereignty around ownership around control of our own destiny and around owning our future. That is the fundamental point.  
Can I just say that this is an argument that is not isolated to New Zealand. It is not isolated to New Zealand. It is something that New Zealanders may feel more strongly about now than they did in the 1980s because we have seen the effects of the sale of assets and not liked them. We have also tuned in to international conversation about the sale of national assets—and the sale of land in particular—that is occurring in Argentina in Uruguay in Brazil in Hong Kong and clearly in Australia as well but in any number of places around the world as nations look to what they can retain control of in a world that is increasingly globalised.  
New Zealand is in a unique position because of the Treaty of Waitangi and this is something that makes our consideration of sovereignty even more pertinent than in other parts of the globe. We have a Treaty that has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance and we are in the process of righting those historical wrongs. So how is it that the Government can be so inept as to foreshadow the cancellation of section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act and the non-application of the Treaty to any private investor in State-owned enterprises on the eve of Waitangi Day? Either that is cynical in the extreme or malicious and wishing to stir up racial foment or it is inept. I do not wish to characterise this Government as malicious because that is dangerous territory. If we have a malicious Government then God help us all. So I will opt for the inept theory.  
It is completely inept that this Government should have ignored what happened in 1986—should not have learnt the lessons from Sir Graham Latimer and the Maori Council in taking the case against a Labour Government at the time which had not thought the issue through to the Privy Council for settlement. As a result of that one of the things that came out of it was the Crown Forestry Rental Trust so that the land could not be sold out from under the forests but the forests could be sold. The trees could be sold but not the land because the land and the ownership of it was still in dispute under the Treaty of Waitangi. What does this Government not understand about the last 26 years of history that made it provoke such outrage against the Government on the eve of Waitangi Day?  
The Government should be leading. The Government should be providing a vision for people that we are moving forward as a united country through difficult times to a place where there is more hope where there is the hope of jobs for young people and where there is a hope of family incomes that families can live on. The Government should be aspirational which was its code word 3 years ago. However it is nothing of the sort now. The Government should be leading it should be aspirational and it should be visionary. The pity of it is that this Government is none of those. 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this debate and start by just reflecting on the economic illiteracy of the Opposition particularly in that last speech by the Hon Maryan Street. I do not say “economic illiteracy” lightly because what we see again and again and again from the Opposition is a tactic of trying to confuse people around the sale of State-owned assets and particularly the return of dividends from energy companies.  
So let us reflect on that for a minute because what the Opposition wants us to do is to treat as the same—to put into the same barrel—income earned with revenue from the sale of power less expenses being that income and the sale of a large asset which was Southern Hydro; a capital sale. The Opposition wants the public to believe that the sale of an asset Southern Hydro when added to the genuine profit of those companies year on year is what now reflects the dividend and that that is providing a 15 percent return.  
Well that shows exactly the economic illiteracy that we are talking about. They are two totally different returns and if that side of the House wants to include capital sales into the dividend stream well you know that shows exactly the economic illiteracy that we are talking about. It shows exactly why the New Zealand public voted National into Government and made it very clear that they did not trust the Labour Party to be the governors of this country to be in the legislative seat of this country for the next 3 years.  
So I suggest that if you are going to have a debate about State-owned assets fair enough. There are no problems with that. We certainly had that in Hawke’s Bay loud and clear. However make sure you tell the public the facts and make sure you are clear about that because I believe that the scaremongering and the way you have approached your politics over the last 3 6 9 12 years is one of the key reasons you find yourself in that position now.  
Mr Deputy Speaker congratulations on your elevation to the role of Deputy Speaker; well done. It is a real privilege to be elected as a member of Parliament in this Government and to have been elected on the platform that John Key laid out clearly throughout the election process well in advance of the election. To say that we do not have a mandate for State-owned assets is frankly absolute rubbish. That platform was laid out a year before we went to the polls—a year before we went to the polls.  
There were four key platforms that we stood on: responsibly managing the Government’s finances building a more competitive and productive economy delivering better public services and of course one of the key priorities is rebuilding that beautiful city of Christchurch. These are messages that resonated strongly in my electorate.  
I spent my campaign doing 30 jobs in 30 days. Throughout the period of the last 30 days of the campaign I spent that time working out there in businesses for at least a morning every day. I got to meet all manner of people many of whom were working in low-paid and low-skilled jobs. It was a fascinating experience to spend time with those 30 businesses. I want to thank the people whom I had the opportunity to work with and I reflect on companies like East Coast Lumber in Wairoa. I worked on the chain at AFFCO— 
Hon Craig Foss 
: The pie shop. 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: —and in the pie shop in Maraenui. I worked with the wonderful owners of that shop and talked to their customers about the future of New Zealand and of Napier and the Hawke’s Bay. It was an absolutely wonderful opportunity.  
I am proud to be returned to Parliament—it is an absolute privilege—and to see National lift its party vote majority in Napier to nearly 7000. In saying that I do want to acknowledge my opposition in Napier Mr Stuart Nash. He fought a hard campaign and I want to acknowledge that. It is a shame and unbelievably politically illiterate that Mr Nash now does not find himself on the Opposition benches of that party over there. It is a privilege to be back in Parliament and I am honoured to have the opportunity to become a Minister in this Parliament.  
I want to acknowledge the whips though. It is a role that I was involved with for about 4 or 5 years. I say to Michael Woodhouse and Louise Upston that it is a big job taking on that role of half sergeant major half pastor of the local church; get into it go hard. I also want to acknowledge Rick Barker for his efforts and also—not many have acknowledged him—Darren Hughes who left this Parliament in the last term. I thought he was an outstanding parliamentarian and he certainly did an excellent job in that whip’s role.  
Hon Craig Foss 
: Easy chief. 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes he is going “Easy chief” but I did want to acknowledge that.  
With my new ministries they present a wonderful challenge and I am looking forward to that. In fact when I received the warrant as a new Minister I almost had a baptism of water. Coming in on the Wednesday it rained down in Nelson on the Wednesday night and Thursday and I found myself in my civil defence role down in Nelson. I want to acknowledge the fantastic job that civil defence did in that flood. Certainly the mayors down there Aldo Miccio and Richard Kempthorne led the community exceptionally well and Jim Frater who was the controller in Nelson during that flood event did a superb job. I think that the community of Nelson should be proud of the efforts of civil defence in response to the flood and the recovery efforts thereafter.  
Shortly after that obviously we had the 23 December earthquakes in Christchurch. Again I went straight down to Christchurch to be involved with the recovery there and to spend a day with people in the community.  
To demonstrate that it was a baptism of water one of my new roles is also within transport and we had the event in Tauranga with the  
Rena 
 coming apart so I found myself up in Tauranga having a look at the recovery response of Maritime New Zealand.  
Michael Woodhouse 
: More than looking. The Minister had his sleeves rolled up. 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes. Once again I just want to acknowledge the efforts that are going on in Tauranga to make sure that the recovery process works exceptionally well. Over half the number of containers have now been removed from the ship. It is an extremely trying situation that the salvors are working in and I think they are doing an absolutely fantastic job to get us to where we have got to today.  
In terms of the two key portfolios civil defence and consumer affairs they are going to play a small but key part in taking the Government’s agenda forward. I want to reflect on those in the last few minutes that I have in my speech this afternoon. In terms of civil defence the key opportunities there are to learn from Christchurch and there are a range of reviews which are being undertaken as I speak to consider how civil defence responded to the events in Christchurch—the two key earthquake events—and how we worked there. In doing that we will reflect on a review of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Plan and look at whether we could have had a better recovery framework which could replace the likes of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in future events.  
The other thing we will be focusing on over the next few years is that we have 16 civil defence regions around the country. A capability assessment was done of those in the last couple of years and there was significant variability amongst those regions. I want to make sure that the capability in all of the regions is at a level where the civil defence authorities in each of the regions can adequately come up to the task in a significant event.  
In consumer affairs we have a range of activities going on which I am looking forward to playing a key part in. The Consumer Law Reform Bill has been on the Order Paper since last year—I acknowledge John Boscawen and Heather Roy who played parts in bringing this bill to the Table—and we will be focusing on bringing that law through. That is the 20 years’ law which it will be important to change and bring forward for the country.  
I also want to focus on some legislation that Sam Lotu-Iiga has been working hard on and actually Carol Beaumont on the other side of the House too and that is the focus on third-tier lending and the credit law reform. We are in the process of drafting legislation around that as I speak. I am hopeful that that will be available for consideration at the end of February or early March and then I am going to make sure that it is well considered before we get it into the House for review. If there is any borrowing community out there that needs more protection it is the Pacific Island Maori and Pakeha community who depend sometimes on those third-tier lenders. We want to make sure that there are checks and balances in place to ensure that borrowers are well protected.  
This Government has a big plan a huge economic agenda and 120 points that we aim to get into place over the next 3 years. I am excited about the future of this Government and where we are taking this country. My 30 jobs in 30 days period working through the election got me close to people who supported this Government. I am proud of what we are doing and I am looking forward to the next 3 years. Thank you. 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
:  
I te taha o taku matua ko  
Bolton 
 raua ko  
Birman 
 aku waka. I te taha o taku whaea ko  
Takitimu 
 te waka o tana whanau whangai. Ko Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara te maunga ko Waingongoro te awa ko Waimarama te marae ko Taupunga te whare ko Ngati Kahungunu ki Heretaunga te iwi. Ko Ngati Whakaiti raua ko Ngati Kautere nga hapu. Ko Tiakitai te tangata ko Mohi te whanau. Ko Anne Williams raua ko Burnett Martin aku matua. Ko Tracey Anne Martin taku ingoa. 
He mihi atu ki nga atua i hanga i nga mea katoa. He mihi atu ki te whaea o te ao ko Papatuanuku e takoto ana ki waho. He mihi atu ki tenei Whare. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. E tu ana ahau i raro i te korowai o o tatou tupuna. 
[ 
On my father’s side  
Bolton 
 and  
Birman 
 are my ships. On my mother’s side the  
Takitimu 
 canoe is her adopted family’s canoe. Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara is the mountain Waingongoro is the river Waimarama is the courtyard Taupunga is the house Ngati Kahungunu of Hastings is the tribe and the subtribes are Ngati Whakaiti and Ngati Kautere. Tiakitai is the man and Mohi is the family. Anne Williams and Burnett Martin are my parents and Tracey Anne Martin is my name. 
I acknowledge the gods who created everything mother Earth Papatuanuku lying out there and this House. Greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. I stand beneath the cloak of our ancestors. 
] 
Mr Speaker firstly can I congratulate you on your reappointment to the Speaker’s Chair. And I will take this moment to acknowledge this House and to recognise its importance as a Whare where vital discussions are held and binding decisions are made but recognise also that those gathered within it are no more important than the people who placed us here and that all of us collectively are here to represent the people of New Zealand.  
I will take a moment to pause and to thank the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who through their votes requested that New Zealand First once again stand in this House to speak on their behalf. I will take a moment to thank the thousands of party members who never gave up and who provided in the final days of our election campaign the volunteer assistance that was forthcoming from every corner of the nation. My thanks go to those who gathered in February 2009 and made the commitment to keep New Zealand First alive and viable. Their efforts since that time have been unsung and unpaid and we owe them a debt of great thanks.  
I will take a moment to acknowledge the leadership of our rangatira the Rt Hon Winston Peters whose spirit and commitment to the principles of New Zealand First have led us out of the wilderness and back into Parliament.  
I will also take a moment to personally acknowledge the support of my family friends and community from those on parent teacher associations and school boards to kapahaka Te Whanau O Mahurangi and my respected colleagues and staff from the Rodney Local Board of Auckland Council.  
As a sixth-generation New Zealander my Pakeha ancestors arrived on the  
Bolton 
 and the  
Birman 
 in 1840 and 1842 respectively. You could say that I am returning to my roots with the Tonks family having built and operated one of the first brick factories flour mills tram tracks and blacksmiths shops in Poneke now known as Wellington. Not far from where we sit is the newly restored Tonks Grove with cottages originally built by William Tonks for his employees. Even then we believed in good-quality affordable housing.  
My maternal grandfather and his second wife Maude Mohi have provided me with the gift of blood ties to Ngati Kahungunu of Taupunga marae at Waimarama in Heretaunga. My brother-in-law and nieces and nephew proudly connect me to the New Zealand Chinese community a community whose historical contribution to the building of our nation is under-represented in the pages of our history books. As a wood dragon baby of 1964 beginning my term in Parliament in a water dragon year augers well. I like to think that in this sink or swim environment this combination gives me a floating edge. Ji xiang ru yi. Gong xi fa cai. 
The birthplaces of my mother and husband connect me to the mainland of New Zealand and through another brother-in-law our links stretch out into the Cook Islands. Kia orana tatou katoatoai teia ra. 
Like many New Zealanders our family has a proud history of giving service to this nation with specific mentions of my late grandfathers Lieutenant Kenneth Martin and his pivotal role at the Featherston prisoner of war camp during World War II before during and after the Featherston riot and warrant officer James Williams who saw service in the Egyptian desert and Italy as a New Zealand engineer with the 2nd New Zealand Division. 
 But although I acknowledge being a beneficiary of others’ efforts and struggles for me it has been the actions of strong determined women that cleared the path down which I walk—women from New Zealand’s past such as Kate Sheppard and Fran Collett of the press gallery and strong determined women from my family’s past: Martha Anson Mariah Swaddell Mary Martin Beverley Williams and Maude Mohi. The last few metres of this particular path have been carved by Anne Martin continuing that line of women with character strength and quiet wisdom—a woman to whom both I and New Zealand First owe a great debt. Neither of us would be here without her and we continue to value her commitment contribution and support.  
However while recognising those that made this journey possible it would be remiss if I did not acknowledge two men—at least—who are in very different ways also instrumental: firstly my late father who held very strong views on many topics and not unlike his daughter expressed them often but he also instilled a sense of personal truth and loyalty along with a resilience of character; and secondly my husband. It takes a very brave man to live with a very strong woman. As I have explained often in recent days I am merely part of a team—at home as well as here in Parliament—and there is no one’s opinion I trust or value more than my husband’s. I like to think it was good planning and exceptionally good taste that landed me such a man but whatever it was I am extremely grateful.  
To my children—each committee I joined while supporting your growth and education built on my abilities and helped me gain the confidence required to live by the motto of Mahurangi College: Mahuhu ki te Rangi reach for the heavens. From the playcentre and kindergarten committees Warkworth School parent teacher association and board of trustees and Mahurangi College board of trustees to kapahaka and Te Whanau O Mahurangi—they all gave me the courage to put my hand up for a bigger stage. So thank you my children for having the good grace to let your mum be all those things without being so embarrassed you asked her to stop.  
For the first 15 of the last 17 years I was a stay-at-home mother. It was not until my election to the Rodney Local Board of Auckland Council that I re-entered the paid workforce proper since leaving credit control to raise our family. But those who know me are aware that very little of this time was spent watching  
The Oprah Winfrey Show 
 or attending coffee mornings—these are somewhat of an urban myth to the women I have had the great pleasure to work alongside. To those women—the women who are the backbone of our communities who do for their communities as they do for their families while many of them also hold down part-time or full-time employment—please know that you continue to amaze and inspire me. So when a reporter asks me how I am going to manage my workload with family and housework I shake my head in disbelief and a small amount of amusement because ladies it would appear that they still have no idea what we do on a daily basis. It puts me in mind of the movie  
Made in Dagenham 
. The central character Rita O’Grady is asked by a member of the press “How will you cope?”. “Cope?” she responds “We’re women. Now stop asking such stupid questions.”  
So to the real question of the moment: what does a wife mother credit controller community worker volunteer member of the National Council of Women local government official and list member of Parliament sitting on the Opposition benches do? Well here is a definition that I believe sums it up: “The opposition which consists of all parties not in government has the role of holding the government to account. The opposition usually opposes the government’s policies questions its actions draws attention to issues promotes alternative policies and debates proposed legislation.”  
The Opposition is responsible for challenging the policies of the Government. So that is my job: to challenge question draw attention to issues debate and propose alternatives. Sometimes that might mean a challenge to individual members such as the elected members for Helensville and Northland. It might be a challenge to work with those communities and elected local government representatives to address the high social deprivation scores of seven and eight in those electorates; to implement solutions to the lack of alternative education access to tertiary or trade education and high youth unemployment these communities suffer; and to help those business communities push forward and gain recognition as satellite and regeneration towns so they can encourage greater economic development and through that employment.  
Or it might be to challenge the elected member for Rodney to remember his verbalised support for the projects of Penlink and the Puhoi to Wellsford highway with full retention of access at Puhoi; to remember north Rodney and that it was a National-led Government that took it into the amalgamation of Auckland with relatively no consultation; and to recognise with the intended economies of scale that are being pursued with some vigour that these communities and businesses find themselves being starved of tender opportunities and economic development incentives. These communities and businesses are under stress; they require that member’s attention and his commitment to truly understand and assist in the solutions to these issues.  
Or it might be to challenge this Parliament to recognise that we have done it all before: we have seen asset sales we have seen a youth wage and we have seen a test-driven education system. Look back—many in this House were here the last time these were tried. They did not work then and they will not work now. The challenge is to have greater vision and to work to a 100-year view rather than knee-jerk reactions.  
I draw the attention of the House to the message of Corinthians 13 verse 11: “When I was a child I talked like a child; I thought like a child I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult I put childish ways behind me.” These are not the times for political games. These are not the times to allow our egos to get in the way of positive solutions that will benefit our people. These are not the times to say “I won’t work with that person or this person.” because we do not like their personal style. These are the times to act like grown-ups and put away childish things because we have all been placed here to represent our people the citizens of New Zealand—not the citizens of Europe or Australia or China or America or any other country that comes a knocking. Our job is to represent New Zealanders first to get the best deal for New Zealanders first and to put the interests and well-being of New Zealanders first.  
But as I close I also challenge myself. There is another saying that goes “If you have not done enough to be criticised then you have not done enough.” My personal challenge is that by the time I leave this House I hope to be highly criticised. 
Apiti hono tatai hono te hunga mate ki te hunga mate; te hunga ora ki te hunga ora. Tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Join and link the descent lines with the dead to the dead and the living to the living. Salutations and greetings to each of you collectively and to us all. 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members before I call the next member I must say I feel I have been remiss twice. I should have made clear to any viewers and listeners that we are embarking on a set of maiden speeches and that they are of some real significance. Secondly I apologise to the member who has just completed her speech that nor did I ring the 5-minute bell which I will do to let members know that when they hear the bell they have got another 5 minutes—it is not that they should finish then. But I congratulate Tracey Martin that she did not go over time at all despite my having failed to ring the bell.  
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker honourable members fellow New Zealanders: kia ora. It is a great honour to be here in the New Zealand Parliament our nation’s House of Representatives as a New Zealand First member of Parliament. It is no wonder that the Beatles song “The Long and Winding Road” is one of my favourite tunes.  
As a fifth-generation proud New Zealander the journey however spans more than just my lifetime going back to the pioneering days of the 1830s and 1840s when the likes of the Welsh Captain John Williams skippered an early vessel to this country when Robert Williams arrived and was the first doctor and coroner in Otago and when the Forbes the Stewarts and the Fairbairns journeyed from Scotland to a new land of opportunity. Those family names live on with my third name Forbes and my children’s third names all still honour the Forbes and Fairbairn names. I also honour family members who fell in both World War I and World War II to uphold New Zealand’s democratic principles and those of the Commonwealth. 
 Growing up in a family of five in the country town of Waipukurau in Central Hawke’s Bay I have very fond memories of endless hot summers—oh we all have endless memories of hot summers; I wish we had them again—riding on our bikes everywhere along those hot tar roads swimming in the holes in the river or at the baths and having competitions to see how many times we could peel over the summer and listening late at night on a walkie-talkie to Radio Hauraki out there on pirate ship  
Tiri 
 on the late-night airwaves.  
Our family had a strong community focus with my father Bruce a stock and station agent in Waipukurau alongside my mother June; they both worked at Wrightson’s. Both followed the footsteps of our forebears with Dad serving on the  
Achilles 
 in the Pacific during the war and Mum a wartime farm girl—she and her sister taking care of their parents’ farm at Wyndham.  
Those were the days when the New Zealand economy was in boom times. Dad would be down at the saleyards as an auctioneer and they would put through 60000 ewes at the Waipukurau ewe fair. Stock trucks lined up for miles coming into town. Our parents organised the local A and P show the largest 1-day show in New Zealand while Dad was a trustee of the Pukeora home for the disabled and served for many years as a borough councillor. He very proudly used to tell me how Waipukurau was the first town in New Zealand to have a concrete footpath on every street.  
In those days New Zealand was No. 2 in the OECD surpassed only by the United States of America. The New Zealand dollar was worth more than the US dollar. Everything we could produce was shipped over to mother England. Full employment and job security was expected by all as was a good free education free health care and social security.  
But the New Zealand bubble was about to burst. New Zealand became embroiled in the Viet Nam War and with the introduction of television we had war in our living rooms for the first time. Very sadly in 1969 my brother Jack was killed in action in Viet Nam fighting with the New Zealand Army on those shores. He was one of the 37 young soldiers who gave their lives for this country. I am very proud to be in this corner of the House where the Viet Nam crest is on the wall; I was here in Parliament in 2008 when Prime Minister Helen Clark delivered the formal apology from the New Zealand Government to the Viet Nam vets for the terrible way they were treated.  
We as a family never got over that tragic loss. In 1971 we visited Terendak Camp in Malaysia where Jack is buried and we were very proud to be there to see his grave. Flying back on the Air New Zealand DC8 from Singapore I can recall as a teenager the pride I also had in our national airline Air New Zealand. Our airline—part of my heritage. At the time New Zealand had an army battalion based in Singapore and we gave support in many ways to Singapore. Who would think that now 40 years on when we see where Singapore has gone compared with this country?  
Having been in debating clubs at my prep school St Peter’s in Cambridge and then at Central Hawke’s Bay College my journey was to have been in the field of law; I always wanted to be a lawyer. I recall visiting the Auckland District Court and seeing a lawyer in full flight—his booming voice totally dominating the courtroom his huge physical presence. Even the judge was mesmerised. That of course was David Lange before he entered politics. “Oh to be a lawyer like him” I thought.  
But as fate would have it a six-pack of Hutton’s sausages was to change all that while I was attending a barbecue on the North Shore with the uncle of two Hawke’s Bay friends. That was the late Ross Finlayson a pioneer in the meat industry with sales to Russia and the Middle East. He wanted a young export trainee and offered me the job because I brought along the Hutton’s sausages to a big meat exporters’ barbecue. What a choice: be a poor law student at university or travel the world with a credit card and have an exciting life seeing exotic places. So by the age of 20 I was going to amazing places like Saudi Arabia Kuwait and Oman and travelling throughout Asia.  
However New Zealand’s bubble was about to burst with Britain joining the EEC. No longer could we rely on the huge UK market so exporters pounded the pavements in exotic new markets trying to diversify hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sheep meats. My journey on the long and winding road moved into farmed venison for Wrightson’s taking this wonderful low-fat meat to Japan Asia the United States Canada and Europe and then managing its perishable airfreight and shipping side for Challenge Freight Services part of Fletcher Challenge.  
In those days The Terrace as we all know—The Terrace in Wellington—was the commercial hub of corporate New Zealand with head offices for Fletcher Challenge Crown Corporation Dalgety’s Brierley’s and many other famous New Zealand company names. The Think Big projects saw the likes of the Clyde Dam being built the methanol plant being built in New Plymouth and our container ports being developed. New Zealand was really going places.  
However in less than a decade or so much of corporate New Zealand was totally transformed and carved up. Head offices moved from Wellington to Auckland or offshore. Corporates downsized or disappeared. The New Zealand Railways Corporation BNZ and Air New Zealand were sold out. What a mistake we would all come to regret!  
I then joined the Belgian trade service as trade commissioner here in New Zealand and I was also appointed honorary vice-consul. What an interesting 10 years involved with a dynamic European economy that was in the centre of the heart of Europe. It was historically important of course to New Zealand when you see the names of Passchendaele up on the wall here and when you see Messines on the wall over there. It was also economically important for the distribution of so many New Zealand products such as kiwifruit apples and meat—all entering the EU via Belgium.  
But somehow those 10 years were also disappointing to witness the comparison between the results of Belgium with its 11 million people and New Zealand with our 4 million people—its huge investment in education research and development technology science and innovation public transport city infrastructure and the list goes on. The gap widened between Belgium and New Zealand in the last decade and it was very very sad to see.  
This was one of the factors that inspired me to get more involved in local government—becoming a councillor a community board member and then the mayor of North Shore City—to try to bring some of that European flair and innovation to the Shore and to the Auckland region. My sincere thanks go to the council and staff of North Shore City during my 9 years of involvement with them. We achieved so much as New Zealand’s fourth largest city with cutting edge technology and innovative thinking leading the way in New Zealand. Our council was recognised both here and internationally.  
We put in place the first 15-year long-term council plan of any council in the country. We sorted out the 18-year-old Pak ’N Save supermarket wrangle on Wairau Road the Birkenhead library fiasco and the ever-looming risk of the commercial airport at Whenuapai Air Base. My thanks go to the Whenuapai Airbase Action Group which saved the North Shore from the environmental effects and safety risks of the commercial airport in its urban region. My thanks also go to the Long Bay - Okura Great Park Society and the Chelsea Estate Heritage Park society. In both cases we secured hundreds and hundreds of acres of land—pristine land and native bush—taken into public ownership for all time and for this and future generations to enjoy.  
So much was achieved in a short space of time only to have the rug pulled out from under us with the Auckland super-city. The 800-page royal commission report was tossed in the bin and replaced with a 34-page handout within 10 days of the commission reporting. The Shore is not the same today and is a shadow of its former self. It is a tragedy really that 230000 people have effectively been disenfranchised with corporate Auckland in the form of the council-controlled organisations now in control of the city. The North Shore sewage treatment plant worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars developed by the ratepayers over decades was given away for a peppercorn dollar or so—handed over to a board of directors. Gone are the annual arts competition the Wag ‘n Walk dog fundraiser and the Body Art Awards. The weeds are growing taller in our city as the honourable member Jonathan Coleman from Northcote will attest to as he was in the paper talking about it just a week or so ago. Services are declining and the rates and costs are going up. That was not the way we expected the North Shore to become; that was certainly not why I moved to the North Shore.  
But a mayor’s role is very much a 24/7 position—always on call and in demand. It must encompass the needs of all sections of the community. I would like to pay tribute to all mayors regional chairs councillors and community board members throughout the country. They do a fantastic job and deserve far more recognition for the important framework they provide throughout New Zealand. I look forward to working to assist local government through my appointment to the Local Government and Environment Committee.  
The principles of New Zealand First align with the social environmental and economic actions of a mayor—in line with the principles that the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the New Zealand First members have had all these years. I am very proud to be able to apply what I have learnt in local government to my role as a New Zealand First member of Parliament—factors such as the seniors who have greatly benefited from the SuperGold card with free off-peak travel; support for the Returned and Services’ Association with $1 million of funding going to it; introducing child visits for under-6s. My wife Jane a former Plunket nurse and now child health manager will attest to the importance of that. The disability support; the owning building and maintaining of community assets; and economic policies focused on export-led recoveries are all New Zealand First principles that we should all aspire to.  
My thanks in closing go to my wife Jane—we have been married now for 31 years—who stood by me through this lengthy journey. She was a great mayoress and will be by my side as a member of Parliament. Thanks too to my children—Sam Nicky and Bryony—who no doubt have had a very colourful father but one with the family and New Zealand’s interests always at heart. Thanks go to the New Zealand First supporters and all other supporters too who have supported me over the years. It has been wonderful to know that you are behind me.  
It has been a long and winding road but at the end of the day like the Williamses the Forbes the Fairbairns and the Stewarts who came to this land of opportunity our aim in this House must be to strive to make this a better place for us all. New Zealand must lift its act we must improve on the economic ladder and we must do the very best for our country and its people. The last six or seven generations deserve more from this current generation to ensure that we do not sell ourselves down the river and become tenants in our own land. There needs to be a fair go for all. 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker may I add my voice to those who have offered you their congratulations on your re-election. We are all of us here in New Zealand either migrants or the descendants of migrants. Some of us have been here longer than others but we all belong to this land and we all call it home. Many of our forebears arrived here by varied and circuitous routes. My own family story is one such tale. It is a tale largely of two grandfathers neither of whom I had the opportunity of knowing as well or for as long as I would have liked.  
My mother was born on 8 March 1940 in the city of Odense on the island of Funen in the kingdom of Denmark. My grandfather Hans Christian Hansen was born in Denmark in 1900 and spent his 20s and early 30s in America and Canada where he learnt to speak English. In the mid-1930s as the Great Depression swept through the United States Hans returned to his homeland where he married my grandmother and the couple soon had two children. Watching the rise of Nazi Germany through the 1930s my grandfather feared for the safety of his young family and when the Second World War began he resolved to take them away from the troubles of Europe and to a better life on the other side of the world.  
In February 1940 rumours were rife of the expected German invasion of Norway and Denmark. By 18 March when my mother was just 10 days old Hans could wait no longer. He took my grandmother with my mother as a babe in arms and her two older siblings to the local airfield from where the family flew to Germany. From there they took a train to Italy and in Genoa they boarded a ship that was bound for Australia. Barely 2 weeks after Hans and his family made their escape Germany closed its border with Denmark and 6 days later on 9 April the Germans invaded and Denmark was occupied.  
The Italian ship the  
Romolo 
 carrying my grandfather and his family docked in Brisbane at the beginning of June 1940 where the captain discovered that its sister ship the  
Remo 
 had been impounded in Fremantle as war between Australia and Italy was considered imminent. Knowing that his vessel was about to be seized the captain disembarked passengers then broke the moorings and headed back out to sea attempting to reach safety in Japan before war was declared. But when the  
Romolo 
 was intercepted by the Australian Navy a few days later the crew scuttled her along with everyone’s possessions that were still on board.  
My grandad applied to stay in Australia but the lucky country decided it did not want him. Australia at that time had no great tradition of migration from Scandinavia and the nervous wartime authorities there were distrusting of a would-be migrant from Europe who had a German-sounding name and who spoke unusually good English with a suspiciously American accent. Fortunately however New Zealand did have a tradition of Scandinavian migration and in July 1940 my mother’s family arrived in Auckland with little more than the clothes they were wearing on the Union Steam Ship Company’s freighter the  
Limerick 
 which was destined to be torpedoed by the Japanese in 1943.  
My grandfather was a carpenter and a builder by trade and a no-nonsense hard-working individual unused to asking for handouts. His first action on arriving in what would be his new home was to roll up his sleeves borrow a hammer and go to work. My grandmother spoke no English at all and so alone in a strange new land with three small children she learnt. Hans kept his American accent until he died in 1973 by which time he had become a proud New Zealander and with two sunken ships behind him he was not going anywhere else anyway. Never much concerned by rules and regulations he did not bother to obtain a driver’s licence until he was pulled over and asked to produce one by an Auckland City traffic officer in the early 1960s. Hans provided the officer with the only form of licence he had ever held. It was a permit to operate an automobile which he had purchased from Chicago City Hall for 50 cents in 1921. Hans who had never had an accident reasoned his licence had worked perfectly well all these years and he could not see the point of getting another one.  
My father was a somewhat later arrival stepping off the boat here in Wellington at the tender age of not quite 20 in 1956 having completed his service in the Royal Air Force. By coincidence my paternal grandfather was born in the same year and died in the same year as did his maternal counterpart. Stanley Prosser was too young for the First World War and too old for the second but he fought in them both anyway. In 1916 he lied about his age and joined the Pioneer Corps. After his demobilisation following the armistice he left his native Wales to seek his fortune in England. When war broke out again in 1939 Stan had become a successful drainlaying contractor and had the option of spending the war getting rich from emergency civil works contracts. Instead however my grandfather who regarded service to the nation as being nothing less than his sacred duty rejoined the army as an officer in the Royal Engineers. With his father in the army and his mother battling ill health my father David and his older brother were sent to boarding school. Stanley Prosser was a fine baritone and a good Welsh Baptist but although he was a lay preacher in his local church he was also a betting man who was fond of a flutter on the horses so he sent his boys to a Church of England school. Dad believes that was because he wanted to have a pound each way just in case God turned out to be an Anglican after all.  
In 1959 my grandfather followed his sons to a better life in New Zealand where he carried on laying drains and backing horses ending his days in Waihi in 1973. The values inherited from his father and the traditions of first the Haileybury and Imperial Service College and then the Royal Air Force instilled a profound sense of duty and discipline in my father qualities which I am proud to say he did his utmost to pass on to me and my two sisters. After Dad’s mother died when he was just 6 years old he was forced to make his own way in the world quite simply because there was not the option of doing otherwise. To this day battling his own demons in the form of Parkinson’s disease my father remains a thoroughly fair and decent man gentlemanly in his conduct reasoned and reasonable in his approach to all things and unafraid to stand up for what he believes to be right.  
It is this last conviction that provided the foundation for my own beginning of the journey into politics. My father worked tirelessly for many years to promote the cause of the political party and philosophy that he supported probably in truth in terms of time and effort to the detriment of his own business interests but he did it anyway because he thought it was the right thing to do. He and my mother lived a simple life putting their energies not into the pursuit of material wealth but rather into a quest for some greater reason and purpose to life for themselves and their children. Through organic gardening alternative therapies and a degree of self-sufficiency they sought to instil in us the value of self-reliance and of having an open and inquiring mind. It was an upbringing that encouraged curiosity learning and a thirst for knowledge. We did not have PlayStation games or shiny plastic toys or even television when I was a kid. We did have books and the experience of a different view of life and the insights provided by my parents’ many fascinating acquaintances. Above all they taught us the worth of forming our own opinions based on observation and verifiable fact to take good advice and learn from the experiences of others but also to have the courage of conviction and the strength of mind to have a voice and to make a stand when that is what is necessary and not to simply blindly follow the herd just because the herd is going in a particular direction. It is a philosophy that I have followed for most of my life and one that has often courted controversy recent events being no exception to that.  
In 2001 when the then Labour Government scrapped the combat wing of the Royal New Zealand Air Force like many observers I was concerned. To my mind that was an act that was deeply flawed on many fronts and it required a response. I was concerned that people in positions of high office and great responsibility could make such decisions that in my estimation and that of others flew in the face of both military reality and the lessons of history. I was very concerned that both the counsel of expert advisers and the overwhelming weight of public opinion could be disregarded in what appeared to be a somewhat cavalier fashion. And I was deeply concerned that the decision could be justified to the public without adequate media scrutiny or the option of recourse to statutory investigation by claims of fact and statements of account that in my view were and remain to this day entirely questionable.  
That action was the turning point that persuaded me that I needed to become involved in the political process and that it was no longer an option to simply be an observer. I was convinced by that event that certain aspects of the New Zealand political system needed to be changed. It was the beginning of a road that has culminated in my presence in this esteemed House which is in itself I believe the beginning of yet another road. It is not enough that 11 years after the fact the folly of the aforementioned disbandment of the combat wing still requires to be corrected. The Government still needs to realise and accept that the adequate defence of the nation is its first responsibility.  
It is my belief that members of this House do have sufficient courage to be accountable for the decisions we make on behalf of the nation and its people not just once every 3 years at election time but every day in between. And if we are true to ourselves and to the principles of democracy we should not fear the voters being allowed to exercise a continuous right of recall. Equally I hope the day will come when members from all parties enjoy the freedom to follow the mood and instruction of the electorate as members of the New Zealand First Party do in supporting policies that reflect the clearly expressed will of the people.  
It is my belief that members have a responsibility to speak up and speak out when they know that their concerns are shared by the voters whom they represent. It is of paramount importance in my opinion that the presently unchecked authority of the executive be made accountable to the electorate through the mechanism of binding citizens initiated referenda which I am proud to say has been the policy of the New Zealand First Party since its creation 18 years ago and is the desire of our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters who might I say stands as an inspiration to us all.  
The achievement of these goals will not be accomplished quickly or without effort for the wheels of change grind uncommon slow and there is much work to be done. I intend to throw myself into that task and to that end I bought myself a new pair of boots to go with my new suit. They are a bit more flash than the ones I am used to but they are work boots none the less. Every morning over the next 3 years and beyond should the people choose to extend my contract I will have a constant reminder of what I am coming here to do and who I am coming here to do it for.  
As I pull on my boots for work as I have done almost every morning for the past 27 years I know that all over New Zealand hundreds of thousands of my countrymen and women are doing the same thing. They may be engaged in industries that I myself have experienced or in those in which I have not had that honour. They may be truck drivers tractor drivers or orchard workers. They might be farmers soldiers police officers or forestry workers. They could be employed in workshops machine shops warehouses or on production lines or in wineries cool-stores and fishing boats and they could be wearing steel boots spike-soled boots tramping boots or gumboots. But whoever and wherever they are they need to know that here in this House honourable members are also working together and in the best interests of those workers.  
I feel enormously privileged to be allowed the honour of serving in this House and that the first-generation New Zealand - born son of migrants one half of them penniless refugees from a war-torn continent can grow up to become a member of the House of Representatives of the people. That is not something that can happen in many countries of the world and I make no apology for proclaiming that I believe this one to be the best of them all. I have come here to advance the progress of democracy to enhance the security and sovereignty of New Zealand in every sense including military and economic and to improve the lot of my fellow man such that I may make my country and the world a better place for my children and grandchildren in the safe and healthy environment of a clean secure and wealthy nation. I look forward to working with all members of this House towards what I am sure is that common goal. I am convinced that we all share in the desire and intention to build a better world and a better New Zealand.  
I would like to pay tribute to my partner Mel the great woman who stands behind and beside me—no doubt rolling her eyes—who is stuck on the other side of the world in the United Kingdom where I spent the summer adjournment waiting for the arrival of our second daughter who was meant to arrive early and is now officially late. It is for them and for all the families in New Zealand who call this wonderful country home that I am driven to make this effort.  
Mr Speaker may I end as I began by congratulating you on your re-election to office. It is with sincerity that I say that in my estimation you have restored a dignity to the role and through it a sense of decorum to this House that I have not otherwise witnessed throughout all the years of my lifetime that I have observed this noble institution from the outside. If I may similarly endeavour to advance the better functioning of our parliamentary democracy by working in the best interests of this House the people and the nation through all the days I am given here then I will consider that I have made a worthy contribution to our country and its future. Thank you. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Tena ano tatau i huihui mai i runga i te ahuatanga o tenei ra ko te kaupapa ko taku whaikorero tuatahi i roto i tenei Whare o nga raiona e tu ake nei. E mihi ana ki a ratou ma kua ngaro ki te po haere haere haere atu ra. Tatou nga kanohi ora huri noa i to tatou Whare tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker and greetings once again to us gathered here today in respect to my maiden speech in this the House of the lions standing before us. I honour those who have passed away; to them I say farewell journey on goodbye. To us the living ones throughout our House greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all. 
] 
Ko Pirongia te maunga. The mountain of my Maori ancestors is Mount Pirongia. Ko Waipa te awa. The blood and bones and therefore the spirit or wairua of my ancestors starts in the Waipa River. Ko  
Tainui 
 te waka. The canoe of my people is  
Tainui 
 of which Hoturoa was captain. Ko Ngati Maniapoto te iwi. My iwi is Ngati Maniapoto. Ko Ngati Hikairoa te hapu. Ko Purekireki te marae. On my European side I am descended from Orm a Viking. On his way to Britain he lost his leg in battle but had the presence of mind to save it keep it with him as no warrior could enter Valhalla unwhole. When close to land he threw his leg on to the shore and thus by Viking law claimed that area. That is why the Ormsby coat of arms proudly displays a severed leg and the motto “He is brave who is prudent”.  
As I child I nearly did not make it. At 2 years old I was hospitalised for 7 months in Waikato Hospital. My parents lived in Whakatane a 6-hour drive in those days over the then unsealed Kaimai Ranges. I flatlined three times and had the sacrament of extreme unction administered. So I will always have immense respect and appreciation for nurses doctors and caregivers—and priests. I would like to acknowledge my mother who cannot be here because of ill health but without her love and support I would not be here today. Growing up in Whakatane I was blessed with great friends and together we fished surfed played sport and learned to live with and nurture the land that supported us. Because amenities were affordable we regularly visited the local swimming pool and developed civic pride. Entry cost only 20c—the price of a Jelly Tip. Compare that with my local council swimming pool Baywave in Tauranga where entry and hydro-slides cost $8 for local children. It is no wonder that children struggle to swim and one of my goals is to have gold-coin entry to all swimming pools for all New Zealand schoolchildren.  
But I digress. Back to my childhood and Whakatane when we were also blessed with great male role models men like Mike Beeching George Ferguson Bruce Scott Co Baart and Monty McGoughan. They taught us to swim to surf to fish to connect with the land and to fiercely compete in sport arming us with the confidence to back ourselves and a solid work ethic and they taught us the value of having perfect basics in our sporting disciplines. Many young men and women from Whakatane have represented New Zealand in sport and travelled the world as I have done thanks to men like this. I would also like to acknowledge their wives as behind every great man there is usually a better woman in those times telling him what to do and feeding him and in those days me too. So for me childhood was a golden time. I could have become another statistic: a child from a broken home in an era when single-parent families were rare. But thanks to men and women with the heart and courage to care for all of the children in their community I am the man I am today because to them community mattered.  
I know that a maiden speech is not supposed to mention anything too controversial but there are things that are happening in our country now that are so wrong and I cannot countenance a philosophy of silence. “Evil thrives when good men and women stand by and do nothing.” So I ask now how can New Zealand have the highest child brutality and murder rate in the OECD? How can this possibly be New Zealand when we start the year with a baby murdered in a small town a 16-year-old boy assaulting and raping a 5-year-old girl and a young father being stabbed to death whilst sitting in his car waiting for a medical prescription? The foul stench of these crimes lingers over our entire nation but in particular those of us in Parliament as it has happened on our watch. This is not the New Zealand that I grew up in. This is not the New Zealand I wish to bequeath to my children. The protection and safety of all New Zealand children must be paramount. We are all aware of the need and decisive action must be taken. If we have to step on a few toes and offend the politically correct then so be it. The next New Zealand child to be murdered will leave blood on all of our hands if we fail to act.  
Ko Brendan taku ingoa—my name is Brendan and I stand before you today in this House a product of my ancestors respectful of all they have achieved and mindful of the new paths that I must forge to honour them. I am a proud representative of the New Zealand First Party but am humbled by the support and hard work of the many people who sacrificed hours of time and effort to see New Zealand First back in Parliament. I would therefore like to thank everyone who voted for New Zealand First: the parents who remembered New Zealand First securing free medical care for children under 6; a policy protecting children and saving lives. I would like to thank the small-business owners who remembered when New Zealand First lowered business tax from 33 percent to 30 percent. I would like to thank the many Maori who voted for New Zealand First conscious of the many settlements and concessions that New Zealand First and Winston Peters have secured over the years. And let me not forget the SuperGold cardholders who possess tangible evidence of a party that serves New Zealanders some of whom voted accordingly. To those New Zealanders who had that brilliant epiphany on election day and smile when they think of New Zealand First back in Parliament thank you.  
We are a growing party strong in our beliefs and to all 147544 people who entrusted us with their votes we will represent the beliefs that we hold as vital to the prosperous future of our nation. Beliefs that are the founding principles of our party: to put New Zealand and New Zealanders first and to have an open accountable Government. We believe in one law for all New Zealanders regardless of race age or colour and a country that belongs to all New Zealanders not foreign boardrooms whose only interest is a quarterly financial statement. I believe in wealth creation; wealth creation through a sound and practical long-term economic plan with short-term key performance indicators to make sure we are on track. The New Zealand First economic plan will operate in the absence of secrecy.  
These beliefs are not new to New Zealanders. In fact here is a quote from one of the great former leaders of our country: “… I believe in New Zealanders owning their own industry all industry wherever practicable … This country is growing up and I want to see it owned and controlled by New Zealanders in every possible sphere. … There is of course also an economic reason—the bleeding away of overseas funds and the paying of tribute to people overseas … I for one want to see New Zealand mature to grow up in its own sense have its own soul develop its own character and have control of its own destiny in all spheres of economy. … This is my simple faith.”  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who said that? 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: That was said by none other than former National Party leader and Prime Minister Sir Keith Holyoake. What would he think of our country today? How will history view us in 20 years’ time?  
I live in Tauranga—well actually my family live there and I am now bi-regional by vocation. On top of the many challenges that we face in New Zealand Tauranga has the added burden of the  
Rena 
 and its effect not only on our environment but also the economic damage to businesses both small and large and the long-term effects that have yet to be fully realised. Another major concern is the  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv 
. Actinidiae  
(Psa) virus which has wiped out over half the golden kiwifruit crop and that equates to close to $500 million out of the Tauranga and Bay of Plenty economy. This disease is having an impact across the entire industry from individual growers contractors and seasonal workers to Zespri. All levels of the industry are having to change and adapt their businesses to survive. Promisingly there is a pathway emerging out of the Psa damage based around a new variety known as Gold3. I believe that with time and Government support our industry can recover.  
I believe that Tauranga has the potential to be a great city the best in the world. And to those people in Tauranga you will understand this vision. Imagine if we built a 25000-seat stadium at the Domain above the central business district and if we constructed a walkway around our stunning harbour. People of Tauranga envision the potential of fast passenger rail from Auckland in under 2 hours? And what about if we cleaned up our water and marketed ourselves as the cleanest city in the world? What a vibrant exciting metropolis we could become. Any one of these projects would provide the opportunity for on-the-job apprenticeships and long-term employment.  
I believe that as a country it is time we believed in ourselves. I believe that our most important asset is our people and we must invest in New Zealanders in health education and emerging skills and competencies. The world is now immersed in a mobile digital revolution. Now New Zealand is justifiably proud of its pioneering tradition. At times we have led the world on everything from nuclear physics to powered flight to climbing the highest mountain. Our people are the most creative innovative and forward-thinking to be found anywhere. But currently we are marking time and quite frankly we need to embrace support and speed up the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. The mobile digital revolution is accelerating at an exponential rate. Countries with established broadband are rapidly going mobile and that is having massive implications for business education and the health sector. In the last quarter of 2011 the number of smart phones purchased surpassed the combined number of personal computers laptops iPads and tablets sold. Handheld computing is here to stay and the high-powered browser-enabled high-definition video-ready device is already revolutionising the way businesses market trade and do commerce; the way people learn and educate; the way health services and caregiving are provided; and growing the way we collaborate in politics—if only we could get reception in the 75 metres between the Beehive and Bowen House! These services are now operating in an always connected world. The upskilling with new skills and competencies in New Zealand’s workforce is a priority. It is my intention to see that the professional development required happens. It is our choice and opportunity to catch this wave rather than to let it swamp us or pass us by.  
The tie I wear today was chosen carefully for the colours represented. The ochre symbolises the blood sweat and tears that our forefathers have invested in this land. The green stands for the fertility of our soil growth promise and the hope for a better tomorrow. We once led the world in social and economic standing and by working together I believe we can do so again. My pledge to all New Zealanders is that I will strive with integrity to combine the values and community standards of my childhood with the digital forward-thinking economic ownership and environmental consciousness of this generation. I will work with any other member or party supporting ideas that are good for New Zealand and oppose those that would do us harm. This is what I believe and what I intend to do.  
My final acknowledgment I give to my wife for she holds my heart. Thank you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker honourable members I feel privileged to be elected to this Parliament and to have this first opportunity to address you today. I want to begin by extending greetings to New Zealand First supporters throughout the country and especially to my friends and supporters in Christchurch to whom I also extend my sincere thanks.  
My home town is on its knees—Christchurch is bent buckled and broken in everything except spirit. My first objective as a list MP for New Zealand first and as a proud Cantabrian is to do all I can to assist with the recovery from earthquakes and also to seek better governance for the city so I will speak about those issues first. Secondly I will speak about egalitarianism as my driving force in politics and thirdly I want to talk about environmental sustainability as a strongly held personal mission.  
First Christchurch. Magnitude 6.3 on the Richter scale for the February 2011 earthquake does not adequately describe it. In my home on the Port Hills directly above the fault I felt the indescribable force of vertical ground acceleration 2.2 times the force of gravity the largest ever recorded anywhere in a populated area. But it was the great rolling waves following the initial shock which threatened to turn my home on to its side. Luckily it came back to vertical again. On top of all that was the severity of the shaking for nearly a minute.  
I helped neighbours out of shattered homes and looked across at the white cloud of dust rising over the central city 1000 feet high and 4 kilometres wide. Then came the exodus from the central city. People abandoned their cars on unpassable roads covered in liquefaction and were exhausted even before reaching the hill often with cuts and bruises and tears streaming down terrified faces searching for children at the local school or rushing home to loved ones.  
Those terrible experiences are now all in the past but the effects are not. We who live in Christchurch will rebuild our homes and our city. It is still New Zealand’s second-largest city essential to the nation’s economy and especially to the viability and progress of the South Island.  
The Government’s initial response was welcome even though many have reservations about home valuations and a raft of other issues. It is what happens next that really matters. We must turn adversity into advantage. There are 6600 homes in the red zone 1000 in the orange zone and thousands more elsewhere requiring demolition and replacement or reinstatement. Too little is being done and much too late. While nobody wants bad hasty decisions made neither can the current uncertainties and delays be allowed to continue. For many people these are worse than the earthquakes themselves.  
The Earthquake Commission has been too slow as have the insurance companies with the reinstatement or rebuilding of homes and businesses. The commission has paid too much attention to administration and too little to getting the work done on the ground. It is clearly under-resourced and is unable to reach its statutory targets. It needs to put more resources where they are most needed especially in the rebuilding and reinstatement of homes and businesses and towards the funding approvals needed for those purposes.  
And we all want to know what will happen to the red-zoned land. As the thousands of houses are demolished we must not be left with vast areas of dusty demolition deserts to add to the problems we already face. I call upon the Government to urgently establish and fund a plan to turn these areas into properly maintained grassed parklands that will enhance the environment of the city while final decisions are made on how to deal with this land in the longer term.  
Central city building owners also need certainty. Much good work has been done to develop a plan for a bright new central city for Christchurch but when will it be done and who will pay for it? A few have taken the punt that the central city will recover soon and have started rebuilding. Many others are not so sure and some capital is taking flight.  
Leadership is called for and more resources are required because insurers developers and the council will be unable to fully fund the rebuild and the implementation of the plan in a timely way without assistance. So I call upon the Government to quickly establish a major urban renewal fund for central Christchurch provided over a period of years designed to assist the rebuild of both public and private structures by building owners and businesses and by the city council for public space and transport enhancements. This would go a long way to encourage an early rebuild at a standard all New Zealand can be proud of.  
Another urgent issue for the Government is insurance. Many thousands of homeowners in Christchurch cannot get insurance for new homes or cannot get insurance for their existing properties. Some companies have departed the market altogether leaving significant insurance gaps. Without insurance people cannot get mortgages blocking rebuilding. I call upon the Government again to establish a Government-backed insurer in New Zealand with a mission to provide cover for everybody who needs it. Kiwibank has been a great success—so could “Kiwi Insurance” too.  
But more is needed for Christchurch. I was a councillor there for 15 years but the Christchurch City Council now is dysfunctional and deeply unpopular. Part of the problem is its failure to establish adequate governance systems delegations accountability and transparency. An underlying cause though was the unwise decision of the Local Government Commission in 2004 to reduce the number of councillors from 24 to 13 while at the same time greatly increasing the size of the city.  
Small councils for large populations are not viable or democratic. On top of this was the sacking of the regional council in Canterbury. Its poor performance especially over water issues did I think justify its replacement by commissioners but it is obvious now that Christchurch needs a new broom to clean up the whole local government mess and local democracy must of course be restored.  
It is time I think for a new unitary authority for Christchurch to be established for election in 2013. Unitary authorities for all of the Canterbury local authorities are needed with no need to change boundaries but with an adequate number of councillors for good governance and effective representation of residents. The time for the Government to act on this is now. Delay will serve neither the need for certainty nor the need to restore effective democratic governance.  
Moving on to other matters I am as I said before an egalitarianist and being born in 1946 I am one of the first of the baby boomers. I want to restore the best of the New Zealand I grew up in: a country that celebrates personal achievement but not by the strong benefiting at the expense of those less able; a country that does not have the great gap between rich and poor we see today; and a country that not only keeps its important strategic publicly owned assets—especially power generation companies—but develops them for the benefit of all not for the benefit of only those who can afford to buy shares. 
 I want to do all I can to remove prejudice division and greed and I want to close the income gap. Already in this country incomes are too low for most and too high for some. The trend under successive National and Labour Governments has been in the wrong direction. We must progressively raise the minimum wage to a level capable of adequately supporting a homeowning family but instead our system encourages greed. The huge salaries received by some are not really earned; they simply exploit the system.  
The tax system must be used to help close the income gap. It needs comprehensive review by an independent commission—yes once again—with terms of reference aimed at a fairer system and the Government must actually act and implement those findings. GST has been increased too much as a proportion of the total tax take. It should be reduced. It impacts unfairly on the poor. But the tax system must also be broadened including appropriate capital taxation measures and it must be more progressive. Most of all it must eliminate the tax-minimisation methods by which high earners currently pay much less than they should.  
With regard to superannuation the main parties seem to see the elderly as a problem. To me and to New Zealand First they have earned superannuation at a level to provide a reasonable living income along with a range of SuperGold card services to make retirement easier. Baby boomers were told during their working lives by successive Governments to rely on the taxation system as a source for their retirement incomes but now much too late they are being told to rely on savings. And they were told to rely on 65 as the qualifying age but now the message seems to be 67 or even 70 years. This would be a gross betrayal and effectively a breach of the social contract that resulted from the acts and policies of past National and Labour Governments. The qualifying age must remain at 65 years indefinitely but with an option for individuals to delay it in return for a higher pension.  
Now something about sustainability. New Zealanders have failed to live within the natural constraints of the physical environment. Only our low population has saved us from its worst effects. We are not just degrading our own world; we are robbing future generations. New Zealand needs a practical achievable honest approach to sustainability issues not ineffective “greenwash”. Much more attention needs to be paid to employing green technologies for future development.  
The top priority is water—the gold or oil of the 21st century. I currently chair the Central Plains Water Trust in Canterbury. Its plan and consents for irrigation with water from the Rakaia and the Waimakariri rivers are based on protecting the natural character of the rivers through compliance with a robust regime of minimum flows and protecting aquifers and on avoidance of pollution using a mandatory sustainable farming protocol built into the consents and into water-use contracts. That approach must be entrenched through tougher regulation everywhere in the country.  
But without the large-scale water storage taken at times of plentiful flow the reliability and sustainability of such schemes is compromised. The $400 million or so that has so far been announced to assist sustainable schemes with storage is a drop in the bucket. A much greater commitment by the Government is needed if we are going to achieve sustainable agricultural development and greater diversification.  
Energy of course is another top priority. The fossil fuel age has peaked and is already in decline. New Zealand is rich in renewable energy opportunities. Hydroelectric power geothermal power wind power—these and other methods require Government leadership and investment. There is no need to take the risks associated with deep-sea drilling or fracking.  
Waste issues still need urgent attention in New Zealand. I was proud to lead the Kate Valley regional landfill project in Canterbury achieving a much better environmental protection. But landfills will never be sustainable. It is essential to recover much more of our wasted resources. With others I set up the Recovered Materials Foundation and two commercial companies for these purposes only to be frustrated by the inept policies and practices of local government and inaction on the part of Labour and National Governments alike. Comprehensive regulation is needed to ensure the diversion of recoverable materials away from landfills.  
Lastly I want to talk a little bit about the emissions trading scheme as a valid concern for many in this country. I do not believe it is the way to a sustainable future but it is the way to economic disaster especially when our production forests are harvested a few years from now. It is a deeply flawed system expensive limited and uncertain in its effectiveness and it will make some people rich without achieving its goals. We can achieve much more I believe with well-developed strategies excellent planning well-targeted incentives and comprehensive regulation for the sustainable environmental outcomes we need.  
In closing my work list is long but I pledge to work with members of any party who genuinely wish to work together for egalitarian policies for environmental sustainability for our country and for the special support Christchurch needs so desperately at this troubled time. Thank you very much.  
ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I join the previous speakers in congratulating you on your appointment as Speaker of the House along with your Deputy Speaker and Assistant Speakers. Honourable members my fellow Pacific members of Parliament in reverence and humility as the only Pacific woman in this 50th parliamentary term I acknowledge our Father our Creator.  
E tu ana ahau i raro i Te Taumata o te Atua. Ko ia te timatanga me te mutunga o nga mea katoa. Ko ia te arepa me te omeka kia tau te rangimarie. E nga mana e nga reo e nga hau e wha me rau rangatira ma tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa.  
[ 
I stand beneath the resting place of God who is the beginning and end of all things. He is alpha and omega indeed so let peace prevail. To the authorities languages four winds and leaders of a hundredfold greetings greetings greetings to you and us all. 
] 
I stand forthright before you beneath the mantle and auspice of the Creator for he is the beginning and end of all things. To our special guests the many languages and nationalities gathered here the people of the four winds all leaders chiefs and orators who are able to watch through satellite networks—greetings greetings greetings one and all. Malo e lelei. Fakalofa lahi atu. Kia orana. Ni sa bula vinaka. Talofa kotou. Taloha ni. Fa’atalofa atu i le pa’ia ma le mamalu o si o’u atunu’u pele Samoa. Le pa’ia i Tama ma Aiga o Aiga foi ma o latou Tama. Le usoga a Pule ma Tumua o Ituau ma Alataua. Aiga i le Tai ma le Va’a o Fonoti. Tulou tulou tulouna lava.  
I acknowledge the honorifics and salutations as well as paying tribute to my brave committed and determined ancestors. There are many days of historical importance. Today is one of those days not only for my parents but also for the villages where I was born and raised Safa’ato’a Lefaga and Safune Toamua Faleata and the island of Samoa where I spent the first 17 years of my life embracing the importance of our cultural and community values. I acknowledge those who have passed—our ancestors our forefathers—whose spirits I know are sharing our pride today.  
Resolute I stand in awe of the traditions and integrity of many great leaders who have stood in this House before me.  
I come from a long line of high chiefs—to be specific my father Maiava Lole Masinalupe and my mother the late Leono Feao Fanene Pei’u who insisted that my future is dependent on the choices that I make. My dear stern grandfather the late Masinalupe Maiava Saeli of Lefaga and Leulumoega forever lectured me that I should embrace our traditional values and incorporate them into our wider societies. He said that in order for me to serve others well it is important that I embrace and respect my own identity. I will do my absolute and beyond to serve those traditions. My presence here today and for however long I am a member of Parliament will never change this.  
I do not intend to dwell on my humble upbringing or my humble beginnings. What I can say is this: I did not have the privilege of being born in a State house. However my upbringing as a proud Samoan village woman has taught me the value of basic things in life.  
This campaign has been one of true perseverance hard work and commitment. It is on this note that I would like to sincerely thank Haydn Solomon Jerry Ho Mahesh Bindra Noeline Evaroa and our campaign team along with our community in South Auckland: Rev. Paulo Ieli Fa’apaiaga and the Samoan Methodist Church in Papatoetoe;Taniela Vaka and the Tongan Hephzibah community of Otahuhu; Fepuleai Sene and family of Mangere; Mary Ama and Tiana Epati of Waitakere; Ionatana and Auomala Pouli Lefale of East Tamaki; Ahmadiyya Muslim community group of Manukau; of course our student supporters from the University of Auckland St Mary’s College and De La Salle College; our local Pacific media networks; my friends Pita Paraone and Bruce McCarthy; Noella Rimmerswaal and the Whangarei community; and of course the then Samoan High Commissioner His Excellency Afioga Asi Tuiataga Fa’afili Blakelock and Letelesa Helen Blakelock. Thank you for being part of my journey.  
To my aiga potopoto and in particular my father Maiava—who unfortunately could not be here today due to ongoing illness—I will never forget the sacrifices that Mum and you made in order to ensure that your whanau did well. You have bestowed on me the matai name of Le’aufa’amulia in order to remind me of who I am. I am truly honoured. Fa’afetai tele lava tama. To my sister Esefaiga and brother-in-law Lepale Tusani it is a blessing to always have your support at every public event. Finally to my dear husband Dennis thank you for your patience and tremendous support. It is good to have you here today. I acknowledge my daughters—Fleur for your assertiveness and hard work and Amy for your endurance during the footwork of the campaign including our doorknocking adventures—and Nathanael my dear 11-year-old son who was more of a whip when it comes to time management and events coordination. I love you all dearly.  
To the people of Manukau East and of course the New Zealand First supporters thank you—we have made it. I never set out to be a politician; politics found me. And today I stand here as a New Zealand First member of Parliament who believes in true representation for all New Zealanders. We are so deeply honoured that 147544 New Zealanders voted for New Zealand First. With your support we should be able to restore democracy in our country. O le tele o sulu e maua ai ni figota e mama se avega pe a tatou amo fa’atasi—my strength does not come from me alone but from many. New Zealand First made it back and if the truth be told probably just in the nick of time.  
I bring with me experiences in many different areas that are spread across the spectrum of public service and community development—from the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Justice local government district health boards and various departments within the tertiary education sector. I have done the groundwork before becoming a member of Parliament and not just through paid employment. Actions speak louder than words and it has been through the leading of and involvement with many community organisations and initiatives that I have truly seen the importance of this.  
My work life before Parliament has taught me a few things about the impact of crime on our communities on our families and on individuals. Indeed living in the Auckland region reveals a number of things about the insidious nature of crime in New Zealand today. Recognising the complexities of our justice system and as a member of the Law and Order Committee I would like to make one statement: we need short sharp sentences for repeat offenders. That is right. Although the term of imprisonment is shorter the offender would be required to work hard. They will undergo extensive community-based rehabilitation programmes and compulsory supervision upon release. Prisons need to deliver a sharp reminder to offenders that they are not in holiday camps with  
Hi-de-Hi!  
programmes.  
Short sharp sentencing is more cost-effective based on the simple reason that it reduces the need to build more prisons it reduces the prison population and time spent in prison and it reduces the potential for reoffending and unnecessary bureaucracies. Short sharp sentences will ensure that we do not have to build a billion-dollar prison that will provide huge profits to offshore privateers. We need short sentences in the sense that the deterrent is not the length of time that you are prison; the deterrent is the fact that you are in prison and have to work hard like the rest of us. The ostrich mentality of locking them up and throwing away the key does not work.  
The cost savings from this policy would free up spending for the engagement and delivery of community rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. It is our communities that hold the key to reducing crime in our society. I say this with conviction to building safer stronger communities so that New Zealand is recognised as being the safest place in the world to live in and to raise our families.  
There are many of us who are residents of South Auckland. It is a sad day when ill-informed and repugnant comments made by current MPs refer to the people of South Auckland as pornography-watching criminals or support local transport roading plans for the reason of secluding South Auckland criminals from the rest of Auckland. Those comments are not only naive but pernicious in their nature. It is time for these members of Parliament to recognise that being part of this Parliament in turn means that we represent all New Zealanders.  
South Auckland communities have produced a number of well-known leaders in various areas as well as being responsible for the education of sons and daughters of some of our past and present members of Parliament. Not all prisoners in prisons or white-collar criminals come from South Auckland. To sit there and pass judgment on a part of New Zealand that clearly holds significance in this country is clearly alarming and contemptuous. Yes there is the need for better support towards education in South Auckland and it is imperative that we stop using South Auckland as a laboratory for window dressing trials like charter schools.  
There is a need for Maori and Pacific wardens to be better resourced in order to carry out the wonderful community work that they do for people. There is a need for better control of alcohol distribution in order to decrease alcohol-related crime. RSA and Cosmopolitan Clubs should be given better support through Government funding to improve resources that would facilitate and host events which will provide safer social environments for the public.  
The Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs needs to be given a fair go. The ministry cannot be expected to work in a silo; it needs to be given the tools to work across the spectrum of all Government departments and agencies.  
Right now in New Zealand the rich continue to get richer and the poor get poorer. This cannibalistic greed that currently permeates our country will if unchecked reduce our country to a third-rate backwater. This will bring us back to the dark days of the worst of colonisation. The brightest future will always be based on a forgotten past. How quickly has the Government forgotten the lessons of its past and the principles it was founded on?  
I want to congratulate commend and acknowledge le afioga Vaovasamanaia Rt Hon Winston Peters who continues to remind us all of the true principles of those very important lessons. He is one leader of many qualities who has not forgotten the work of our past great leaders.  
I along with many other proud New Zealanders of Pacific Island heritage believe in hard work and an honest living. We did not leave the land of our ancestors to come to New Zealand in order to be statistics on its welfare system. Whether a New Zealander by birth or immigration each one of us has the responsibility to find and implement effective solutions. No one should bring a sense of moral superiority to this debate. Complex issues require simple solutions and sorry it is not called charter schools.  
New Zealand First is here to restore accountability and transparency to the New Zealand public. We are here to bring a sense of responsibility and reason to the development of policies. We are here as people motivated by inherent humanity and decency to reach out to the most vulnerable in our community. Our restitution for this lies in our determination to address disparities that expose the most vulnerable in our society—our children. Asset sales are not a remedy for child poverty let alone financial stability. Asset sales are not a panacea to cure the social ills of society. I mourn for our ancestors who fought hard to build this country. These generations considered their responsibilities to their country and one another as most important. Theirs was a mesh of values enshrined in God hard work and the belief in something greater. The negative impact of asset sales will inevitably and invariably come back to bite.  
There are so many challenges involved with the global financial debt crisis. Financial downgrades or mysterious emails to the contrary are not going to insulate us from the impact of this global crisis. Retention of our assets would have. Baroness Thatcher once said: “If you just set out to be liked you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time and you would achieve nothing.” New Zealand First will hold this Government to account.  
There are difficult times ahead. To rebuild our country that has been badly weakened by the greed and irresponsibility of others will take time. The first step is to restore accountability and transparency to our decision making so we can once again bring market reality closer to the ideals we all hold. The second step is to adhere to the values of our forefathers for therein lies the solution.  
On that note I think it is fitting that I start my term as a member of Parliament by ending with words that reflect aspirations we can all pursue and uphold in this House. “May the peace be widespread” “May the sea glisten like greenstone” and “May the rays of prosperity shine.” Soifua ma ia manuia. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think a number of us want to congratulate now—because we did not want to disrupt the debate earlier—the maiden speakers while they are in the House. I seek leave of the House to adjourn now until 7.30 p.m. because I think any speech would be pretty disruptive now. I seek the leave of the House to adjourn until 7.30 p.m. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the debate to be interrupted and the House suspended until 7.30 p.m. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the debate be now adjourned 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No. The Noes have it. No one voted yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will repeat the call. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The reason why I am repeating the call is that I did not allow time for anyone to respond. It is my fault that this situation arose and that is why I will repeat the call. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. A division has been called for and I will ask the Clerk to conduct a party vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the debate be now adjourned. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 7 February. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I will resume— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On that occasion again there was no call from the National bench. The member did not call. Well we certainly could not hear her on this side and at the point you called her she was not even properly on her feet. 
Louise Upston 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need to take this matter any further. I do not want to take more time of the House. It was an interrupted debate. The member was speaking at the time of the interruption. Under normal courtesy in the House the member does have the first call. I agree with the honourable member though. I ask members to actually be more on the button. On a couple of occasions we have had members slow to get to their feet and it does not make it easier. But the call is with Jacqui Dean. She has 9 minutes and 30 seconds remaining to speak should she wish to take them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The normal practice then when there is an interrupted speech is for the Speaker to say “When this debate was interrupted Jacqui Dean was on her … ”—is that her name—“… Jacqui Dean was on her …”—  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept—[ 
Interruption 
] The member should not be interjecting. Again I accept the blame for this situation myself totally. The member is quite correct. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Thank you for the opportunity to resume my speech. Last night at the close of play I was describing how a lone constable in Oamaru had the foresight and the bravery to climb out of the gutter having been beaten there by a carload of what I referred to last night as scumbags and I refer to them as that today. They had beaten this police officer who was in the course of his duty into the gutter on the main street of Oamaru. This officer got out of the gutter gave chase to them arrested them and held them until support arrived for him. That is the kind of police officer and that is the kind of duty that we should be honouring in New Zealand and indeed this bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill does that.  
This Government supports the police; this bill does exactly that. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Thank you so much for the third opportunity to make a contribution on this bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Don’t thank us; thank your mates. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: You thought the first two were good? Well you just wait until you see what I can come up with. Look it is the same story and I think it does bear repeating. There are police and prison officers all around New Zealand who in the course of their duties come into strife and I think the key point that Judith Collins when Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections always made is that we need to back our police; we need to back our prison staff. We need to back in fact everybody who works in the service of New Zealanders. But in particular in this bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill we are focusing on our police and our corrections staff because of one critical aspect—that is when trouble comes along unexpectedly or expectedly those of us who may be involved if it is perhaps a traffic accident or maybe we are witness to assault out on the street or some other dreadful event that threatens us as citizens we have the option of running away. If I wanted to I could flee the scene. I hope I would not; maybe I would stay and help out but I do have that option.  
Hon Phil Heatley 
: You’d help me. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: The police do not. I would help my most excellent colleague certainly I would but the police do not have that option nor do corrections staff. That is the key difference and that is why this Government shows absolutely that we support our front line because they are there to protect us and to protect all New Zealanders.  
So just to go through the detail of the bill which is a relatively straightforward bill currently an offence against a law enforcement officer is not an aggravating factor when that person comes up for sentencing. So although it might be in practice that the judge takes that matter into account they do not necessarily have to do so. This bill places on paper the fact that that consideration—that that police officer or corrections officer who is not able to walk away or run away from trouble—is an aggravating factor in sentencing. I have found— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: They represent the rule of law. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: The Minister so rightly points out that they do represent the rule of law and it is that rule of law that we value so highly in New Zealand. Do you know the attitude of the Labour Party has disappointed me over this issue. Last night in the late stages of the House the interventions of the Labour members were a little disappointing because their enthusiasm for this bill was at best half-hearted. I heard them making comments like “Oh well do we really need it?” “Is it really going to achieve anything?” “Is this bill going to make any difference?”— 
Hon David Parker 
: No it won’t. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well I say to Labour members and I say in particular to David Parker who was rejected resoundingly by the people of the Waitaki electorate on several occasions and so therefore is not really in touch with his community—oh and Epsom. I say to that member who was merrily interjecting from the other side of the House that yes it does matter actually. It does matter that those of our members of the police and corrections who may not run away from trouble are recognised in law and recognised by this Government. So with that very salient point I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. Despite the sort of colourful approach of the other member I would state for the record that Labour will support this bill. But we do have some reservations about it and that is why this is called a democratic Parliament. We are charged with actually raising some issues.  
The point is this—and Mr Parker who is a lawyer had a word to me before and I think he made a very interesting point: does the Government really think that for the last 150 years when a police officer or a prison officer has been brutally attacked—as with other analogist cases where an adult as we have seen recently actually tortures or imposes themselves on a young child; that is an aggravating factor—that judges for the last 150 years have not taken that into account— 
Hon David Parker 
: As an aggravating factor. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —as an aggravating factor? Of course they have. I know Simon Power a pretty good member of this House—he is not here now; he is in the hallowed halls of Westpac but the bill is in his name actually—will be kissing the ground that people walk on up in Auckland or wherever he is saying thank God he does not have to come down and front another tinkering fictitious bill.  
Everybody in this House—before the squawk-boxes start—everybody on this side of the House like everybody in this Chamber agrees that where a police officer or prison officer who puts their life on the line is attacked then of course that should be dealt with by the judiciary and of course it should be an aggravating factor and it is. But this is a “Judith Collins Special”—another one because Simon Power is not here; this is another one. The huge detail in this bill—we are talking 3½ pages maybe if we can get there 3¾ pages that again sound tough but actually will do nothing. The history of police officers and prison officers who are assaulted when those cases are dealt with in the courts is that judges do take it into account as an aggravating factor.  
In fact this bill is so light that it says that a judge must take account of it as an aggravating factor but then it does not go on to compel a judge to do anything—not a thing. It just says the judge must acknowledge mentally or however that this is an aggravating factor and then it is over to you which is exactly what a judge does in the present-day judicial system. They sit there they look at the aggravating factors and they sentence accordingly.  
This bill says: “Judge you must sit there and you must say to yourself ‘this is an aggravating factor’ and then you can sentence accordingly.” What does it change apart from being another little political pamphlet where Ms Collins can stand up and say: “I’m being tough and I’m standing beside our police and our prison officers.”? Well she did not do that a few years ago when a lot of the prison officers got attacked had their bones broken and she got up in this House and said they were minor injuries. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: That’s just not true. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is true and it is in  
Hansard 
. This is the sort of lightweight political pamphlet stuff we got from the last Government and we get from this— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Angry member. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “Angry” she says—angry. Well I will tell you the people who may well be angry tonight. They are the people the men and women in the police force—as she chirps away because she does not take these issues seriously—who actually know as prosecutors and others stand up in the courts and know Greg O’Connor and others how their men and women are dealt with by the judiciary. They know this is piffle. This is a political pamphlet.  
Everybody supports the judiciary ensuring there is an aggravating factor when a police or prison officer is attacked. You do not actually need this. The judiciary do it anyway. But Judith Collins can get up and say: “I’ve been tough again”. Remember the old boy-racer thing—we had a hundred out the other night—when Judith Collins said: “I’m going to go and crush them.”? None have been crushed. She said: “I’m going to say that it is mandatory—no I am going to make sure that the judges deal with these silly boys and girls.” Then she did not make anything mandatory on a judge. She did not say that a judge had to crush a car— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Yes I did. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No you did not. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Guess what? What’s happened? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well there was a hundred of them a couple of days ago reported in the paper or is she blind? Let us get past all the piffle and political politics. Simon Power will be sitting up there in private banking which I am told is sort of professional shopping for the rich or something like that saying: “Thank God I got out. Thank God the Prime Minister didn’t force another bill that I had to hand over to Judith Collins because I knew it was wrong. I didn’t want to represent it as a justice bill. Thank God I don’t have to stand up and humiliate myself and front this sort of piffle.”  
Anybody who stands up in this House—and the next Government speakers will I am sure—and accuses the Labour Party New Zealand First the Greens or anybody else in this House of not standing beside and with our police or not standing beside and with our prison officers shame on them. If the test and commitment and loyalty to our police force to our prison staff who in many cases—especially our police—put their lives on the line is to support political pamphlets and piffle like this if that is the benchmark then I am sorry but that does not wash with the public. For 150 years where police and prison officers have been done over or killed or grievously injured and the accused has gone before a court does anybody on that side believe that a judge has gone: “Nah that’s not an aggravating factor.”? In the same way does anybody on that side believe that if an adult does over kills injures or imposes themselves on a young child as we have seen in recent days—[ 
Interruption 
]—and keep interjecting; it says more about that member than anybody else. Does anybody believe—does that member believe yes or no—that a judge would not take into account an aggravating factor of an adult doing over or worse a child? Well well? Of course that judge will always take that as an aggravating factor. Why? Because they would be negligent in their duty—and I do not speak of them directly—and I suspect they would be removed by a higher authority namely this House.  
So this is just another “Judith Collins You Beaut Special”—stand up stomp your feet say you are being tough with a bill that is sort of akin to half a fish and chip paper which actually will change nothing and do nothing and will not actually provide any added protection to our prison officers or to our police. What Miss Collins would have been better to do when she was Minister of Corrections and Minister of Police was not cut the police vote as she did and actually stand up in the House when prison officers were done over when they had their phones broken as we know happened and instead of saying they were minor injuries and belittling them actually getting off her backside and standing behind them and doing something about it and supporting them and not treating as she did the Corrections Association and other people who were representing members—the New Zealand Public Service Association and others—like dirt. Prison officers do a hell of a job an awful job that I could not do I suspect. I suspect that member could not do it though she would tell everybody she could—although I suspect if she did take up a prison officer’s career she would probably scare the hell out of a few of them in solitary confinement up at Paremoremo.  
So this is not—this is not—a bill of substance. This is not a great law reform. Yes we will support it but let us be honest about what it is. This is not the benchmark and the acid test of whether we support our police whether we support prison officers. This is about the Government as usual talking tough acting tough but producing absolutely nothing and changing a couple of words in an Act. And do you think the judiciary are going to be poring over this piece of legislation over every fine word changing their behaviour? No because they do not have to change their behaviour because they do this anyway and they have done it for 150 years.  
So I say let us be honest for once. Let us say what this is. Let us stand by our police let us stand by our prison officers. And the Government continues to play this pathetic little game of saying that if you are not fully supportive of this rubbish then you are selling out the police and our prison service. I believe the public are better than that are far brighter than that and they will continue to see through that sort of political piffle. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Happy Chinese New Year to you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch and to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who I have got to say was a lot more friendly in the Finance and Expenditure Committee today than he was in the House just now. But I have got to say this: I do agree with something he said when he said that— 
Kris Faafoi 
: What? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well not much but it was something—when he said that police do a really tough job. I think he said he would not want to be a police officer. I tell you now I would not want to be a police officer either. We would have much higher crime probably in this country if I was.  
But the point is this: when they go out on the beat and they put the uniform on suddenly—and I learnt this in jury trials because not everyone thinks the way members in this House do where we think there is a strong respect for police and there is basically a regard for the way police handle situations; there is a small persistent minority in this country who despise them who hate them—and actually on a far too regular basis they are spat on and they are abused. We know and I am not going to go through the cases but we know of course that they are punched they are kicked they are stabbed and in a tragic but thankfully small number of cases they have been killed in this country.  
So this Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill—no it does not solve everything but it does recognise the important role that police play in this country. And I say to the members opposite yes I understand that in sentencing in this country there are aggravating and mitigating factors. There is a common law and judges can take into account things that have built up over the years—I understand that. But what this bill does do is it provides certainty it provides black and white for the judge on any given day in the District and High Courts in this country that they shall take into account as an aggravating factor offences against a police officer and that that will lift up the penalty that would otherwise be applied.  
The modern approach to sentencing in this country is the judge starts with a sentencing starting point whatever that is. Rape these days all things being equal—I think there may be new case law out but it has always been 8 years. Then the judges go by a list of aggravating factors. Some are common law if they decide to apply those but they must take into account the ones in section 9 in the Sentencing Act. Then they mitigate from that as well of course—the guilty plea remorse etc.; those sentences come down. But what this bill does as I say very much it puts in black and white for all judges in this country to see that offending against police is something that they must take into account and elevate the sentence because of that fact. I think that is a great thing. It is the right thing. Police deserve us to back them in that way. To some extent it is symbolic but I also think real as well. I also hope that by doing this there will be a deterrent effect so that trend towards more offending against police in recent years may be turned round.  
Of course this is not the only law and order bill we have passed in the last 2 or 3 years. We have had a really strong effort to toughen the law and the legal response to crime in this country. So I proudly support this bill. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill and offer happy Chinese New Year to Mr Bridges as well. As has been said in this debate already police officers and prison officers do a job that few of us would want to do. When there is danger or harm we are probably more inclined to run away from it but it is their job and their duty to head towards it to protect Kiwis to protect our communities. It is a job that is not the highest paying job in the Civil Service but it is a job that demands bravery guts and a deft touch too with the communities when they are trying to prevent crimes with a feather rather than with a baton. In their line of duty they can pay the ultimate price. I have a family member who is a prison guard. I do not really like the fact that he is doing that job but it is his choice and I want to make sure that we take every opportunity to make sure he is safe in his job. So I think in terms of a very personal touch we as a Parliament have a real duty to take real measures within our powers to make sure we ensure the jobs of our police and our prison officers are as safe as possible so they can keep our communities in peace. 
In fact we know that their jobs are becoming much more dangerous. I have read in the regulatory impact statement that in the 5 years since the 2004-05 fiscal year serious assaults on police officers have gone up somewhere around 40 percent and on prison officers around 120 percent. So let me state quite clearly that we share the Government’s will to make the role of prison officers and police officers much safer but we do not share the opinion that this bill that is going through the House at the moment will make a real difference. There is no evidence that this bill will be a real deterrent to those who take the action of attacking police or prison officers. But there is some evidence that the judiciary has already taken into account the fact that these assaults are carried out on police and prison officers when they are sentencing. Earlier in this debate Jonathan Young took a call and he said that we on this side of the House thought this bill was unimportant. Well he is quite wrong. It is very important and it is our role to stand here in this Parliament and talk and debate about the issue to make sure we are making a real difference at the front line. So we do think this legislation is important. That is why we are saying that we will support it but we do have some serious reservations with it. 
We do not think the bill goes far enough to tackle the real cause of these attacks that are happening on our prison and police officers. I think Lianne Dalziel mentioned yesterday during the same debate that we should be looking at alcohol reform to make sure our police officers are not getting into these situations where they are being attacked because I am sure the taking of drugs and the use of alcohol is a big factor when police officers are being attacked. Jonathan Young said in one breath that the Government wants to send a signal but in another breath he said that the attackers have no regard for the rule of law at all. So that does not quite marry up in my opinion. If he thinks these guys are going to completely disregard the rule of law bringing in this bill is not going to change their behaviour so we think that he has made our argument for us. Will it be a meaningful deterrent? We do not think so. What we do need to do is make sure we are addressing the root problem and preventing the situations where officers get into a situation where they could be assaulted.  
Mr Young also quoted a case from the Police Association’s  
Police News 
 December issue. It was around an incident in Christchurch where two police officers got shot and unfortunately a police dog got killed. Gage was killed in July 2010 and Christopher Graham Smith the gunman was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment for his reckless attack on the police officers and the dog. Smith was handed a non-parole term of 7 years meaning he will have to serve half his sentence before being considered for parole. I believe that when we are talking about sentences of this length—14 years—someone is considered for parole after a third of that term so we think that in this case the judiciary has actually taken action. It has said: “You have attacked two police officers you have killed a police dog.” and they have made that a mitigating factor when the sentence has been handed down. When he tried to appeal the judge in this case said that Mr Smith had “offended against people who were protecting the community and he had not expressed enough remorse to warrant reducing the sentence.” So the judiciary is already taking action. When people are presented in our courts who have attacked our police officers and who have attacked our prison officers the judiciary is making sure that it is sending the signal that the Government wants to send at the moment to the community to say that these people are the guards of the community. If you attack them it is sending the signal that that is not good enough and you will receive a harsher punishment than you would have for an attack on a normal citizen. I think from that example we can have confidence that our judiciary is taking action. 
We have had—and I stand to be corrected here—only one case of a prison officer who has been killed in the line of duty and that was Jason Palmer who was killed at Spring Hill prison in May 2010. He was killed with a single punch; he was felled by an inmate Latu Kepu. For the killing Kepu was sentenced to 6 years and 4 months of jail on top of the nearly 3 years he was serving for another crime. Kepu appealed this sentence saying it was manifestly excessive but our Court of Appeal disagreed. The three judges in that case said: “The sentences to be imposed in [these] cases must demonstrate to other prisoners that the courts will not tolerate unprovoked attacks on prison officers.” and that “Kepu’s offending had the seriously aggravating factor that it was a deliberate and premeditated attack on a prison officer who was carrying out his duties within a prison environment.” That is another case where our judiciary is already doing the job that the Government wants to set out in this bill. Our judiciary is already taking this action. Although we do support this bill because we want to make sure we are standing next to our prison officers and police officers we do not think that this bill does enough in terms of making any real meaningful difference to make sure that our prison officers and our police officers are as safe as they possibly can be. 
So where does that leave us? We all agree on one thing: we want to make sure that our prison officers and our police officers are protected. They are doing a job that none of us would probably want to do looking after the worst in society making sure that the worst in society who are incarcerated are rehabilitating themselves in trying conditions. But I do not think and our party certainly does not think that this bill is going to make any difference to making sure that those people who put themselves in harm’s way to protect us are safe. I do not think it is going to make any real difference. So I hope that although this bill is going to go through and we will support it and it will become law at some stage we can actually get our heads together to make sure we are making a real difference. Sure there is politics involved in this but there is also the safety of people on our front line who do not get paid as much as us to do a job that is much worse than the job that we have. We support this bill through to the next stage. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I would like to take just a brief call as the final speaker in this reading of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. Obviously it will not be as capable as Jacqui Dean’s three efforts at this speech so I do want to acknowledge her determination in speaking on this bill.  
I want to take a moment to congratulate those who have given their maiden speeches today because maiden speeches really give you the opportunity to talk about what is important. In my own maiden speech 3 years ago I talked about how important it is that we back our police. So this particular bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill is yet another example of how important it is to this side of the House that we back our police and that we give them—and also our corrections staff—the tools and the safeties that they deserve in the important work that they do for each and every one of us every day.  
One of the things that I attended in my first term as the member of Parliament for Taupo was the 10th anniversary of the death of Constable Murray Stretch in Mangakino. It is really important that we do whatever we can to make sure that we are able to send a very clear message that any derogatory actions or assaults on police are taken into consideration. Also there are those who are working in the Tongariro/Rangipo Prison. It is always interesting when you attend a medal ceremony to see the length of service that they put in for us up and down this country and it is our duty to do what we can to keep them safe. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration and that the committee report to the House on or before 15 June 2012.  
The Government is rethinking the way public services are delivered. We need to make public services better and smarter by finding new ways of doing things and service delivery is moving towards better cooperation between Government agencies and community local government and private sector providers. People can find public services bewildering and frequently express frustration with a system that can fail to address problems early and protect the most vulnerable people. All too often children in this country pay the price of that failure. This has to change.  
Too often after a tragedy we hear that different agencies had different information which if it had been shared and acted on would have saved a child’s life. Information is vital for delivering quality public services. Resources cannot be best used if we do not know anything about the people who will receive them or the problems faced. Information sharing can help agencies to see a more complete picture. Better information-sharing will mean that front-line staff can work together so that the most vulnerable people in society do not slip through the cracks and they receive the assistance they need when they most need it.  
There are already several ways for agencies to share information. The information privacy principles and their exceptions allow information to be shared in a broad range of circumstances. Information can also be shared under specific pieces of legislation or codes of practice developed by the Privacy Commissioner. Still the Privacy Act is not as clear as it could be about when personal information can be shared and this creates barriers for agencies trying to identify and assist the neediest people. I know that members have asked whether or not the Privacy Commissioner is supportive of what we are trying to do here and she has been supportive.  
In some cases front-line staff may be uncertain about whether the law allows them to information share. This can lead to an organisational culture or rules that discourage information sharing unless clearly allowed. All this means that information provided to one agency—as simple as an updated home address—will not necessarily be provided to another agency that needs it and this has to change. New Zealanders need quality public services. Better information-sharing will contribute to and support better smarter public services.  
In 2007 the Law Commission began a comprehensive review of privacy law in New Zealand. The commission released its final report in August and the Government will respond in due course. I am very grateful to the commission for its hard work and this bill largely reflects its recommendations. The bill does deal with specific matters recommended and the reasons really are around the life and safety of vulnerable people. This bill will improve the way personal information is collected stored and used to help people. It will ensure that there are safeguards in place to protect individuals’ rights to privacy.  
The bill does two things. First it will remove the need for a threat to public health or safety or to the life or health of an individual to be imminent. The information privacy principles will be amended to allow agencies to share information at an earlier stage in cases where there is a serious threat to public health or safety or to the life or health of an individual. That difference between a serious threat and an imminent threat can be crucial particularly when we are dealing with vulnerable people. This change is needed because in some cases a person may face a serious threat to their health safety or life but the threat is not going to eventuate immediately. It makes no sense for an agency to keep information about a serious threat secret simply because that threat is not imminent. This change will allow medical professionals social workers police civil defence and many other key service providers to share information to help protect the lives and well-being of vulnerable people.  
Secondly the bill sets out a process for drawing up information-sharing agreements to be approved by Orders in Council. The Orders in Council will enable information to be shared in information-sharing agreements outside of the information privacy principles for specified public purposes. Private sector agencies can become parties to information-sharing agreements and share information in the course of delivering public services. This will ensure the existing barriers to information flow and the delivery of public services can be easily removed and unclear information rules can be swiftly clarified. Agencies will be able to decide what information they need and enter into information-sharing agreements to get it.  
The bill is careful to strike a balance between the need for information to smoothly flow through the public services and the need to protect individual privacy. When drawing up information-sharing agreements agencies must consult the Privacy Commissioner. The commissioner may report to the relevant Minister before agreements are approved and the Minister must take that report into account before any agreement is approved by Order in Council. Orders in Council are regulations so the Regulations Review Committee will have an important role in ensuring that information-sharing agreements do not exceed the authority provided by Parliament. Also if the commissioner considers that something is not working in the agreement he or she will have the power to publish a report. The report must be presented to the House of Representatives and the Government will be obliged to respond. If a person feels an agency has breached an information-sharing agreement that person can complain to the Privacy Commissioner which may result in an investigation under the Privacy Act’s existing complaints process. The bill introduces a principled yet pragmatic case by case approach that will ensure that information does flow and that privacy is adequately protected. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
:  
We have heard from the Minister of Justice that the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill arises from an exercise that was begun by the Law Commission I think in October 2006 and completed only in August last year. So it is something that took over 5 years and was required to be done in four different stages because of the scale of the work. I read the report again today. It contains some sweeping recommendations for reform and this is no less than we should expect. After all the original Act dates from 1993 long before social media were in vogue before smartphones and even before the widespread use of the internet and email. So reform is overdue. The way in which we deal with information in our society today is vastly different from the way it was in 1993.  
The Law Commission recognises this in its full report. One of its recommendations is that the Privacy Commissioner’s powers should be significantly augmented by a new power to issue a compliance notice where there is a clear breach of privacy principles and where there is good reason for it to require an audit of an agency’s information-handling procedures. All we need to do in this House is think about some of the recent controversies around organisations like Google to think about what an important addition to the Privacy Commissioner’s armoury that would be and what a useful one that would be from a consumer protection point of view.  
The commission also recommends that the complaints process under the Act should be streamlined in a number of respects including giving the Privacy Commissioner a binding power of decision on complaints about people’s rights to access to their own information. Anyone who has been involved in supporting a complainant to the Privacy Commissioner knows that the current procedures are cumbersome. They take a long time and in the end the commissioner herself does not have a power of decision. All she can do in the event of failing to get the parties to a complaint to agree an outcome is to refer the matter on to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings who can then decide whether or not to take a case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal—and he may not in which case the only recourse to the complainant is to fund one himself or herself. So that really is something that needs reform.  
There are another three significant recommendations that I want to mention tonight. Agencies should be required to notify people when personal information held by the agency is lost or otherwise compromised—for example through computer hacking—if the breach is sufficiently serious. There is just nothing in the Act or the privacy principles at the moment to equate with that sort of requirement and it is obvious why: 1993 largely pre-dated hacking. There should be—this is another recommendation—a new framework in the Act to allow the sharing of personal information between Government agencies where it is in the public interest to do so but with appropriate safeguards. Finally some exceptions to the privacy principles should be modified—for example to clarify that people can pass on information to an appropriate person where someone’s health is seriously at risk or can report suspected offending to the police.  
It will be apparent from the Minister’s speech and from a reading of the bill that it is just those last two recommendations that are being picked up and dealt with in this legislation. Last year the Government identified information sharing in particular as a matter of urgency. The Minister mentioned in her speech first that she thought there were difficulties around information sharing in the Government sector although she did not specify what those difficulties were and she mentioned the problem of child abuse. But again I am not sure with respect to her that she made a link between that undoubtedly very troublesome phenomenon and the amendments that are proposed in the legislation that we are looking at tonight. None the less it is clear that the bill is being brought forward to progress those last two recommendations of the commission that I mentioned. We have heard from the Minister that that is the rationale for it so that is the basis on which we need to evaluate this legislation.  
On this side of the House our usual practice is to support the referral of legislation to a select committee unless the proposals that are contained in it are repugnant or just fatally flawed in some way. As I have said these are proposals that flow out of a carefully considered Law Commission report. There are significant safeguards contained in the information-sharing powers. So it seems to us that because the work flows out of recommendations of the Law Commission we should not at this stage fail to give it our support to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee to be properly considered. The information-sharing regime that the Government will be subject to under the bill clearly is intended to improve clarity to ensure that information can be shared with more certainty and to make it easier for that sharing to be carried out as I said earlier with appropriate protections.  
Obviously any increase in Government control over New Zealanders’ personal information needs to be carefully considered and balanced with strong safeguards but it is apparent that the bill consistent with the Law Commission’s recommendations does contain those safeguards. It provides for transparency accountability and robust decision-making in the sharing of information by setting out the considerations that must be taken into account before information is shared including the privacy risks. It requires transparency around this decision making by giving the Privacy Commissioner the right to publish her advice to Ministers and I hope that it becomes a regular practice and that such advice will be tabled in public as a matter of course. There are requirements on departments to report on their activities and information-sharing agreements that are reached are always subject to review by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Obviously there is also the fact that any resulting agreements will be treated as delegated legislation and will be subject to the scrutiny of this House via the Regulations Review Committee and I can assure the House as chair of that committee that we will take a robust approach to scrutiny in respect of these agreements.  
It is also important I think that the Law Commission has recommended—and the bill has carried this through into the first draft—a strong role for the Privacy Commissioner including providing flexibility for her to vary requirements for example on reporting in accordance with perceived privacy risk. As she is the expert on privacy risk it is appropriate that she should make that assessment.  
Having said all that I am not left without concerns about this legislation. As I said earlier I feel there has been an inadequate explanation from the Minister for severing these two recommendations of the Law Commission from the bulk of the rest of its work and we are going to have to have a better explanation frankly at the select committee if support is to continue to be forthcoming. We are going to have to see the evidence for the link between the problems identified and the solutions proposed such that they are sufficiently urgent to be brought forward in this way.  
There is the obvious danger that the rest of the Law Commission’s work will just languish given that this Government does tend in the area of justice and law and order to accord priority politically rather than according to evidential need. This would be a tragedy from a consumer protection point of view because of the enormously complex environment caused by the new technologies that I referred to earlier. We especially need those enhanced powers on the part of the Privacy Commissioner. If the Government’s agenda is simply to advance these two recommendations and to leave all the others languishing on the Order Paper or not even to legislate for them then an absolute disservice will be done to every consumer in this country by the Minister.  
I am also concerned that the robust controls and safeguards in the bill as it stands might be weakened as we go through the process and we will be absolutely vigilant at the select committee to ensure that that does not occur. There are also some concerns in the regulatory impact statement that cannot be ignored. It is noted that there are no resources provided for the commissioner or for agencies to accommodate the requirements on them in the new legislation. So we will be supporting the referral of the legislation to the select committee. I wish the new chair of that committee well in that work. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Just before I begin may I as Louise Upston did acknowledge briefly the contributions of the new members who made their maiden statements this afternoon. It is always quite a challenge for them but it is interesting for other members to hear a little bit about them and I thought they acquitted themselves very well. So congratulations and best wishes to them.  
The chair of the Regulations Review Committee Charles Chauvel has just acknowledged that I am actually standing in this House for the first time in my new capacity as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee. [ 
Interruption 
] I was not meaning to milk the applause but thank you very much. You take it when you can get it I guess. I am certainly very proud and delighted to have been accorded that honour and I particularly welcome the introduction of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill because as the member who has just resumed his seat has indicated it is the product of 5 years of very detailed work and as he mentioned it includes some very sweeping proposals for reform. I think members will have enjoyed hearing the historical overview that Mr Chauvel has just given us. I also welcome the fact that the Labour Party at least has indicated it will support the bill notwithstanding some concerns that Mr Chauvel has outlined. I have no doubt that the select committee will take time to consider those concerns as they are promoted to us.  
Nevertheless there is no doubt that this is a very important measure so I am very pleased to support our new Minister of Justice in welcoming the introduction of the bill to the House. As she has indicted it is her intention to refer it to the Justice and Electoral Committee at the end of the first reading. The bill works in very well with a major election plank that National campaigned on and that was clearly endorsed by the electorate which is our commitment to delivering high-quality modern public services for all New Zealanders. That is a vitally important aspect of what the country is seeking as we work our way through the current recession and as we try to ensure that people have opportunities and that we move with the times particularly given that in this particular bill we are balancing very important factors: people’s right to privacy—is it “pri-vacy” or “pry-vacy”? I never really know how to say that word. My father always said “pry-vacy” and my mother always said “pri-vacy”. They argued about it. My father is now dead but my mother is still alive. I am tempted to go with mum in case she is listening but whatever it is—[ 
Interruption 
] Father is right—and mother is. There is a need to balance that important principle—[ 
Interruption 
] thank you; the Minister of Corrections has given me an honourable way out—with our need to protect vulnerable New Zealanders.  
This type of measure as I think Mr Chauvel has alluded to can worry people. They begin to think: “Gee this is the State bearing down on my private life my right to operate without the scrutiny of the State.” Therefore it is important I think to state at the outset what the purpose of the bill is. This information-sharing bill aims to improve rules around the collection storage and use of personal information while making sure that there are safeguards to protect an individual’s right to privacy—as Mr Simpson is telling me I should say. In these days of rapidly evolving technology and social media we do need to reform the current information-sharing regime. It has become significantly out of date and with each passing year it seems to become more so. In fact it sometimes baffles me how we can expect our laws to keep up with such rapid change in the technological field. That was clearly the strong recommendation of the Law Commission in its very detailed work as it reviewed the Privacy Act in regard to information sharing.  
Information sharing without doubt has major benefits in allowing agencies to see all sides of an individual’s case rather than just through their own narrow lens. Sometimes when we are dealing with really tricky social problems we need to ensure that those different agencies can share information to ensure they deliver the best service the best support to people who are in need of it. By sharing personal information agencies can work together to examine and understand the needs of a customer or client as a whole instead of each agency viewing them through its own narrow lens. Though agencies are already able to share a great deal of personal information under the existing Act the Act itself is unclear and misunderstood around when and how personal information can be shared.  
The other important thing is that the bill has some significant cost-saving benefits and as we streamline our public service delivery that is very important.  
I think there are a whole lot of measures in this bill that we welcome. I acknowledge the fact that there will be some significant submissions to be considered at the select committee. I look forward to getting on with that work and I commend this bill to the House. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill which in and of itself may not seem to be a highly contentious piece of work but taken in conjunction with some of the serious issues of the day that this House and our communities are currently facing is extremely relevant. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has already pointed out I think it is really important that we delve a little more deeply into the identification of the problem in order to really establish whether or not this bill is going to resolve issues we currently face and in that sense I would still like to hear more from Government members in that regard. 
 These are tricky areas. We are trying to ultimately ensure that we continue to strike that incredibly important balance when it comes to privacy issues. Ultimately that is about preserving the rights of the individual to privacy whilst at the same time ensuring that where it is appropriate for that information to be shared—in the individual’s best interest and protection for example—that is the case. We must make sure we have checks and balances in there at the same time.  
Now the most obvious example of that is when it comes to the issue of child welfare. I would have liked to hear more from Government members about where the system is currently falling down so that we could truly test whether or not these new measures will remedy that. In the absence of that I would like to delve into them a little more perhaps as an indication to the Justice and Electoral Committee as to where we might like to head. As my colleague has already pointed out this bill is a consequence of a Law Commission review and we are still concerned that parts of the recommendations from the commission have been carved off and that we are dealing with this in a somewhat piecemeal way particularly given we are still conducting a general process of consultation around child welfare for instance. So in a way this is a very piecemeal way to address the issue.  
One of the first things the bill begins to do is to look at the way that exceptions to information being shared and privacy principles have been used in the past. I was recently at a seminar where a lawyer who specialises in public law pointed out that we may be remedying a case of misuse of the Privacy Act in its current form and that in risk aversion in some cases public servants may because of lack of clarity around the Privacy Act have acted in a risk-averse way not necessarily in line with the expectations of the Privacy Act as it currently stands. In fact I believe that the commission even created an acronym to refer to when this occurs. It is unfortunate therefore that we have to amend our legislation to deal with practice rather than with the intent of the law itself. But if it is being misused and not used appropriately then as a Parliament we cannot ignore that.  
One of the exceptions that currently exists within the Privacy Act which one would have thought could be used in some of the cases we have seen more recently involving high-profile child abuse cases is that information is able to be shared if there is an imminent threat to public health or safety or the life or health of an individual. Now that has been replaced in this bill due to a view that “imminent” did not give enough clarity to the users as to what was intended. I would contend that any descriptors in this way do have an element of subjectivity attached to them and therefore I would really implore the select committee to make sure that we test some of these thresholds to ensure we think there is enough clarity around them and even test whether or not guidance will be required from the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that we do not have the same situation arise that we currently have with the Privacy Act as it stands.  
Secondly this bill will insert a new provision to allow for information-sharing agreements. Now the regulatory impact statement goes into the detail of the options that were available to the Ministry of Justice when considering such a new mechanism. I think it has taken the option that has more checks and balances attached to it. But one thing I want to test is how would this operate in an everyday situation in an area of child welfare for instance given that this is the area the Government has flagged that this piece of legislation is necessary for? The bill as I understand it sets out that one of the signatories to an agreement would have to be a Government department and could then be with another—for instance a contracted NGO that might be dealing in the area of child welfare.  
Now my question is that we have a number of smaller organisations in our communities that are contracted by Child Youth and Family to deal in the area of child welfare and well-being and is it realistic to expect that these kinds of arrangements will be agreed to between Child Youth and Family and one of these smaller agencies given the process that must be undertaken? For instance the explanatory note of the bill states that approval of information-sharing agreements must be done by Order in Council and that approved information-sharing agreements would then need to go through consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and other interested parties.  
Now of course I would expect these kinds of checks and balances to be in place but what are the expectations for the kinds of organisations that would enter into these agreements and do we think it is realistic that some of these community organisations would go to this extent? What kind of time lines do we expect for each of these individual arrangements to take? Will there be any kind of templated agreements that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is likely to construct? These are the kinds of questions I would like to see discussed at the select committee otherwise we may not in fact see a real significant change in the way that some of our Government departments are working with agencies in this area unless we really test that threshold and those expectations.  
I want to come back briefly though if I may to the origins of this bill from the perspective of the Government. Obviously this piece of work was instigated earlier than some of the reports that have since endorsed its work—for instance the report recently released by Mel Smith into the terrible case of a child being tortured by her parents. The report identified that multiple agencies were involved in that child’s case but information was not adequately shared. I would contend that there are other layers that exist within a situation like that that go beyond information sharing and we need to ensure that we address them if this bill is really to have the intended effect.  
For instance once information is shared we often see in a number of cases a lack of clear pathways as to who is ultimately accountable to that individual family or that child. Does the accountability sit with a Child Youth and Family social worker? Is it a situation for police intervention? To what degree has a school been involved?  
I have seen many cases before where a lack of clarity around who is accountable has in fact led to the ball being dropped rather than being solely the issue of whether information has adequately been shared. That is an issue that is probably primarily for the Minister for Social Development to address but I will contend that in and of themselves suggestions like these will not work unless we resolve some of those key issues. Secondly all of this will be completely redundant unless we ensure that the agencies that are dealing with these difficult cases are well resourced. That is something I think we also need to flag.  
One final point I would like to raise is that the green paper talks about information sharing as well but goes much further than this bill currently intends to go. I would like some clarity from the Government as to whether or not it may go any further in future. The green paper states: “The government could review the current provisions in legislation to ensure professionals at the frontline such as teachers social workers GPs nurses psychologists police officers and therapists are able to freely share information about children they work with for the purpose of accurately assessing the needs of the child and their family and whanau.” That goes beyond the realms of this bill and it would be interesting to hear from the Government what its intentions are once the green paper submissions have all been received and once the white paper which the Minister assures me has not yet been written comes out. Are we going to go beyond the scope of what has been recommended in this bill?  
I look forward to there being further debate at select committee. We continue to have a few concerns around the way that this bill has come to the House and the areas it covers but I am sure those will be explored further on. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not be supporting the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill today as we are being asked to sign up to an erosion of a core human right for the nebulous gain of “improving public service delivery”. We do certainly acknowledge that there are instances where information sharing could produce good results. However this legislation does not put in adequate checks and balances or provide clarity of purpose. We do not believe that the select committee process is enough of a public consultation to justify the erosion or redefinition of one of our core rights.  
Green Party policy requires us to scrutinise closely any information sharing between different State databases and oppose those that are unwarranted. We are also required to review controls on the exchange of information between Government agencies to ensure consistency with the aims of the Privacy Act. We do not believe that this bill is warranted or that the controls outlined are adequate to protect against breaches and neither do we believe that they are consistent with the intent of the Privacy Act.  
Just to remind the House of some of our understandings—our common understandings—of what privacy is and why it is important to us and why it is a human right I would just like to draw your attention to information on the Privacy Commission’s website that says privacy is basically about people’s need to protect information about themselves and secondly acknowledging that people need the opportunity to withdraw physically or mentally from society. Privacy as defined by this common understanding is important to ensure that we all feel secure. For instance we become tense when we are constantly under scrutiny. We also often define our relationships with other people by the information we choose to share with them. So if we are unable to control who knows information about us we will feel insecure at least in part because the boundaries of our relationships become uncertain. Human beings need security to be able to function normally in their social environment. So privacy that supports or creates feelings of security is an important human right. If we feel secure we are more likely to play a full part in society.  
The Privacy Commission of course acknowledged that although privacy is important it is not absolute. All privacy law already makes allowances for other social interests such as preventing crime ensuring safety and ensuring courts get information to make their decisions. Please note that none of those points reference revenue collection or the improvement of public services. They have never been considered as priorities over the basic right to privacy.  
The aim of the bill before the House today is to amend the Privacy Act and the Tax Administration Act to facilitate information-sharing between agencies. The key changes as stated in the bill are to allow the use and disclosure of personal information where there is serious threat to public health or safety or the life or health of an individual and removing the necessity for that threat to be imminent as is currently required. It also allows information-sharing agreements to be implemented by Order in Council to clarify or modify the application of the privacy principles. It also allows these agreements to be between and within Government agencies as well as private sector organisations which includes NGOs.  
We have several concerns about this in detail. Removing “imminent” from the legislation in relation to “threat” and making it just a “serious threat” to public health or public safety or the life or health of the individual concerned or another individual would effectively enable Government agencies to profile people and share information on the basis of profiles. I do not believe that this is consistent with the intent of the original Act or our shared understanding of privacy rights. It also holds the potential to reinforce racist stereotypes and I think that is something that as a country we need to be very careful of. The creation of information-sharing agreements by regulation is problematic as people’s privacy rights could be undermined and agreements can provide exemptions to privacy principles. The checks and balances that are provided by the Privacy Commissioner’s advice are not binding on Cabinet. This for us is not good enough. It gives Cabinet new and significant powers to override privacy rights.  
Further I would like to draw attention to—I come from a community organisation background and I really would be sad to see us lose the pressure for agencies to engage people in the choice about whether their information was shared. Currently Strengthening Families is an example of information sharing between agencies and it gives us an insight into how some of the tensions might work in this area. Typically the process goes two ways: one way is where agencies get together excluding the family and decide what the family needs to do or secondly when the family is central to the process they choose that their information is shared and they are involved all the way along. This latter option is generally acknowledged as the better practice which is more likely to lead to long-term positive outcomes. However of course there is real pressure on agencies to get outcomes and tick boxes and this pressure often leads to the first approach being taken. We believe that this piece of legislation will provide more justification for that first approach and will provide many more pathways for excluding people from decisions about the sharing of their personal information.  
In the social sector forum briefing to the incoming Minister it alludes to this bill by noting for example that planned amendments to the Privacy Act if pursued would enable Government agencies to enter into information-sharing agreements with other Government and non-government agencies. So it is clearly stating that this bill will cover business community and iwi organisations as would Strengthening Families. To give more of a sense of the Government agencies’ impressions of how they might use this Act I again quote the social sector forum briefing for incoming Ministers which says that better information-sharing would reduce duplication and help them better provide services to families with multiple issues. Information sharing is also the starting point for developing an investment approach and it supports better assessment monitoring and evaluation of the impact of particular programmes and services. However of course it is important to remain mindful of privacy and safety considerations. It is the last little addition to make that OK.  
As I have mentioned already I come from the community and voluntary tangata whenua sector previously known as the third sector. It has been known as the third sector because alongside Government and business the community sector has a distinct culture and values and helps keep this country running. The third sector is not an arm of the State and should not be treated as such. I believe it will be to the detriment of the country as a whole if this independence is undermined any further than it already has been. To give the Government the potential to pressure community organisations to share information without individual consents and against the codes of practice of those organisations is a threat to the autonomy of the sector. I say this from having managed several health and welfare organisations. I know from experience how important confidentiality of information is to young people accessing health services and for women escaping domestic violence.  
The Government may think that information sharing will improve service delivery but there may be very significant unintended consequences if we put more pressure on community organisations to share information or indeed even extend the sharing of information between Government agencies without very strong forethought. I heard today about a pregnant woman on the domestic purposes benefit who is escaping a violent relationship. She told her community-based advocate that she is considering hiding her pregnancy because she is scared that if the Housing New Zealand Corporation or the health system find out they will tell Work and Income and she will experience incentives to find work more quickly than she could cope with. A nuanced message of responsible information-sharing will not be the message received by our most vulnerable people. The drive to hide information— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise to speak briefly on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. As I see it this bill is about honouring the trust the Government has in holding information on an individual. It is also about breaking open the silos of information—shattering those silos of information to allow better sharing of information. This is a Government that actually values trust. We delivered on every one of the policies we made in 2008 and we were rewarded with a significant increase in our percentage of the vote as a result. We value the trust of the electorate. 
One of our major priorities in the forthcoming electoral cycle is as we have said that we want to rebuild Christchurch. We want to get a more competitive and productive economy. We are going to fiscally manage the Government’s finances so as to get out of debt earlier. We are also going to get better value from the public services. Now the previous speaker could not see the relationship between that and actually delivering services to people who need them and this is one of our major thrusts.  
We have announced a high-powered ministerial team to address poverty. We are aware in this Government that the global financial crisis has impacted more on the disadvantaged in society than on others. It is inevitable. I am walking around the streets of Manurewa speaking to the people in the Manurewa community and I am hearing the difficulties they are facing. In our first term of course we improved the participation options for them in early childhood education. We gave them greater opportunities to get necessary health care sooner more conveniently of course and we are addressing the Third World rates of rheumatic fever that we inherited in that community. One of the things that we need to make sure is that these most vulnerable kiddies—the ones we are dealing with—are not falling through the cracks.  
Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: They are.  
Dr CAM CALDER 
: You are right—you are absolutely right. They are they have been and what we wish to do is reduce the chances of that happening so the Ministers of Education Social Development Health and Housing—I have the privilege of sitting right next to the Minister of Housing from the Government—and their agencies will be able to share information more readily. How will they do this? The bill amends the Privacy Act to improve public service delivery by introducing two new mechanisms for better smarter information-sharing. These can lead to more integrated services reduced duplication and lower information-handling costs.  
What are the two key improvements? We have heard them mentioned in the past by some of the previous speakers. I think it is valid. It is about widening the definition or the exception to allow the use and disclosure of personal information when there is a serious threat to public health or safety or the life or health of an individual. Currently that threat must be imminent. Who is a clairvoyant? Who can tell when the threat is going to occur? I think the reality is that moving to the definition of “serious threat” actually means that the damage to the vulnerable is less likely to occur. The second innovation is that a new mechanism will be inserted to make provision for the approval of information-sharing agreements by Order in Council so if there is a problem it can be dealt with expeditiously. 
I did talk about honouring trust of course and if you are holding information on somebody and there is a failure of security in sharing that information there is inaccurate information or there is use of that information in ways that are not anticipated by the individual that is a betrayal of that trust. So in order to honour that trust to make sure that does not happen and to ensure that any resulting intrusions into personal privacy are minimised the bill sets out the required content for information-sharing agreements and the process for their approval which will include consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and other interested parties.  
The bill sets out safeguards to ensure that approved information-sharing agreements operate transparently and consistently with their intent. This bill—and we have heard from Charles Chauvel that it draws upon a lot of in-depth work by the Law Commission—addresses a very serious issue in our community. It will lead to better outcomes. I commend this bill to the House.  
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take this call on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First members support the intent and substance of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. There has long been a need to make certain whether when and how agencies can share information about an individual. In fact it is common sense that this should be possible provided of course that there are adequate controls in favour of personal privacy. Those are the provisions that New Zealand First will wish to ensure are robust and that is something that we will be looking at closely in the Committee stage.  
The benefits of information sharing are significant and there are a couple of good examples of this given in the regulatory impact statement. They include these two: that the ability of agencies to take a coordinated approach to support individuals and families with complex needs is not as effective as it could be if information were shared more easily; and that the violent abuse of a young child is sometimes blamed on inadequate coordination which draws attention to a lack of information sharing.  
So we should not always see that there is some dark purpose behind this. There do need to be controls of course but let us look at the positives that can come out of information sharing. After all if one agency of Government has got information for valid purposes then it is perfectly normal for another arm of Government to require and make good use of that information as well. The detailed provisions of the bill do create the certainty required for agencies to lawfully share information and also protect the rights of individuals concerned. They also empower the Privacy Commissioner appropriately in his or her role to oversee the operation of these new provisions.  
The concept of the bill we think is good. First it allows sharing as appropriate and necessary for the efficient operation of the Public Service. An agency that holds personal information may use the information for another purpose or disclose it to another person if the agency believes on reasonable grounds that the use or disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to public health or public safety or the life or health of the individual concerned or of another individual. So the purposes are perfectly proper and provide a significant benefit to the community as a whole provided again that there are adequate provisions in favour of personal privacy. We think that the removal of the word “imminent” is also sensible and necessary. It is easy to see the problems that the word “imminent” would impose. The word is unnecessary and it is unduly limiting.  
The second thing that the bill does is to provide for a new mechanism using a procedure culminating in an Order in Council to improve information-sharing agreements and it is the best of the two options that were available. In particular it sets out the functions of the Privacy Commissioner by adding further provisions to section 13 including: the making of submissions on an information-sharing agreement in new subsection (1AA)(a); in new subsection (1AA)(b) reporting to a relevant Minister on any matter relating to privacy that arises; in new subsection (1AA)(d) receiving and investigating complaints about alleged interference with privacy; in new subsection (1AA)(f) conducting a review on the operation of an approved information-sharing agreement; in new subsection (1AA)(g) reporting to a relevant Minister on the findings of a review conducted; and in new subsection (1AA)(h) requiring a public sector agency to report on the operation of each approved information-sharing agreement.  
These provisions will give confidence that the rights of the individual will be protected appropriately that privacy principles and codes of conduct will be preserved and that there will be transparency and reporting requirements in respect of the operation of agreements.  
The requirements for the Order in Council in the new section 96H are also comprehensive. I note than in proposed new section 96H(e) an Order in Council must “for every party to the agreement—(i) describe the personal information or type of personal information that the party may share with each of the other parties; and (ii) state how the party may use the personal information; and (iii) state the adverse actions that the party can reasonably be expected to take as a result of sharing personal information under the agreement; and (iv) specify the procedure that the party must follow before taking adverse action against an individual as a result of sharing personal information under the agreement”. In proposed new section 96K(2)(a) the Minister must be satisfied that the “agreement will facilitate the provision of any public service or public services:” in section 96K(2)(b) the Minister must be satisfied “that the type and quantity of personal information to be shared under the agreement are no more than is necessary to facilitate the provision of that public service” in section 96K(2)(c) the Minister must be satisfied “that the agreement does not unreasonably impinge on the privacy of individuals and contains adequate safeguards to protect their privacy:” in section 96K(2)(d) the Minister must be satisfied “that the benefits of sharing personal information under the agreement are likely to outweigh the costs of sharing it:” and lastly in section 96K(2)(e) the Minister must be satisfied “that any potential conflicts or inconsistencies … under the agreement and any other enactment or rule of law have been identified and appropriately addressed.”  
These requirements are also comprehensive and we think adequately balance the needs of departments and agencies against the rights of individuals for personal privacy. After all it is for the benefit of the community as a whole that such information should be available provided that the necessary protections are in place. Otherwise the provisions relating to giving notice of adverse action review and amendments of agreements and reporting requirements are all satisfactory.  
There is however one matter of apparent misdrafting that I would like to raise with the committee with a suggestion for rectification. It is a relatively minor matter. It relates to the amendment to section 2(1) and concerns the definition of “serious threat” which refers to an agency in assessing whether a threat is serious to have regard to “ ‘(a) the likelihood that the threat will occur: ‘(b) the severity of the consequences if the threat occurs: ‘(c) the time at which the threat may occur’.” I believe that these subsections should instead of referring to the threat itself refer to the events or conduct threatened as follows for example: (a) the likelihood that the event or conduct threatened will occur (b) the severity of the consequences if the event or conduct threatened occur and (c) the time at which the event or conduct threatened may occur.  
Finally it is obvious that the bill if enacted will place much more pressure on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I trust that despite current budgetary constraints the necessary additional resources will be made available so that the commissioner can carry out the important role defined in the bill. Subject to these comments and for the reasons mentioned New Zealand First members support the bill going to the select committee. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the first reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. This bill is about improving rules around the collection storage and use of personal information while making sure that there are safeguards to protect an individual’s right to privacy. It is a very important bill and I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice on bringing this bill to the House.  
This bill is in part a response to the Law Commission’s review of the Privacy Act with regard to information sharing. The report showed—it was a very comprehensive report—that agencies here and now can actually share quite a great deal of information but that that was not the reality and was not the practice; rather there was confusion and misunderstanding. This bill will certainly aim to clear that up and provide other measures to help protect vulnerable people particularly children.  
It is vital that this bill is fast-tracked in order that vulnerable people and children are protected. Every year an average of 10 children die at the hands of people closest to them and the people they love and trust. Between 2008 and 2009 over 13000 children under 5 were admitted to hospital for conditions that could have been avoided and almost 1300 were admitted because of assault neglect or maltreatment. Quite frankly too many are being hurt and abused. We must ensure that no vulnerable child slips through the cracks because departments cannot or will not talk to each other and share information. And I would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Development Minister Paula Bennett on her green paper. It has been very well received. In the forum that I attended there were many constructive comments made. The green paper is about testing ideas and opening up the discussion on child abuse and neglect.  
There is no doubt that the current information-sharing regime needs to be urgently reformed. We must ensure that vulnerable people and children are protected and ensure that information is linked across departments. That will be one way that we can ensure that no one falls through the cracks. Of course there will be many other spin-offs and benefits. There will be a team approach rather than a siloed approach across departments which can only benefit the clients and the staff. It is about taking an all-inclusive and a holistic approach and inevitably there will be better service delivery as duplication and double-handling are avoided. This bill strikes the right balance ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect a person’s right to privacy and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Can I say first of all that it is a pleasure for me to speak on the first reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. I want to start my contribution by acknowledging the member who has just resumed her seat Dr Jackie Blue and welcome her back to the House but more particularly to acknowledge her courage towards the end of last year in speaking out about her personal involvement with domestic violence. I think that is a leadership role that is very seldom played by women members of Parliament. It is not an easy thing to do. You do not need to do it—one does not need to do it; you clearly could not do it Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. But I just want to acknowledge and thank Dr Jackie Blue for that bit of work.  
Having said that I think the contribution that Dr Blue made omitted to reference any of the concerns that we may have whether because of reality or perception and the subsequent downsides that are possible in this bill. And in my view her proposal that it needs to be fast-tracked should be viewed with some concern because the devil is in the detail of this legislation.  
My colleague Charles Chauvel has already clearly outlined that in his contribution at the primary part of this debate. The new member for New Zealand First Denis O’Rourke in just a matter of days here has already found some issues of concern in the detail not in the principle. In fact if you read the explanatory note it is motherhood and apple pie. Well that is not the way that legislation works particularly when it is legislation that often impacts on people’s perception of what happens to information particularly information that is gathered by Government departments and the potential harm that could be done. Jan Logie’s contribution earlier on raised similar concerns.  
I do not agree that we should therefore say: “Well we shouldn’t do this. We don’t want to improve information sharing.” Of course we do but the concerns need to be considered and robustly addressed. Privacy protection but most of all ensuring that when information is shared it can do no harm to individuals should be the most important criteria and I am not sure that that contribution has been made strongly enough throughout the debate. So I would urge the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the genuine concerns that people have and not say: “Well that won’t happen.” but say: “How can we ensure beyond doubt that it won’t happen?” because it is not the intention of this legislation to do any harm. 
 This bill has been around in one form or another for a long time. Originally it came out of the Law Commission’s review of the privacy legislation and the privacy legislation certainly needed that sort of comprehensive review. The original Act was from 1993. That is a long time ago. It was before many of the tools that we currently use without even giving them a moment’s thought when we gather and share information. It was before the widespread use of emails before we used the internet as we do now and certainly before social media and before Smartphones. So the original privacy legislation was written long before we had many of the things that we need to consider and cover.  
The Law Commission started this comprehensive review in October 2006 and finished it only last year. It had a lot on and it did a big job. So you know it appropriately and understandably took them that length of time. The Law Commission’s report back was to the then Minister the Hon Simon Power who is now the chief executive of Westpac Private Bank and I congratulate him on that new role but also on the considerable amount of work he did on this legislation.  
The Law Commission made a number of recommendations to the Hon Simon Power. It said that the Privacy Commissioner’s powers needed to be augmented that the Privacy Commissioner needed specifically a new power to issue compliance notices and where there was a good reason for it to require—not just request but require—an audit of an agency’s information-handling process. That is quite a big extension of the Privacy Commissioner’s powers.  
The Law Commission recommended a streamlining of the complaints process under the legislation so that the Privacy Commissioner would have the ability to make binding decisions on people’s complaints where those complaints were about access to their own personal information and it made another significant recommendation about agencies being required to notify people when personal information about them which was held by an agency was lost or compromised. At the moment there is no requirement to do that. So if we had computer hacking if somebody’s emails had been hacked into and personal information held by an agency was lost or compromised as a result of that or some other action then the agency would be required to notify that person.  
They are big issues. They were strong and clear recommendations from the Law Commission and when I look through the legislation I cannot find them. I would really like to know why. I would like to know why both the Hon Simon Power and the Hon Judith Collins looked—presumably carefully—at the Law Commission report and said: “This is a comprehensive review that they’ve done over 5 years. They’ve made all these recommendations some of which focus on the protection end of the information-sharing spectrum and others focus on the information-sharing end of the spectrum but we just need to go ahead with these two recommendations.”  
Well I do not understand that. And I think the select committee will be very keen to know why when you get not just a little bitsy look at it but a comprehensive review by an independent organisation like the Law Commission we just pick the bits that make the information sharing easier and do not address the issues that protect people’s privacy do not have a streamlined complaints process and do not have a requirement for the agency to tell people if their information held has been compromised or lost. Why do we not do that? I do not think it makes sense and I am really disappointed in both Ministers in that regard.  
I think it is going to be a very interesting debate. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has already noted Labour will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. That is our usual practice. We usually oppose bills going to a select committee if we are strongly opposed to the principle of that legislation if it just does not fit in with any values that we can share. But if we think the bill has got some merit and can be improved or it does not go far enough or it has some deficiencies we will certainly want it to progress to a select committee so we can have the benefit of hearing perhaps from the Law Commission what it thinks of its comprehensive report being short-changed in this way and little bits of it being taken out. It will be very interesting to hear the commission’s view on that. 
I would also be very interested in hearing from the practitioners who work closely with families who are dysfunctional and abuse their children. In respect of the information that is gathered by various agencies about those families and vulnerable children what is the best way to ensure not that the information is shared but that something is done about the information once it is shared? That was the very point that my colleague Jacinda Ardern was making in relation to the green paper. It is all very well having lots and lots of discussion about things but I actually recall the Minister herself Judith Collins saying when she was in Opposition that it is really important that something be done about it and I have not seen any of that action yet.  
The other concerns I have are in relation to the points that Jan Logie made that we may have young or vulnerable people people who desperately need access to support of some sort or other generally through a Government department or agency. They might need access to the health system they might need access to income support they might need access to some sort of social service or support Housing New Zealand Corporation support—any number of types of support services—and they might be too afraid to approach that agency for support because of a fear justified or otherwise about personal information being shared. We cannot have that as an acceptable situation in New Zealand.  
I just want to conclude by saying the idea that is in the explanatory note that this is going to lead to better smarter services nobody could argue with. It is motherhood and apple pie. Our primary concern must be for the privacy and support of individual New Zealanders. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I am glad to speak on the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill and I am even more glad that it is coming to the Justice and Electoral Committee where as Ruth Dyson has encouraged us to we will take a very good look at it. We will hear from the people who know a lot about this.  
I have spoken in this House now a number of times on privacy and I would not take this too far but in some ways it is a relatively new value certainly when compared with freedom of expression and information which have been talked about and written about for literally centuries. Of course privacy rubs up against freedom of expression and we see that at the moment very graphically with the Leveson Inquiry in the United Kingdom where Lord Leveson is looking into the really reprehensible conduct by British media—the phone tapping the bugging and so on of actors royalty politicians you name it.  
There are different views I think about where legitimately we should fall as a society on privacy as opposed to freedom of information and expression. My view although I would always basically tend towards freedom of expression is that I think we should not be absolutist about this. But if there is one area where we should come close I think to being absolutist it is in relation to the most vulnerable in society particularly children.  
I agree with the comments from this side of the House about the maiden speeches given today from the New Zealand First members. It was very good to be here to hear them to get a flavour of the individuals and to hear my fellow Tauranga MP Brendan Horan who talked about— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: He’s a list MP. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Yes he is a list MP; that is a low blow. Brendan Horan talked about what made him passionate about the issues of child abuse and the death of children from really serious abuse. And he is right to get angry and to get angry about the fact that in this country there are too many of those deaths and far too much serious abuse against children. Let us be very clear: the responsibility for those deaths first and foremost goes to the individual—some would say the scumbag—who has committed that violence. Let us be very clear about that. But nevertheless the Government and governmental agencies have a real role in being protective of those children and doing everything they can to share information and to make sure they can act as a bulwark as a protective agency against that abuse when information comes to them. We do not want privacy rules I do not think to get in the way unnecessarily of things like that where as I anticipate doctors find something out or the social worker finds something out and they are in a quandary about what to do with that information particularly where health and safety and sometimes life are at stake.  
I accept that this bill is about many more things than that but that is one aspect of what this bill seeks to address. As I say and as I said at the start of this contribution I look forward to discussing those issues at the select committee and hopefully hearing from a number of experts in the field in regard to privacy issues. I do not think Ruth Dyson need have any fear. Under Tim Macindoe as the new chair we have got someone who is very thoughtful and who really will want to grapple with these issues and we will do that to the best of our ability. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Privacy seems to be a bit of a theme for the week in the House at the moment. We were dealing with another bill that related to privacy issues last night. The Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill is in fact part of a series of bills that appear to be coming before the House at the moment to do with the storage of personal information by Government agencies and the sharing and use of it. It is a debate that is well overdue. It is interesting.  
As a constituency member of Parliament I can tell members that there are two very clearly defined sides of this debate. There are those who believe that nobody should ever store any information about anybody and nobody should ever share any information about anybody with anyone. Then there is the other side of the debate that cannot believe that the Government does not actually share information with itself and gets really really frustrated by it and as a result loses confidence in public services because of that.  
One of the risks that is highlighted in the regulatory impact statement and right in the general policy statement of this bill is that the misuse of information stored by Government agencies can result in a loss of confidence in those public services. But I also put it that the opposite of that is also true—that the not sharing of that information can equally lead to a loss of confidence in public services no more so than in the case of very vulnerable citizens particularly children as many members have talked about. I think every member of the public finds it absolutely appalling when there is a case of child abuse or a case of neglect where agencies collectively have had enough information to have been able to identify and deal with it but because of a lack of information sharing between them seem to be unable to do so. I think that does lead to a lack of confidence in the process of government and it is something that we on all sides of the House need to take very seriously and take action to address.  
We live in an age where people are perhaps a little bit less concerned about privacy—some people are a little bit less concerned about privacy than others would have been. Younger generations of New Zealanders share a phenomenal amount of information about themselves in very publicly available forums—social media for example—far more so than would have been available about people’s lives in the past and they do so freely. The question really becomes around the control of information and the control of personal information—so who holds my personal information can I get it who are they sharing it with how will I know? Those are all very legitimate questions for any citizen to be able to ask and they are things that we need to keep in mind when we are considering any law change around privacy.  
I think it is really important that the Government takes a quite coordinated approach to all of the different strands of work that are being done in this area. That is one of the reasons why I think the Law Commission’s involvement in this process provides some assurance to the public that in fact this is not just going to be a knee-jerk reaction. It is not going to be something that is ad hoc or piecemeal but in fact there is a wider consideration of the underlying principles and values around privacy that are being considered and it is not just being dealt with as a one off.  
I want to turn to some of the problems with the status quo—the problems with not dealing with this. Obviously there is duplication of information collection and storage amongst Government agencies if we do not have an effective means for sharing of the information. All members I think around the House would like to see our public services operate more efficiently and provide a far more citizen-centric public service. So this is not one where our citizens are shunted from one department to the next to the next but one where that whole “no wrong door” concept should apply to the public service. So it does not matter where you go you are never going to the wrong place. They will make sure you end up in the place that you need to end up. Information sharing is going to be really important in that and it will become increasingly more so.  
I think one of the other problems with our current regime is it prevents some personal information being used in a way that would speed up the detection of fraud or deter fraudulent behaviour. People know they can get away with it so they do. Better information sharing will result in people knowing that they cannot get away with it because they will get caught. I think that is also really important. Therefore better coordination in those situations will be very beneficial. But I think by and large that the major benefit is around dealing with vulnerable people and making sure that people do not fall through the cracks. In that regard I think this bill is a very welcome move. We will be supporting its referral to a select committee so that it can have a full hearing and people can have their say on it. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to add a few comments to those made by my colleague Jan Logie. The Greens are not supporting the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill for reasons that Jan has partly outlined— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that he must use the member’s full name in the House or their title. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: My apologies; indeed yes. This legislation that is being debated to be amended is 20-year-old legislation. It was enacted in 1993—not a terribly long time ago for some of us but nevertheless a very different world. Computers were relatively scarce. The idea of home computing was much less commonplace than it is now. Mobile phones were still relatively novel. They were used for making and receiving telephone calls and that was about the extent of it. We are in a very different context in terms of technology. To some extent at that time and prior to that our privacy was largely protected or considerably protected by the limitations of the storage mechanisms available—paper index cards and filing cabinets. There was not the ability or there was much less of an ability to share information to steal it to take it either rightly or wrongly. Given that this legislation is 20 years old there has been a remarkable increase in technology around information data-sharing. We do not deny the need for change. We are not resistant to change in itself; we simply do not see that the proposals in this amendment bill are those that will move us to where we want to be. 
The available technology clearly is a two-edged sword. We can acquire information we can store it we can analyse it and we can share it. Massive amounts of information can be moved around almost in a heartbeat virtually with no time delay. Mechanisms for managing that data for protecting it and for monitoring its use in an ethical and appropriate way are arguably considerably behind our technical ability to work with it. That is I think the dilemma that we are confronting here. 
The second dilemma in a sense has been perhaps referred to by the previous speaker as something of a cultural split in terms of electronic data and making it available. I would suspect that those of my generation guard our privacy our information quite jealously. We want to know why and for what purpose people might want information from us. At the other end of the spectrum I think the younger generation—what you might casually or perhaps in a very generalist way call the “Facebook generation”—think nothing of putting very large amounts of personal data into the public domain. But I think personally a healthy dose of cynicism injected into that generation might do some good in that sense. Clearly it is much easier to put information out there than it is to retrieve it. 
To return to the bill the purpose of the bill in a sense is not the core problem for the Greens. We have difficulty with it because we recognise the shortcomings. One example that has been pointed out to me is the inability of the Family Court to retrieve or to have information shared that might be available at the District Court. This can create difficulties and we could improve that situation arguably. We do see that there are situations where data sharing—information sharing—could enable better outcomes could be appropriate ethical and serve public good.  
However the mechanism chosen this proposed amendment legislation we do not see as the appropriate one. It is largely as my colleague spoke to earlier that there is a lack of checks and balances within this legislation. I think much has been made of the fact that the Privacy Commissioner would need to be involved in the preparation and the process of delivering the Orders in Council. But the commissioner’s report or feedback would have no binding effect on anything that was produced. It is purely a consultative mechanism; it is not one that gives us any confidence that the executive—any executive—might not overstretch the mark and use these mechanisms in a way that would not be appropriate that would not be suitably cognisant of the absolute right of people to maintain their privacy. So we are not persuaded by this bill. We will oppose it. We look forward to the select committee. Thank you. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 Kia ora. Can I start by saying it is a pleasure to stand and speak on such an important bill the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. I think it is a very important bill for this House. The implications of it as and when it enters into law will be important for many of the vulnerable children in New Zealand who until now we read about in our newspapers and who become statistics—and very sad statistics they are.  
Can I start though by recognising the New Zealand First members who gave their maiden speeches today and saying that I enjoyed all of them. In particular I remember 3 years ago when I and some of my colleagues were here making our maiden speeches. Interestingly not everybody on our side of the House was able to make their maiden speeches then. I note it is the same with New Zealand First; some made theirs 40 or 50 years ago. But it is good to see the new members who are coming here and I look forward to working closely and productively with them in the coming 3 years. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I will be in trouble for that one.  
Can I say that the debate so far in this House has been a very worthwhile one because it has not focused just on the issue of privacy or on the concern people have about their private information; it has been about how we protect vulnerable New Zealanders and vulnerable children. Actually for me that is really what the important part of this bill is about. Now we have legislation in place but we need to reform the current information-sharing regime. We need to do that because importantly Government departments and Government agencies need to share this important information more efficiently and in turn need to provide a better service to those whom they serve to make people safer. We need these agencies to focus on vulnerable people and vulnerable children and to make sure that those who can be provided with greater protection and assistance are provided with that assistance.  
Our hard-working Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett is in other parts of the country talking about the green paper on vulnerable children. She is in Dunedin today is she? Good for her but can I say she was— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should not refer to the absence of members from the House. All of us at one time or another are away. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Good Mr Assistant Speaker. So before the House came back into session the honourable Minister was in Rotorua. We held a meeting in the Plunket tearooms there where actors from the community involved with helping vulnerable children came together and with almost a single voice they asked for greater information-sharing. They said that the more information that is shared the better they can do their job and the more young people they will protect. Now although this bill maybe does not go to the length that they were asking for—and I know that the Minister has taken their requests as part of that consultation seriously—what this bill will do is allow important agencies to share information when they believe it is critical and will protect our children.  
I want to conclude here just by saying this is a balance and I recognise the position of the Greens. This is a balance between the right to privacy of personal information against the need to protect vulnerable people. Now I am personally probably willing to give up some of my privacy or protection of private information if it saves even one young person’s life. But the very good news in this legislation is that there are safeguards built in. I do not believe that people will be giving up information that they would not want to otherwise and the focus—as other members have spoken of earlier in the debate—is about how we can better use information that is available to protect these New Zealanders so our agencies can do a better job so we can protect our vulnerable children. I look forward to the committee working diligently through this process. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be reported back to the House by 15 June 2012. 
Motion agreed to. 
Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a second time 
. The measures that this bill contains continue the reform of New Zealand’s international tax rules that has been under way for some years now to help New Zealand-based businesses compete more effectively overseas by removing undue tax obstacles to their overseas-based operations and by bringing our tax rules into line with those of other countries.  
This bill was introduced late in 2010 and the reforms themselves kicked off in 2009 with the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Act which introduced an active income exemption for foreign companies controlled by New Zealand investors. The term “active income” refers to income from activities such as manufacturing while the term “passive income” refers to income such as interest royalties or rent.  
The reform has been designed to encourage businesses with international operations to remain in New Zealand while enabling them to compete on an equal tax footing with their competitors in foreign markets. Previously a New Zealand company’s active income from its offshore subsidiaries was taxed by New Zealand whereas other countries would not impose such a tax on their companies. So the current bill takes this process one step further ahead by reforming our international tax rules through a number of further measures to remove tax obstacles to business and investment by New Zealanders operating offshore.  
The first of these changes extends the active income exemption to joint ventures into other significant New Zealand shareholdings in foreign companies that are not controlled by New Zealand firms. Under the provisions in the bill New Zealanders with stakes of 10 percent or more in offshore companies will not be subject to New Zealand tax on those interests unless they earn passive income such as interest royalties or rents. To minimise compliance costs for these businesses an active business test will apply and that test will remove the need to calculate and to attribute small amounts of passive income.  
Other changes in the bill further rationalise or extend the earlier international tax reforms. The current exemption for non-portfolio foreign investment funds in the eight so-called “grey list” countries is being replaced with an exemption for non-portfolio foreign investment funds—or FIFs—that are resident and subject to tax in Australia. The “grey list” is probably the final hangover of the tax reforms in the international arena from the 1980s. I well recall at the time when changes were first being mooted the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as the then Minister of Finance making the comment to officials and others that this was an instance in a parody of  
Star Trek 
 where New Zealand had gone where no one had chosen to follow. In many senses what this legislation is doing is carrying through on that change and rationalising the concept of our international tax structure to more accurately reflect where a number of major New Zealand investments occur.  
There is one other area where the bill also makes a significant change with regard to a potential barrier for non-resident investment: the area of New Zealand corporate bonds. In 2009 the Capital Market Development Taskforce recommended that the approved issuer levy—or AIL as it is commonly known—be reduced from 2 percent to nil for corporate debt that is publicly issued. This bill achieves that recommendation by providing a nil rate of approved issuer levy in respect of interest paid on corporate bonds that are widely traded in New Zealand and that meet other criteria.  
The bill does contain some other technical amendments. These are largely remedial in nature aimed at removing certain unintended consequences of following the earlier reforms. On that note I wish to advise the House that I will shortly be releasing a Supplementary Order Paper to correct some minor drafting oversights in both Budget 2010 and Budget 2011 legislation that did not update some numbers and some dates.  
In bringing this bill back before the House for its second reading I am grateful to the previous Finance and Expenditure Committee for the detailed consideration that it gave the bill and for the recommendations that it made at the time for further refining and clarifying its content. In that respect I note particular changes that have been made to the active business test to make it easier to apply by using accounting information.  
The changes in this bill on the whole are very positive news for New Zealand companies with overseas interests and for investors generally and that in turn will help play its part in New Zealand’s overall economic recovery. It is therefore with a great deal of pleasure that I commend the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 This bill the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill makes a minor change to tax rules that will be beneficial overall to the New Zealand commercial community. I would note that I would not want to overstate the importance of it. I think that is borne out by the fact that it was reported back by the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 9 May last year and it did not make it up the Order Paper before the election so it is hardly the most important piece of business in terms of the future of the New Zealand economy.  
I will make one or two comments. I do agree with the Minister of Revenue that it is important that we do not allow New Zealand ownership of offshore operations to be undermined by uncompetitive tax rates in New Zealand on overseas income. If we do that we create a perverse incentive for those companies to move their operations from New Zealand to a low-tax jurisdiction and we have to guard against that.  
If we are looking then at areas where we have residual concern I think more work needs to be done in respect of offshore royalty income. The Labour Party took to the last election a proposal that we consider whether there should be a reduction in tax on overseas royalties earned by intellectual property - rich companies based in New Zealand. Those companies more than almost any other company can base themselves in just about any other jurisdiction in the world because they are not reliant on manufacturing facilities in New Zealand. They are not reliant on New Zealand land for production of primary produce. They can locate themselves where it is most beneficial to their shareholders. We need to take care that if we want to encourage the growth of some of those clever technology companies we do not encourage their early transition out of New Zealand in order to chase a lower tax rate on their royalty income.  
I heard from one of the senior partners of one of the Auckland accounting firms. I will not name the firm to identify the individual but he acts for many of the successful technology companies. I went to see him in the course of my responsibilities as the then spokesperson for Labour on economic development. I asked him what changes he thought were necessary in New Zealand to stimulate the growth of that sector. He thought that a review of the treatment of taxation on royalty income from intellectual property rights held by New Zealand companies in respect of their offshore operations was necessary which is why we took that to the election. I think that is unfinished business Minister and I would hope that that is under consideration by the Inland Revenue Department.  
One area where I disagree with the import of this legislation—the Labour Party notwithstanding that opposition will be supporting the legislation because overall it is good legislation—is the removal of the approved issuer levy. The minority report from Labour in the report back from the select committee noted that we had submissions from a number of submitters that the proposals outlined which reduce the revenue to the Crown will not in their opinion help increase liquidity of loans flowing into New Zealand.  
There is no other reason to do this. Why should we be reducing the tax burden on effectively overseas lenders into New Zealand if there is going to be no difference in liquidity or lower interest rates in New Zealand? Already the overseas lenders to New Zealand face a very low tax burden compared with a domestic earner of interest in New Zealand. If interest is paid to a non-resident by a New Zealand enterprise the non-resident withholding tax rate is much lower than that paid by a resident.  
There is a reason there is a tax rate differential. One reason is the fact that if you are a non-resident you do not enjoy all the services that we enjoy as residents. You do not get your share of health services and you do not get education services so in a fairness sense you would not expect them to be paying as high a rate of tax. But it is also true that they do get the benefit of a stable democracy and the things that are paid for by taxation so they should be paying some taxation on the interest that is earned from New Zealand borrowers be they corporate or private borrowers.  
Already in New Zealand we have granted increasing exemptions over the years to reduce the tax burden—I should not call it the tax burden—the tax paid by those overseas lenders into New Zealand who are earning interest from their investments in New Zealand. We have done that by exempting people from non-resident withholding tax which they have been able to get around through—and the Minister can tell me if I have got this wrong—the approved issuer levy process. So if they come through the approved issuer levy route they can on occasions avoid non-resident withholding tax. Already the substitute if you like for non-resident withholding tax—the approved issuer levy—is at a considerably lower rate not only than the tax that would be paid by a New Zealander being paid interest if they were a resident in New Zealand but also than the non-resident withholding tax rate.  
Yet the proposal here is not to move to equalise that and perhaps garner a bit more revenue for the Crown. You know the Government is running an enormous deficit at the moment; it needs to get some money from somewhere as well as trim its expenditure and grow the economy. It needs some more revenue. Why would we be giving revenue away through abandoning the small amount of revenue that we get from the approved issuer levy rather than actually making it more robust? I do not think that would be causing an unfairness. If we have substantial evidence that there would be threats to the ability of New Zealand to fund its offshore borrowing requirements or for our banks and other corporate borrowers to fund their borrowings then maybe there would be a substantial case for reducing the costs of overseas lenders through taxes and approved issuer levies. But that case has not been made out.  
For that reason Labour is critical of this part of the legislation which effectively again seems to serve the interests of the big end of town to the detriment of the New Zealand tax base and yet there does not seem to be a proven need to do it. Rather we would have thought there would be a desire to get an appropriate balance between those different actors in the economy who pay tax.  
Plainly the people who invest money in New Zealand get an interest benefit from the interest that is paid by New Zealanders. They do get a benefit from New Zealand. They in part get that because of the things that New Zealand funds through taxes that are collected such as an educated population that can work and be productive and therefore afford to pay interest to those overseas lenders into New Zealand. They are benefiting from police and they are benefiting from the enforcement of the rule of law which means that their contracts are enforceable in New Zealand and they will get repaid.  
These are all things that are sustained by the New Zealand institutions that are in part funded by taxation and I think it is fair that we expect the recipients of those rewards—that interest that has been paid from New Zealand to those overseas people—to bear a tax burden. Yet this legislation goes in the opposite direction. Not that it was a heavy burden through the approved issuer levy but rather than actually trying to equalise things in a way that is fair it has just said “Look we’ll just give up and we won’t charge any.” I do not think that is good policy I do not think it stands scrutiny and that is why Labour has opposed this part of the bill which is the removal of the approved issuer levy.  
I have just about run out of time; I would say in closing that if we want to get right the investment signal into New Zealand businesses it is much more important that we do things like get a neutral tax signal through a capital gains tax so that people invest on the basis of the profitability of the investment rather than the tax treatment of it. If it is good enough for the Minister of Revenue to come here and say that it is important that we have these changes in order to have a relatively level playing field about where people invest overseas why can we not have similar logic applied to our tax system in New Zealand so that we encourage the more productive use of capital in New Zealand discourage the over-investment in the speculative sector and encourage investment in the productive sector? Through that we would reduce our current account deficit and get wealthier as well as improve the tax base. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill as a main proposal extends the active income exemption introduced in 2009 to offshore subsidiaries so that it also applies to joint ventures and other significant shareholdings in foreign companies that are not controlled by New Zealanders. The active income exemption brings New Zealand’s tax rules into line with the practice in other countries. It will help New Zealand - based businesses to compete more effectively in foreign markets by freeing them from a tax cost that similar companies in other countries do not face. 
 In plain English effectively what this bill does—and I have to say I did not have the pleasure to be on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when this bill passed through it and was considered—is ensure that businesses remaining in New Zealand compete on an equal footing when they go overseas. They are not double taxed. I appreciate there is some simplification in what I say. There are distinctions for example between active and passive income which the Minister has spoken of but we do have a system broadly speaking and we are extending the system so that when businesses here go overseas and face tax costs in their business they are not double taxed here. I think David Parker put it well when he said we are not having uncompetitive tax rates in New Zealand for those overseas interests. Again without having sat on the committee as this bill went through one can see many instances where that would be of benefit to New Zealand businesses abroad whether manufacturing in Taiwan or whether attempting to set up agricultural and horticultural businesses in South-east Asia and the like.  
Can I also just say that on the Finance and Expenditure Committee today we in some ways considered the other side of the coin on this aspect. Russel Norman when questioning the Commissioner of Inland Revenue whilst I disagree with his conclusions made some interesting and valid points I think about our corporate tax rate and whether or not its level is conducive to investment and whether it puts people off. Winston Peters had a very different view and I take a different view again. It is in many ways like a situation with the bear I suppose where you do not want the porridge too hot or too cold. If we have the tax rate too high we are turning off business and if we have it too low we cannot pay for the social services we want and need in this country. But I think what it does show is that robust views on the select committee are to be welcomed that there is room for them and that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be able to deal with them in a cordial way.  
I come back to the bill. I think it is a good step. David Parker may well be right when he says it is not huge and it is not going to change the world. Nevertheless it does go towards the Government’s programme of making for a more productive and competitive New Zealand economy. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I want to acknowledge Simon Bridges as the new chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Actually he follows the efforts of Amy Adams Shane Jones Clayton Cosgrove—I am not entirely sure whether I can accord that status to David Cunliffe—and even Peter Dunne. For reasons that escape me my colleague David Parker said that Simon Bridges chaired the meeting very well. I am not entirely sure whether he is ready for a CSI test or something like that but I am prepared to follow the words of my senior colleague and wish Simon Bridges well as he steers that committee which after all is the all-important Finance and Expenditure Committee.  
It is a committee I might say that was bedevilled during the period of time after Air New Zealand’s private equity shrank as a consequence of a financial collapse to somewhere near 20 to 30 percent. The Crown picked up the rest but for reasons that were never fully understood the power and fears of the private shareholders in that company meant that it was very difficult for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to exert a level of surveillance over the investment the Crown had in that entity. Unfortunately no doubt we will hear about that issue a great deal more frequently as the year unfolds.  
We will support the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. For a mercifully short period of time I sat on the committee and heard a number of submissions about this bill. I enjoyed the company of David Bennett and others and I could see that one did not need to read legislation in order to advance in the National Party unlike our side of the House where we were virtually reduced to candles as we studied hour upon hour into the twilight.  
That causes me to remind myself about Dr Cullen’s attempt to regularise and to improve how we taxed investments held and enjoyed by Kiwis overseas. It has led to arguably one of the most successful lobbying attempts to do with international taxation that I ever saw when Tony Gibbs started spending enormous amounts of money hiring lobbyists and plastering advertisements—which I am sure the Inland Revenue Department officials of that time would recall—in our provincial newspapers and our national newspapers. That example showed that the kinds of people who store their wealth in entities that might be captured by attempts—such as this bill—to ensure that the taxation system is not unfair but also that people pay a fair amount are not to be trifled with.  
We will support this bill but the bottom line is that whether you are on that side of the House or where my colleague Mr Parker and I sit we know that it is important that investors who are coming to New Zealand and are taking a punt to put their funds into areas that may or may not turn into further jobs but that are successful investments are not scared away through our tax system and at the same time that we New Zealanders do not find ourselves being able to make investments in other overseas jurisdictions and then having people complain that there is an uneven playing field. And that is a reasonable principle; politics will determine how far the principle tilts one way or the other. But we will support this bill.  
I think it is interesting that the amendments that have been made draw on the fact that although we have a internationally recognised set of accountancy principles—and after the Enron crisis at that particular point in time I was wisely the chair of the Sealord company before being possessed by a sort of flash of enthusiasm to come into Parliament—I do recall that the imposition and the application of the accountancy principles at that time led to a whole host of transactional difficulties for New Zealand firms. Now to avoid such opportunities for leakage opportunities for gouging from the professionals—because many of the business managers are not really au fait with the integration between our domestic code and international standards—we are going to go with the accountancy principles enjoyed by the United States. So it is good to see that our friends in the United States still have a level of repute and power in that particular sphere of the world’s economy because they have been great. As someone who suffered an education in the United States it is good to see that that particular part of the apparatus has not been eclipsed by other economies that are growing very strongly.  
It is important that the Labour Party reiterates—and unfortunately my colleagues who actually were on that committee are no longer here this evening—the areas that we disagreed upon. But broadly speaking the two main parties have to have a view as to whether or not we have got the balance right when we mesh together domestic expectations of tax revenue and international expectations as to whether or not this country is either a fair or a reasonable place to store wealth or to attract wealth into. Now we are always going to have a problem for as long as we have the current fiscal settings that are being pursued by the Government of the day. We have a revenue base that is shrinking we have spending ambitions that are large in the community and we have capital ambitions that are large. Let us hope that these remedial matters actually improve the prospect of not so much the Government as the community being able to delve into various sources in the economy and generate enough revenue to pay.  
 Now we are always going to have a debate as well as to what the appropriate level of expenditure is in terms of the community’s expectations when there is—as our friends from the Maori Party seem to have developed—a sudden fascination for funding family reunions etc. Given my father had 17 kids I look forward to being an applicant in that regard after I leave politics 
Hon Member 
: No chance! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No chance—you are probably right there. They are more Dalmatian than Maori and they will say “You can pay for it yourself Mr Jones.”  
This committee in dealing with technical matters at the end of the day has depended indeed even in our time on Therese Turner and the very fine officials from the Inland Revenue Department. There are a couple of occasions when submitters do come to the committee and they want to find enough confidence that individual members of the committee not only understand the content but understand the context of the problem that they are bringing to us. We rely on the technical advice of such officials and of course the greatest official of them all was Mr Oliver; no doubt he is endeavouring or did endeavour to clone himself and he was aided by that old mate of mine Rob McLeod who has long since fled to Australia to substantially improve his income. Those matters aside we have to acknowledge the efforts of the Inland Revenue Department officials. But in particular they also need to recognise that individual members of the committee from time to time do call for additional information from specific submitters.  
Now why we do that is to ensure that as lobbyists representatives from companies and investors come they want to know that this committee the most senior committee in the select committee constellation has people who will make the additional effort in a highly technical area. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Like Maori Affairs. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well I have yet to enjoy the pleasure not of Hone Harawira’s company but of Tau Henare’s chairmanship on the Maori Affairs Committee. I have waited 6 years to actually get on to the Primary Production Committee. I am particularly glad to be on that committee because I am told that from time to time it is invited to places such as Central Otago and I understand an Adelaide trip could be in the offing as well. Given I have a modest level of knowledge about aquaculture I look forward to that invitation. No doubt leave will be sought and hopefully provided.  
So we will support this bill. I acknowledge the efforts of the officials. I acknowledge Simon Bridges and the role that he has taken on. We have some senior people on our side who will be working on this committee so we suffer not a sliver of doubt as to whether we should support this bill. But we point out that the underlying principles will always be a balance of politics and there is one area we are disappointed with: the approval levy. But that goes more to ensuring at a time when revenue is shrinking and spending ambitions in the community are growing that we do not unwisely or foolishly block off important sources of income. We will support this bill. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the second reading of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. This bill at its heart addresses some of the detail around the tax treatment of incoming and outgoing foreign investment. It does this in a way that basically works from the principle that it wants to establish a level playing field with regard to the treatment of incoming and outgoing foreign investment. I actually think that is a bit of a mistake. We will be supporting this bill because it makes minor amendments some of which are improvements.  
The reason I think it is a mistake is this reason: when you look at the most recent Inland Revenue briefing to the incoming Minister what it talks about is what is going on with regard to incoming investment into New Zealand. Essentially most incoming investment coming into New Zealand is looking to access the New Zealand domestic market. If we think of the banking sector the banking sector is not a launch pad for an export industry in New Zealand; it is just foreign investment coming in because it wants to access the New Zealand domestic banking market. If we think of telecommunications it is pretty similar. It is dominated by overseas foreign investors coming into New Zealand in order to access the domestic market. So those investors are coming into New Zealand for their own reasons. There is nothing particularly in it for New Zealand necessarily although they can add something to the New Zealand economy but those domestic markets will exist regardless and they will attract those foreign investors. That is fundamentally why they come here.  
The second reason why foreign investors are coming in here is to access resources particularly land but other kinds of resources as well that New Zealand has because those resources are important to their global business model. So the treatment of incoming foreign investment needs to be separated from the treatment of outgoing foreign investment. We do want to make it easy for New Zealand - based firms to invest and prosper overseas so some of the changes that have been made in this bill attempt to do that. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.