Volume 609 Week 27 - Thursday 19 June 2003 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 609 Week 27 - Thursday 19 June 2003 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 19 June 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the main items of business will be the remaining stages of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and those first readings not completed today. Wednesday is members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am wondering whether the Leader of the House might give us an early indication of when the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is likely to progress up the Order Paper. There are a number of businesses throughout the country that are interested in that bill making some progress. It has been available to the House for some time. Further can the Minister just give us an indication about what the following week may have with regard to extended hours. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Taking the second point first I indicate that the Government is intending to take extended hours from Tuesday through to Friday 6 p.m. in the fourth week. I will come back to members whips and leaders particularly hopefully by the end of next week with a full list of the intended business. On the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill it is fair to say we are not likely to deal with that in the next 2 weeks. I hope we will make early progress in the next sitting of Parliament. 
Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Further to the discussions with various party whips and the Business Committee I seek leave for Standing Order 256 to be suspended to permit the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in its consideration of the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill to have authority to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Points of Order 
Rodney Hide—Apology to the House 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday before question time began Rodney Hide sought leave of the House and it was granted to apologise for misleading the House with regard to statements he made about Mr Hemana Waaka and Maori Sportscasting International. I now seek leave for Mr Hide to offer his apologies kanohi ki te kanohi to Mr Hemana Waaka and his whanau. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot seek leave for anybody else. 
Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Through you Mr Speaker yesterday the Minister of Maori Affairs said he would answer a question and get back to me directly. I am sorry to report to the House that the Minister has yet to get back to me with the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to be seated. It is up to the Minister as to when he gets back to the member. The member cannot enter into a debate about that. 
Tabling of Documents 
Sky Videotape 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a video by Sky television showing quite clearly the broadcast that was done by Hemana Waaka Maori Sportscasting International on 15 June 2002 in Perth Western Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Points of Order 
Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue raised by Rodney Hide on a point of order is I believe a very serious issue. The ruling that you have just given the House which is that the Minister can get back with the answer in his own time frame does cause me concern. The Minister who yesterday was unable to answer questions that he had written notice of said he would provide the information—in fact he used words like “I will provide it directly.” and “as soon as I get it”. We questioned you yesterday on this. You said it was incumbent on the Minister to treat the question seriously and to respond. Today you have said there is no time frame on this. We could feasibly expect the Minister to come back next year or the year after or next month. At some point surely there must be a time when you judge that the Minister has to answer the question or provide the information that he said to the House he is not going to provide rather than just leaving it as open-ended as you have? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am informed that an answer was delivered to Mr Rodney Hide’s secretary between 11 and 11.30 this morning. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not quite correct I am sorry to inform the Leader of the House. My precise question asked on what date the Minister learnt that the Te MangaiPaho board had rolled over Trevor Moeke’s contract. I received an answer as the Leader of the House says between 11 and 11.30 this morning but in no way does it answer that question. The Minister said in this House yesterday in answer to my question: “I do not have that information at the moment. However I assure the member that I will put it in writing and send it directly to him.” As at this time the Minister of Maori Affairs has not done so. I take it from your ruling given the way this Minister of Maori Affairs works that that could be next year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. We cannot argue in this House about a subsequent communication between a Minister and a member. As to the point the Hon Roger Sowry raises it is entirely up to the Minister as to when he follows up; there is no time constraint. But of course I urge Ministers if they say they are going to provide an answer to do so as quickly as they reasonably can. And the Minister did between 11 and 11.30 a.m. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have now ruled that it is up to the Minister in terms of the time frame. I think that leaves a huge hole and I ask you to go away and consider that ruling in respect of the opportunity that that provides for Ministers to not answer. You have also ruled that the Minister has answered the question and did so between 11 and 11.30 a.m. Mr Hide said that in fact the Minister has not answered the question. If the Minister between 11 and 11.30 just provided in writing the same answer he provided to the House yesterday surely that is not an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister provided an answer. The member may not be satisfied with it and he is entitled to take that matter further by way of further questions in the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So that we are absolutely clear are we now to accept that in question time when we have put down questions in writing some hours ahead of the House meeting it is perfectly acceptable for a Minister simply to stand and say: “I’ll let you know later.”? Are we to understand that that answer would stand and at some point the Minister could decide whether to provide an answer to that member? Surely the questions are asked by the whole House and it becomes an interest of the entire Parliament to have that answer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I suggest that members are now starting to trifle yet again with the point of order procedure. You have clearly ruled on this matter. Answers have been provided. I can assure the member that the Minister was not trying to avoid giving answers. The information was not available in time. Every effort was made by the Minister to get an answer in time. The convention of this House is very clear: when a supplementary answer is given later it is given to the member who asked the question. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 We have an amazing situation here— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes it is this. The Leader of the House is saying that the Minister did not have enough time to discover on what date he learnt a piece of information. How hard is it for a “Minister of Information”—well he is the “Minister for Information”—I mean the Minister of Maori Affairs to find out when he discovered something given that he cannot do it in 24 hours? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 130/2 concerning written replies. It states in part: “Ministers are under an obligation to the member concerned to follow up with a full reply as soon as possible thereafter.” That is the ruling that was given in 1995 and the ruling stands. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking clarification on that point because this is the confusion. The Minister used the word “directly” and it is a question of whether that means directly in time and that is fairly vague. It is almost akin to saying “shortly after” because we actually do not know what it means. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was directed by me to provide a reply as soon as reasonably possible. He did so between 11.00 and 11.30 today. As far as I am concerned although it might not satisfy the questioner that is a matter between the questioner and the Minister. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did ask and I will ask you again whether you will go away and consider your ruling— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will; I am sorry I will— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: —because I just want to make the point that with a written question where a Minister does not answer the question within the time frame it is not uncommon for members to come down here and list the questions off to you. You undertake to make inquiries with the Minister’s office and some action is taken. I think that that sort of approach should be taken where a Minister says in the House that he or she will answer something and never does. A member should be able to come here after a certain time—it may be a shorter period of time because it is a question on notice—and raise it with you. I just ask you to consider that Mr Speaker as part of your considerations on this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said I will consider it; I shall. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This point of order is in support of you and indeed in support of the Leader of the House Dr Cullen. The Minister did answer one question. But what I have been talking about is a second question that I asked in the House to which the Minister said he would directly get back to me. I am afraid he has not addressed that question at all. That is my point. I am happy with the answer that he has addressed. What I am not happy with is that one of my questions has not been addressed at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now that is something the member can take up with me afterwards. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tranz Rail—Toll Holdings 
1. MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports that Toll Holdings will be looking for Government support to maintain and upgrade the rail network if its 95c a share takeover bid for Tranz Rail is successful; if so will Government support be forthcoming? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That was the statement yesterday by the chief executive of Toll Holdings. I have to point out that if Toll Holdings’ takeover bid succeeds the change of ownership condition of the present heads of agreement with Tranz Rail will be triggered and the subsidy implicit in that heads of agreement would not be forthcoming and neither would the guaranteed investment in the track. 
Mark Peck 
: What are the components of the heads of agreement between the Government and Tranz Rail as they relate to the track? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Under the deal we would buy back the track and infrastructure for $1 set up an entity called Track Co. to manage it charge Tranz Rail for access impose a series of service-level agreements with step-in rights in the event of non-compliance and invest $100 million over the next 5 years to upgrade the network. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Given that he has said “the Government is not necessarily committed to remaining a long-term shareholder in the operating company.” will he negotiate with Toll Holdings to buy the track instead of publicly insulting Toll Holdings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have done no such thing. Given the fact that the chief executive on Monday seemed to think that there was a built-in $20 million and appeared not to have read the heads of agreements at that point I think it would have been hard to insult the chief executive. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Another insult! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No that is a statement of fact. That is not an insult about Toll Holdings. Toll Holdings will be able to come back to the Government if it so wishes should it gain approval at its present price to achieve an agreement exactly the same as the one we have with Tranz Rail at the present time. Its share bid is based upon the Government not being there. Toll Holdings cannot expect therefore to get a deal at least as good as the one it is looking for if it takes over. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is threatening! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it is a statement of commercial realities. 
Peter Brown 
: As some major institutional investors in Tranz Rail are openly supporting the Toll Holdings bid in order to get rid of the Tranz Rail senior management does that send a signal to this Government and will it have any influence on the Minister’s intention of giving Tranz Rail monopoly operating rights on the track? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can assure the member that Toll Holdings certainly wants monopoly operating rights on the track. 
Stephen Franks 
: How will the Government assure New Zealanders that this is not just a bail-out for the existing shareholders and more that the efficient shipping competitors of Tranz Rail are not driven to bankruptcy by continued subsidised predatory underpricing through the Government’s rescue of that company and its shareholders instead of simply ensuring that the track is sound for any user? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To achieve an upgrade of the track will require significant investment as the member’s own leader has pointed out in the recent past. That is unlikely to be achieved without some degree of assistance from the Government. I am simply signalling very clearly to Toll Holdings that it cannot expect to come in and pick up a subsidy that is not available to it as of right under the present heads of agreement. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the existing rail operator receiving any Government subsidy to maintain the rail network at present? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The only subsidy I can think of was implicit in the fact that the Government has given and Auckland had agreed to an excessive price to buy the Auckland track. The Government had to step in and pay certainly more than that track was worth. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister believe that his Government is in a stronger or weaker position negotiating with Toll Holdings before it owns 51 percent of Tranz Rail or after? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government sought cooperation with Tranz Rail for an understanding before any further bids proceeded but that was turned down by Toll Holdings. I simply signalled to Toll Holdings that there are consequences that flow from not achieving prior agreement. Toll Holdings cannot expect to come in afterwards and get the same kind of deal that it seems to be expecting. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Would it be prudent for existing Tranz Rail shareholders to assume that there would be a Government subsidy for the rail network even if the network were in private hands given all the difficulties there would be in determining whether the money would be going into the rail line or into its bottom line? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The heads of agreement provides for the separation of the operating company from the rest of Tranz Rail to ensure that any subsidy implicit in the access charge remains within the Tranz Rail rail operating structure as opposed to say for example flowing across into the other operations of Tranz Rail. 
Hospitals—Auckland Amalgamation 
2.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of service during the amalgamation of Green Lane National Women’s Starship Children’s and Auckland Hospital on to one site in Grafton Road and what guarantees can she give that no one will be adversely affected by the move? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I requested the previous Government’s Cabinet papers that approved the merger of the four hospitals on to the Grafton site in Auckland to see what safeguards the then Government had guaranteed. Unfortunately there were none. However I am advised by the Auckland District Health Board that a full transition programme was subsequently developed that put clinical safety as its highest priority. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why was Kathryn Winiata mother of 4-year-old MacLean Winiata a little boy who needs open-heart surgery and who was booked for surgery on 19 May this year told that he had been reprioritised until after Green Lane Hospital moved to the Auckland site and would not even be considered for surgery until after February 2004 and how many other children are having their lives put at risk by this reprioritisation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not warn the Hon Dr Nick Smith again. He interjected twice during that question. He should not interject at all. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If the member wishes to raise an individual case I suggest that she does it in the appropriate manner. To help patients is always better than using them. However I have been advised by the Auckland District Health Board that cardiac surgery will slow because of the shift. That was envisaged. Obviously with a shift of this sort a major change is taking place. However the board intends to try to do more surgery prior to the shift to make up for the delays. The board is working very hard on that. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What benefits will there be for children who are requiring cardiac surgery when Green Lane Hospital is merged with Starship Children’s Hospital? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There will be considerable benefits to children requiring cardiac surgery because the shift from Green Lane Hospital to Starship Children’s Hospital means there will be six theatres instead of four and the sessions for cardiac surgery will increase from eight to nine. I presume that is one of the benefits that was thought about when it was decided to merge the four hospitals on to one site. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: As there is no other paediatric cardiac surgery availability in New Zealand will she agree to send children to Australia for treatment if it shown that their lives and their growth and development are at risk because of this need to reprioritise and delay surgery due to the Green Lane Hospital move to the Auckland site? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A decision for a child—or an adult for that matter—to have surgery is a decision for the clinicians. If they decided they needed to do a child urgently they would do him or her. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noticing the objection that the Minister has taken to our member raising an individual case I seek the leave of the House to table 19 cases that that member raised when she was Opposition spokesperson on health. 
Documents not tabled. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not take objection; I said to raise it in the appropriate manner with me. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table the letter from Kathryn Winiata to Wayne Brown outlining her significant concerns about the health of her son caused by these delays. 
Document laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because this question is directed to the Prime Minister I seek leave for the question to be held over until she can be here to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
 Affairs Associate Minister—Personal Statement 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she said “I understand that the matters referred to have been covered by a personal statement made in this House before.” did she check this out before she gave that answer; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: No because it was a supplementary question without notice. She therefore relied on her own recollections ably assisted by her bench mate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Disregarding who might be ably assisting her where in the statement of 6 July 2000 from John Tamihere which was a personal explanation are the following offences: declaring as income in a business transaction an unrealised profit of over $800000 on a sale not at that time entered into; or forging signatures on 34 cheques as evidenced before the Maori Affairs Committee by the Waipareira Trust’s former lawyer; where in this personal explanation that the Prime Minister said covered these issues are those two issues? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member had done more research he would have found that there are other personal explanations. I have three here. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In which of the other three explanations that the Deputy Prime Minister is holding other than the one of 6 July 2000 are there explanations for the two series of offences I am outlining now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In relation to the matters that the member raises one of those he did not raise yesterday in any case. The issue of what he calls forgery was raised on 6 July as were a number of the other matters he raised yesterday. The matter he referred to in terms of a mortgage was raised on 15 March—I am not sure in which year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us again in respect of the declaration as income of unrealised profit—an illegal device that sends people to jail in other transactions—which explanations by Mr Tamihere cover that allegation and those of the 34 forged cheques? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On 6 July Mr Tamihere referred to a letter alleging forgery and fraud. If the member wants to raise those matters further I suggest that he wanders somewhere down Courtenay Place and utters them out loud. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to take that as an answer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he is not. Mr Speaker are you going to take that as an answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is that the member’s point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The Minister addressed that question by suggesting that the member say outside what he said inside. An explanation was given at a particular time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister in one her answers gave the identical answer which was that I should go outside the House and repeat that. I said to you and to her yesterday that the matter of $800000 of profit wrongly declared as income is a matter of the company’s audit and a public document so why would I be required to do that? That is my point. That sort of device used by that Minister and the Prime Minister yesterday is simply not a parliamentary answer. I am asking the Minister where in the explanations Mr Tamihere has made of which the Minister holds copies is that matter covered. It is fairly obvious. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no ministerial responsibility here because those are activities that occurred before the member came into this House. Any responsibility of course to the Prime Minister is the answer she gave and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has addressed that today. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two submissions. The first goes to Standing Order 117. I invite you to take some advice from the Clerk and consider a new ruling. Standing Order 117 gives a right in regard to the Standing Orders of a very narrow negative defence. I am requesting of you to consider the right of members in this House to have a halfway-house defence in regard to not having to be put to the sword and using Standing Order 343. This matter seems to be coming up more and more. I invite you to think about that on the basis of a positive and affirmative defence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is asking me to consider that ruling? 
Hon John Tamihere 
: That is right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I will deal with that first. The member has asked me to consider that ruling. I will. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: My second submission goes to the two issues raised by the member. The first one was well covered by the Serious Fraud Office. It reported back on it. The second issue— 
Hon David Carter 
: This is not a point of order. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: This has impugned my character and I will have a say. The second one is to read the audit reports and understand how to read audit reports. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can of course ask for leave to make a personal explanation. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think he has already done it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He has made the point he has wanted to make now. That is the end of the matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seems to me that we are getting into difficult waters with question time. Dr Michael Cullen suggested to Mr Winston Peters to go outside and repeat that but that seems to me to be inviting the Rt Hon Winston Peters to commit a contempt of court given that these cases are subject to court suppression orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is something I cannot rule on because I do not know the facts of that situation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I shall ask the Prime Minister again. Where in John Tamihere’s numerous explanations to Parliament including today’s one by way of a point of order are the following serious matters covered: declaration as income of an unrealised profit ofover $800000 to bring the books from the red to the black on a sale not even then entered into; or the forging of signatures on 34 cheques as evidenced by the Waipareira Trust’s former lawyer before the Maori Affairs Committee? Where in those explanations and including today’s does Mr Tamihere cover those matters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that part was covered in the 6 July explanation. I have a correction. There are just two personal explanations not three. I may have misled the House earlier by looking at my notes here incorrectly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Where in the 6 July explanation that he has now alluded to is any coverage of the two matters I have raised in this House today and yesterday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That explanation relates to alleging forgery and fraud. I notice as Mr Tamihere has pointed out that that was not what was found by members outside. I suggest that the continued use of that terminology in allegations in this House which were not found to be the case outside is inappropriate and improper. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister whether the reason she promoted John Tamihere despite his serious offences including forgery is that she herself— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That interpolation is not part of the question. I ask the member to please ask the question without that interpolation in it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am sorry but could you explain that again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question without the comments about forgery. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not. This is an offence that Mr Tamihere admitted and you are not going to stop me from reciting the facts. I am going to say it again: is the reason she permitted John Tamihere despite his serious offences including forgery that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raised a point of order. The member mentioned was not convicted of forgery therefore that cannot be alluded to in that way. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The fact is that Mr Tamihere as he will tell you admitted the offences of forgery and uttering. That is a fact. I do not know what advice you are getting from the Clerk but perhaps you should ask Mr Tamihere whether I am right or wrong on this matter because I intend to ask this question in the way I have asked it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not normal to requote from a personal explanation but I do quote from a personal explanation: “... the allegations of forgery went before the Auckland District Law Society which heard the case. While it determined that some of my actions had been inappropriate it did not determine to strike me off. In 1995 the police took a prosecution with regard to those allegations. The outcome of this case was that I was discharged without conviction.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are being misadvised. The fact is that Mr Tamihere admitted the offence. The issue of conviction is immaterial. He admitted it as part of the record. Now he can laugh and you can but that is a fact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will help the member. If the member makes that as a statement of fact then he has to stand by it if he goes ahead and asks the supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I stand by it so here is my supplementary question: did she as Prime Minister promote John Tamihere despite his serious offences including forgery because she herself is a self-confessed art forger? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: She promoted Mr Tamihere because he is a very able young Maori leader who unlike many people I have known has not attempted to cover up aspects of his past. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You heard that answer. It is the second answer today that is totally unsatisfactory according to Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. Otherwise I will start talking about the babysitter. [ 
Interruption 
] Have you got that? Now Mr Speaker I suggest that you intervene and bring him to order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I was distracted by discussing the matter with the Clerk. As far as I am concerned the Minister certainly addressed the question asked by the member. 
Te MangaiPaho—Te Puni Kokiri Media Briefing 
4.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What was the purpose of the briefing provided to some media by the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri Mr Leith Comer on 30 May 2003 in relation to inconsistencies between the Treasury-led report on Te MangaiPaho and answers to parliamentary questions provided by the Minister and when was he told of plans to hold the briefing? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I am informed it was to explain the process used by Te Puni Kokiri to generate replies to oral and written questions. I was not informed in advance of the briefing. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know whether it was the sound system or the two gentlemen here— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I think the member has made a valid point. Would the Minister please repeat the answer. I had difficulty in hearing it too. Members will now be quiet because I have asked for that. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am informed it was to explain the process used by Te Puni Kokiri to generate replies to oral and written questions. I was not informed in advance of the briefing. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: In the light of his advice to the House on 12 June that Mr Comer’s apology related only to question No. 2261 and that it was tendered over 6 weeks earlier on 10 April is there any explanation for Mr Comer’s briefing of selected journalists giving them the completely false impression that he had apologised for inconsistencies in ministerial answers exposed by the Treasury report other than that it was a calculated attempt to deceive those journalists; if so what is that explanation? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am certain there was no intentional deceit. I have had a discussion with Mr Comer—end of story. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Does the Minister of Maori Affairs have confidence in the chief executive officer Mr Leith Comer? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In general yes but there have been some areas of Te Puni Kokiri’s performance that will be the subject of a State Services Commissioner’s review. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What does the Minister say to those who are claiming that he is prepared to put at risk the integrity of Te Puni Kokiri’s chief executive Leith Comer to protect his own political skin and why does he not just admit he knew his replies were wrong prior to 9 June? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There is no truth in that. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister aware that following Mr Comer’s briefing several media organisations wrote stories asserting that Mr Comer had taken responsibility for the inaccurate answers exposed by the Treasury report and stating that he had apologised to the Minister for those inaccuracies and that being the case does he now accept that those journalists were totally misled? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does the Minister know that on the day following Mr Comer’s briefing both the  
Dominion Post  
and the  
New Zealand Herald  
wrote stories as a consequence of the briefing stating that Mr Comer had taken responsibility for inaccuracies in the answers and asserting that he had apologised to the Minister; does the Minister accept that that version carried by those two media outlets is at variance with his answer to a question in this House on 12 June? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Being a qualified printer by trade and having worked in the newspaper industry for a few years I say I do not have any responsibility for what is written in those newspapers. 
Schools—Allanton Merger 
5.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why is he recommending that Henley Momona and Allanton schools be closed and merged with Outram and East Taieri schools rather than accepting the proposals from his own ministry’s network review to merge the three schools on the Allanton site? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The chosen option is close to one of the two options proposed through the facilitator of the community-based review which had a reference group that included representatives of all those schools. The chosen option is as far as those schools are concerned exactly the same as option two which came through that very long—and I might say somewhat tortuous—process. 
Rod Donald 
: Do I take it from that answer that the Minister does not accept that merging on the Allanton site is the strong preference of the local community as well as the preferred option from the ministry’s own review facilitator; if so is he trying to impose his will on a rural community that is working together and does not want to be split up? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. First of all I congratulate the member on keeping the promise he made down at Allanton to come and do some stirring in Parliament. But no the facts are very clear in that this is option two for those schools and came out of the process they were involved in leading. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister detail to the House the intended benefits of the review of schools in Mosgiel and the wider Taieri area? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The purpose of the review is to make sure that the children in the area now and in the future receive the best possible education. This review is not about saving money; it is about using education money for the best use of the students. The proposals I have made to date would see the release of $11 million which would be transferred for spending on education in that area. Of that money $6.4 million will be used for the development of the new schools. That money will put those schools—which on average are about one-third full—into the top 20 percent in the country in terms of property and the remainder of the money will be devoted to teaching and learning in those schools. We need to make a choice: do we want property or do we want education? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the way that the Minister yesterday lauded the Goodman Fielder School of the Year why is his ministry threatening the 2000 Goodman Fielder School of the Year at Wyllies Crossing with closure and the 2002 best little school of the year North Taieri School with closure while ignoring that there have been over 100 schools with repeat bad reviews around the country; is the message from the Minister to punish winners and reward losers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Not at all. One of the clear factors that stimulate the area reviews is poor Education Review Office reports. 
Rod Donald 
: Why did the Ministry of Education recently provide a new classroom at Wyllies Crossing School install cabling for a computer network at Allanton School spend around $100000 on new administration facilities at Melville Park School and $100000 on a new library and office at North Taieri School only to announce that all four schools will close at the end of the year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that in this role I have a real dilemma. Where there is substantial roll decline and substantial overcapacity as there is in this area we have the choice of freezing all buildings for maybe a decade beforehand—as would be promoted by that member—or of saying that a school can go on. We would then possibly lose a bit of money but we would not have uncertainty for that very long period. I prefer the current approach whereby we do end up spending in the end. On the question of Wyllies Crossing School I really think that for the member to be promoting it as a rural school when it is 3 kilometres from the boundaries of Mosgiel is pretty silly. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the importance the Minister puts on efficient use of public money for children why did he make a big deal—and a wonderful photo opportunity—of the opening of the new homework centre at North Taieri School which he is now proposing to close; is this a Minister who spends public money on property to get good photo opportunities which have nothing to do with getting a good education for children? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member might be flattering me as I think there is no such thing as a good photo as far as I am concerned. The substantive point is that the homework centre is not at the school. 
Rod Donald 
: Is the Minister aware that there is a new 60-section residential subdivision under construction near the Reid Park School that the first six homes have boosted the roll by 14 pupils that another subdivision is before the council for consent and that there are no bus services to take pupils from that low-income area to the nearest school; and will he reconsider his proposal to close Reid Park School in the light of that information? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have all the details of the distances involved. I know that I have had some very proper representations about transport issues and especially about pupils crossing Factory Road from my colleague the member for Dunedin South. That is an issue that has to be part of my future decision-making. We still have some more work to do on that particular area. As far as the population and housing growth in the area are concerned unfortunately for people involved in education in the area the vast majority of the extra housing that is happening in that area of Mosgiel is for retired people. 
Rod Donald 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker. Is this my fourth supplementary question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it will be the fifth one. 
Education—Skill Building 
6.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How is the Government delivering on its goal of building an education system that equips New Zealand with 21st century skills enabling participation by all in the growing economy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The $77.6 million injection into information and communications technology in this year’s Budget will include vast improvements to online access more laptops for teachers additional information and communications technology professional development clusters more opportunities to expand e-learning practices in schools and improvements in the coordination of schools’ information and communications technology initiatives. That is a massive boost. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How is the Government addressing the current unevenness of high-speed Internet access which is impeding the ability of some schools particularly in remote areas to gain the full benefit from information and communications technology learning opportunities? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We are investing heavily in regional broadband Internet access through Project Probe which is making good progress. That project is rolling out to schools in rural communities with coverage of 99 percent of schools due by the end of next year. A major benefit is coming from that and a lot of support is coming from the farming community which stated that at least it is great to have a Government that will intervene in that vital infrastructure area for it. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I go onto the next question I say I have consulted my list and found I have called Mr Donald three times only. He wanted to have a fourth supplementary question and seeks leave to do that. Is there any objection? There is not. I am sorry for the error Mr Donald. 
Rod Donald 
: In the light of the submission from 10 of the schools in the Taieri area reported in today’s  
Otago Daily Times 
 will he reconsider his recommendation to close eight of the 15 schools given that that newspaper states that industrial growth in the area could bring up to 523 additional children to the district by 2006 resulting in overcrowding if all the mergers proceed? I would like to add that I am not opposed to all of them but I do not think some are necessary. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The process requires reconsideration. Over the last couple of days I have been giving considerable thought to the matter and there has been quite a lot of consultation. Following that set of decisions there has been another opportunity for boards of trustees to comment but we have looked very carefully at the estimates of Statistics New Zealand and the Dunedin City Council for the population under 5. In a lot of those schools we have had a 20 percent drop over the last couple of years. The numbers are really going down quickly. 
Taxation—Inflation 
7.  
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has the impact of inflation over the last 4 years led to New Zealanders paying a higher proportion of their personal income in tax; if so will he consider lowering overall personal income tax rates to compensate taxpayers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 There has been a modest amount of bracket creep. The Government’s priorities with regard to taxes are outlined in the Budget speech and it should be noted that officials advised against indexation. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given that the proportion of taxpayers who pay the top personal income tax rate of 39 percent is now double what he promised when lifting the top rate from 33 percent to 39 percent and the proportion of full-time workers paying the top personal tax rate is nearly 20 percent why will he not lower the top tax rate or increase the top personal tax threshold? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I accept the tribute to the success of this Government in raising the levels of incomes within New Zealand but the priorities will be assisting low to middle income families not those on the highest tax rates. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why did officials advise against inflation-proofing the tax scale? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the grounds that it would be imprudent to commit to expensive mechanistic and ongoing adjustments to the tax scale when the size of future fiscal surpluses was not clear. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister received any correspondence from United Future on the very same ground covered in the original question; if so when? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed. As early as mid-February of this year I received approaches from the member on behalf of United Future in that respect. We had fruitful discussions and no doubt those will continue in the build-up to the next Budget. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given that the Minister’s Government has now introduced over 15 increases to levies excises and fees since 1999 and that he himself has said that these are the same as tax increases why does he not acknowledge that his 1999 pledge to increase personal income tax for only 5 percent of taxpayers was totally misleading to the public? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At the time that statement was made it was actually true but thanks to this Government the number of people on higher incomes has increased significantly—contrary to the forecast made by that member’s party in 1999. 
Burglaries—Car Conversion and Theft 
8.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has he received suggesting that burglary was being displaced by increased car conversion and theft from car offences? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Recent information advises me that car conversion offences dropped 23 percent between 1995 and 2002 while the crime of theft from cars remained static over the same period. Burglaries over the period also dropped by almost 23 percent. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How was the Minister’s attention drawn to those significant gains? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Written questions from the Hon Tony Ryall alerted me to those outstanding results. I and the rest of the country thank him for highlighting such success by the police. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Noting that burglaries from cars have risen every year under this Minister’s stewardship does he find it acceptable that with 3 years of increases in burglaries from cars we now have a burglary from a car every 10 minutes of every day this year and we have a car stolen every 13 minutes of every hour day and night? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I can tell the member that it is a lot less comparatively than under the National Government when car thefts increased 19.5 percent in the same time period. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Minister be suddenly so surprised at those statistics when in January 2001 the Insurance Council said we were losing something like $20 million a month in such related burglaries and thefts and in January 2002 the Insurance Council once again warned that we were suffering massive increases in car thefts car burglaries and car conversions? Why is that a revelation to him when the whole of the rest of the country knows it only too well? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I was surprised that the Hon Tony Ryall asked such a question because in 1995 there were 50672 car conversions and in 2002 there were 38824. That is a very good result. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Was the Minister ecstatic with joy when in providing answers to my written questions he discovered that burglaries from cars in his own Manurewa district are now at the highest level ever recorded by the New Zealand Police? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Although there has been an increase in the south Auckland – Counties-Manukau area generally it is only one of nine police districts—of the 60-odd—where there has been an increase. Overall the rate is going down. The member knows that and does not like it. 
Police—Staffing 
9.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he satisfied with the current numbers of police? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Generally yes. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the public now to accept that under this Labour Government local citizens will be increasingly required to patrol our streets at night to keep towns like Kaitaia safe; and on that basis can they expect more people like Darrin Greer—Kaitaia’s Black Power chapter leader—to be appointed to community patrols and consequently more young men to be beaten to death as reported in the  
Weekend Herald 
 of 14-15 June 2003? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am pleased with police numbers because one needs only to look back to when that member’s leader was part of the previous National Government. It proposed a— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A question was asked and that question should be answered. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am getting around to it. Those numbers show that the National Government planned a drop in police numbers. To have communities working together with the police is always a good idea and it is over to the police to work out whom they use to help them in their job. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What are the total numbers of sworn and non-sworn staff in the New Zealand Police? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: We currently have more police than ever. At the end of May 2003 we had 7400 sworn police officers and 2159 non-sworn officers—a total of 9559. That is an all-time record. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Given that the Minister is satisfied with present levels of police why is he reducing authorised sworn police strength in every police district around the country? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the member is mistaken and she should have looked at the figures. We have and it is worth repeating a record 7400 sworn police and 2159 non-sworn police—a total of 9559. That is an all-time record. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a report of the unfortunate death of a young man in Kaitaia who was beaten to death by Darrin Greer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a letter to the Minister of Police from Scotty Watson a Ready to Retail coordinator where he states that he is fearful that people might start taking the law into their own hands. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table extracts from the National – New Zealand First Government coalition agreement that increased police numbers by 500. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is very specific. I asked the Minister to tell the House why he is reducing authorised sworn police strength in each district around the country. I did not talk about total numbers. The Minister failed to answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said he did not agree with the member. I heard the Minister specifically say that. 
Stephen Franks 
: How much of next year’s announced 22 percent increase in police spending on firearms licensing is for extra police numbers tied up in that work and is that $900000 enough to fund his still secret but shortly to be announced scheme to register firearms as licence renewals come up—all under the pretence of having to comply with the United Nations protocol? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Seeing that that question has nothing to do with the original one I advise the member to put down a separate question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is for the Minister to take a point of order and say that the question is out of order; it is not for him to decide that it is a bit tough and therefore he will rule it out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first comment the Minister made was not perhaps appropriate but he is certainly entitled to say that he does not have the information on that because it was not in the original question—which it was not. I assume that the second part was in order but the first part was not. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect I know that you help new members like myself but now you are actually coaching a Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not be silly please. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows a 51 percent increase in car burglaries in the Minister of Police’s electorate and a 35 percent increase in car burglaries in the Prime Minister’s electorate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those figures. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I seek leave to table questions for written questions Nos. 5552 and 5554 by Tony Ryall. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Te MangaiPaho—Maori Sportscasting International 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: How much did Te MangaiPaho pay Maori Sportscasting International to commentate for broadcast the New Zealand versus Australia Anzac game at Albany Stadium on 24 April 1998 and on what date was the funding approved? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised by Te MangaiPaho that the contract was for six commentaries including this game at a total value of $10000 GST inclusive. Funding was approved by the Te MangaiPaho board on 28 March 1998 and I was not the Minister. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did his officials also advise him that Maori Sportscasting International also had presented an invoice to New Zealand Rugby League for the same game which was rejected and can he assure the House that there was no attempt to double dip on this commentary? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: If there is validity in that accusation at this stage it is not my responsibility— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to test with you what responsibility a Minister can possibly have for a non-government organisation presenting an invoice to another non-government organisation. It is not his responsibility; it was during the time when Mr McCully and a number of others had an interest in the area. It is not the Minister’s responsibility at all. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Somehow I wonder why the member is so lucky! For the first part of the question there is no responsibility of the Minister. One point that the Minister can reply to is of course whether there is any suggestion of double-dipping from a fund like this. That part of the question is in order and the Minister might like to comment on it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have allowed that part and that is it. 
Rodney Hide 
: But I asked whether the Minister had heard from his officials. Surely he is responsible for his officials. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No because then one could put that about any single thing. There is no responsibility unless there is evidence of double-dipping which is of course an offence. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are getting into some difficulty here if Opposition members cannot ask whether a Minister has been advised or has heard from his officials on a particular point. We are talking about the spending of public money the purchasing of a service that may have been paid for by another organisation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member had asked whether the Minister had heard from his officials about the spending of public money then of course the question would be in order. That was not what the question said. The question talked about a sum of money being paid for the league game. As far as the question of double-dipping is concerned that is within the purview of the Minister to answer and the Minister can comment on that part. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. 
Mita Ririnui 
: When will Audit New Zealand conduct its next review of Te MangaiPaho? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Next week Audit New Zealand will commence its annual review of Te MangaiPaho which will include an in-depth review of its systems policies and procedures. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether it was within the terms of the grant made by Te MangaiPaho to MaoriSportcasting International for the match referred to in the primary question for that company also to seek additional funding from New Zealand Rugby League or it having been turned down by the league for it then to seek funding from Aotearoa Maori Rugby League? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Maurice Williamson was the responsible Minister for Te MangaiPaho in 1998 and I do not have that information available. 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of the question raised by the Hon Murray McCully will the Minister of Maori Affairs ask his Associate Minister John Tamihere whether Aotearoa Maori Rugby League was presented with an invoice for this game and paid it; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no ministerial responsibility there. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is certainly an issue of ministerial responsibility if at any time Aotearoa Maori Rugby League got taxpayers’ money. That is the real issue here as Mr Tamihere knows. I suggest that that brings it right within the ambit of the Minister’s responsibility and of course Mr Tamihere’s responsibility as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes but the Minister said he had no knowledge of that particular matter at that time. That was the answer he gave. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: At that time in that year did Aotearoa Maori Rugby League associated as it is and was with John Tamihere get taxpayers’ funds; if so did any of that money find its way— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask Mr Cullen to relax. We are on very safe ground here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please ask the question again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister tell the House whether he will find out and report immediately whether any taxpayers’ money in 1998 was given to Aotearoa Maori Rugby League; if so was any payment made by Aotearoa Maori Rugby League to this outfit that was to broadcast these six broadcasts including the Albany Stadium broadcast? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have no advice on that matter. My name is Parekura Tureia Horomia not Maurice Williamson. 
Landlords—Problem Tenants 
11.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he intend to help landlords protect their properties from problem tenants; if so how? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes. For example in this year’s Budget an additional $1 million was provided for education advice and information on rights and responsibilities and good business practice to enable landlords to identify problem renters before they move in. My officials are also looking at how we can improve the enforcement of tenancy tribunal orders so that it is easier for landlords to recover the costs of fixing damaged property and collecting rent arrears from their former tenants. 
Marc Alexander 
: What measures does the Minister propose to stop tenants like the infamous Ford family from Christchurch when because of fake references their most recent landlord became aware of their history only when it was publicised; and what can he say to that landlord who now has to wait weeks for the tenancy tribunal to issue an eviction notice and is left wondering what damage that family will do in retribution in the meantime? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I imagine the infamous family mentioned will find it pretty hard to find a house in the future. But from the point of view of assisting landlords we acknowledge that many landlords are essentially what might be called mum and dad operators. They are running a very small business. Therefore we need to continue to have the Ministry of Housing provide good information so that people who are renting out houses go through proper procedures to ensure they have a tenant who will be a good tenant. If people are in circumstances such as the one described by the member they should use the 0800 number to get good advice from the Ministry of Housing as to how to move rapidly. 
Katherine Rich 
: If the Minister is genuine about wanting to help landlords why is his department taking the ombudsman to court to overturn a decision that the department be required to provide information on defaulting tenants to the Department for Courts so that fines can be collected? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: For the reason I explained at length to the member at the select committee today which is that the ombudsman’s ruling could have been interpreted to mean that every Government department was required to provide information to anybody who had established debt. That seemed to Crown Law to be something that needed to be explained in law if that was to be the case. That is why that is being tested. 
Sue Bradford 
: What is the Government doing to assist tenants with problem landlords? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Once again as we discussed at the select committee this morning the view across the country now would be that the situation of tenants is one where landlords are very heavily controlled by the law. There are rights that tenants have in relation to bad landlords; the issue that is being raised now is about bad tenants. We will be very active in ensuring that tenants understand their duties as tenants and that landlords do have the ability to recover money when it is appropriate to do so. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister aware that Work and Income will not reimburse landlords for rent arrears but nevertheless will fund the offending tenants to move to another rental property creating yet another opportunity for them to reoffend; and does the Minister agree that this facilitates a situation whereby landlords waiting for rent never get it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If the member has a particular case that he is worried about he should bring it to me and we will have a look at it. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Is the Government taking any further initiatives to alleviate problems in this area? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the most important things that we are doing at the present time is working with landlords who have been seeking to track down tenants who owe them sums of money which was the underlying substance of Katherine Rich’s question a little earlier. The Government is committed to ensuring that landlords can have tenancy tribunal orders affordably enforced and has directed officials to work through the details of these mechanisms with landlords. We are working with them now and we will get a solution. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that a more effective solution than simply “issuing good advice to landlords” would be to develop a register of all tenants and landlords that would be publicly available that would list all tenancies and tribunal decisions and that could also be used by good tenants to demonstrate their positive record to prospective landlords? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Superficially it sounds like a good idea. But the one example we have of a bad-tenant register is in Queensland where the experience has been that for example people post names because they have malicious intent against their tenant. That has caused enormous problems. If we were to move down that track we would have to be very sure we could isolate those problems before we did so. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Why did the Minister spend more than $100000 fighting the ombudsman instead of changing the law; and does he now intend to amend the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which is to come up in the House this afternoon so that the Government will now help mum and dad landlords to collect debts from tenants who are beneficiaries? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I explained at some length this morning to the select committee that the member was at it was an important piece of law for the Crown to understand what the ruling by the ombudsman actually meant. For example it could have meant that any department was required to pass over information about anybody who was in debt to somebody who claimed that. That is why it had to be cleared up. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why is wilful abandonment of a property not an offence under the Residential Tenancies Act? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is not currently an offence under the Residential Tenancies Act. If the member wants it to be so I say to him that that bill is passing through the House and he can make that suggestion. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that a major obstacle to the enforcement of tenancy tribunal orders is privacy laws that stop Government agencies from sharing information and allow offenders to hide behind the system with the Government’s blessing; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. The Privacy Commissioner has indicated that this is an issue for his office. If Government departments are to pass on information—they of course have a great deal of information about everybody in this House—we do want that information protected. He does have an interest but he is helping with the processes and ensuring that debtors do pay their money back to the landlords. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that the further consideration by the House of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill offers him a perfect opportunity to demonstrate his commitment towards cleaning up this problem; if so can we expect to see some amendments to that effect emanating from his office when the bill is debated? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes it does offer a vehicle but as I have said to the member before we are currently working with landlords and property investors to ensure we resolve this problem and we will do it as rapidly as we can. 
Agriculture—Emission Charges 
12.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: How does he reconcile his statement that agriculture will be exempt from emissions charges with his proposal to tax farmers more than $8 million? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Very easily. Under the Government’s climate change policy there will be no charges on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions for at least the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. In exchange for that exemption the sector will be levied to fund research into the reduction of its emissions. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the Minister therefore disagree with his own Minister of Finance who described levies as “back-door taxes”; and why will he not just be upfront with farmers and say that they are the ones who will pay for his Government ratifying the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The farming community is being invited—in fact required—to fund research into reducing emissions of methane. One of the reasons for that is that all the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the agricultural sector are being entirely covered by the Government. Another reason is that the research we hope may well improve food conversion efficiency in our animals which would be to the benefit of farmers. If the member has not got that yet he has wasted a mighty fine opportunity. 
David Parker 
: Will any research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions be funded by the Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. The Government will continue its current level of funding for this research which totals almost $5 million a year. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Could the Minister explain why this Government will tax New Zealand farmers just so that it looks good on the world stage when no other Southern Hemisphere neighbour or competitor is prepared to impose such a dopey tax on its farmers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The cost of this is in the order of 8c per sheep per year. Tell me what is so outrageous about that? 
Keith Locke 
: How much of the $8 million of research money referred to will be spent on improving the productive efficiency of farmers and how much of it will be spent on improving biological processes and farming systems to reduce emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure that I am able to differentiate between the two but can I just say that if we can reduce methane emissions then we improve or run the risk of improving the food-conversion efficiency of the animal. So it is as they say a win-win. 
Hon David Carter 
: Could the Minister please answer my previous question which was whether the Minister agrees or disagrees with his own Minister of Finance who described levies as “back-door taxes”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the member feels more comfortable about this being called a tax as opposed to a levy as opposed to a charge then that is fine by me. 
Tabling of Documents 
Sky Videotape 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to help the House. There has been a discussion and maybe the Hon Dover Samuels would like to seek leave again to table the video of the game involving Hemana Waaka for all of us to share in and enjoy our loss. I am sure that leave would be granted. Or maybe some honourable member will seek leave on his behalf. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Anyone can seek leave but Mr Samuels is not here. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen seeks leave. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Videotape by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Points of Order 
Urgent Question 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that an urgent question was lodged by the National Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes there was. It was ruled not to be an urgent question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am sorry. I missed that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been ruled out as an urgent question. That is the end of the matter. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for some clarity for the future. The first point is that this decision was brought down by the court at 12.30 today. Effectively the court ruled that Maori do have a right to claim ownership of foreshores etc. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. This was a private communication from the member to me. I said no to the urgent question. There is no argument on that issue at all. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for a further question on the matter of the Court of Appeal's decision to grant usage of foreshore— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask that question. Is there any objection? There is. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for ACC 
: I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill performs a number of functions. Its primary focus is to establish an Accident Compensation Corporation petrol levy and to provide for changes to that levy. Previously an accident compensation “amount” was collected alongside the petrol excise duty but it was not an Accident Compensation Corporation levy. Consequently it was not possible to change the petrol amount without either making legislative amendments to the Customs and Excise Act or alternatively affecting Crown revenue. 
The bill will enable changes to the rate of petrol levy without requiring further legislative amendments. It will also ensure that the fiscal impact of raising the petrol amount is not borne by the Crown. That change was to be introduced in the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. However technical errors in the drafting of that Act meant that the intended changes were not given effect. 
By establishing the petrol amount collected alongside the petrol excise duty as a petrol levy the bill also sets the levy at 5.08 cents per litre. It enables the levy to be applied to petrol and any other category of fuel that may be prescribed by regulations therefore providing for any future contingencies. It provides for the levy to be amended accordingly through regulations and provides for regulations to be created to administer the refund of the petrol levy for off-road commercial uses of petrol such as in farm vehicles marine vehicles and other machinery. 
The last function the bill serves is unrelated to the Accident Compensation Corporation’s motor vehicle account. The bill reverses changes to the accident compensation appeal regime that came in by way of the District Courts Amendment Act 2002. The bill preserves the requirement under section 162 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and under section 165 of the Accident Insurance Act that leave of the District Court is sought prior to an appeal to the High Court. The retention of that requirement to obtain the District Court’s leave ensures that a significant filtering mechanism remains in place and that the costs associated with the appeals process can be managed in a practical way. 
The Accident Compensation Corporation’s motor vehicle account covers the cost of all motor vehicle - related injuries. The motor vehicle account has recently faced a significant increase in costs. Those increases have resulted primarily from improved estimates of long-term rehabilitation costs for seriously injured claimants and underlying cost increases. As the motor vehicle account has the highest proportion of serious injuries of all Accident Compensation Corporation accounts the improved estimates affect the motor vehicle account disproportionately more than the corporation’s other accounts. 
The Government considered the options on the best way to fund the Accident Compensation Corporation’s motor vehicle account in December last year following public consultation. In recent years any increases in the corporation’s motor vehicle account costs have been absorbed into the annual vehicle-licensing fee. The Government considered that the cost of vehicle licensing may have reached a point where further increases could lead to adverse social impacts. Some people already have difficulty in paying the licensing fee resulting in a number of people not licensing their vehicles. Therefore funding the increased costs through an accident compensation petrol levy is considered to be a fairer approach than increasing the licensing fee. People generally have greater choice over how much they drive and how much petrol they consume. That approach was also supported by a large number of New Zealanders during the Accident Compensation Corporation’s consultation on options for funding for its motor vehicle account. The Government also agreed with that approach and announced that for the 2004-05 levy year the petrol amount would be raised from 2.3 cents per litre to 5.08 cents per litre. 
These changes align with the Government’s intention to improve injury prevention through the development of the New Zealand injury prevention strategy. That includes reducing motor vehicle injuries as a priority. We have also developed the New Zealand transport strategy which has a strong safety focus. Further work is also being undertaken on the long-term funding of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s motor vehicle account in the light of the New Zealand transport strategy. 
Section 162 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act requires that appeals to the High Court are either by leave to appeal being granted by the District Court or by special leave being granted by the High Court. When the District Courts Amendment Act comes into force it will remove the requirement that leave be sought so that people will be free to appeal to the High Court regardless of the circumstances. The effect is that a significant filtering mechanism will be removed. Last year for example 25 of 40 attempts to appeal the Accident Compensation Corporation’s decisions to the High Court were refused leave by the District Court. 
The High Court Rules Committee is concerned about the potential impact on the High Court’s workload as a consequence of the removal of that requirement. I am also concerned at the potential cost implications for the Accident Compensation Corporation. The Minister of Justice agrees that the amendment should be reversed. I believe that the retention of the current repeal requirements is a practical way to manage the costs of the appeals process. The bill therefore ensures that section 162 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and section 165 of the Accident Insurance Act which provides the same appeal process for appeals under that Act are unaffected. As the District Courts Amendment Act will come into force by Order in Council the bills’ reinstatement of the current appeal provisions is to be brought into effect by the passing of the Order in Council that brings the District Court Amendment Act into force. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received and considered three submissions on the bill from interested groups. Two of those submissions were heard orally. The themes presented in the submissions to the committee on the bill were that all submitters supported the introduction of a dedicated Accident Compensation Corporation fuel levy to fund the corporation’s motor vehicle account. Submitters differed in their ideas of how the levy should be achieved with regard to the mix of licence-fee levy and fuel amount with two submitters supporting the setting of the petrol levy at 5.08c per litre and one submitter opposing that provision. A range of views on policy issues was raised such as alternative options for risk-rating and the full funding of the motor vehicle account. 
The committee recommended that clause 4 of the bill be redrafted so that it substitutes a new section 162 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in place of the version set out in the schedule of the District Courts Amendment Act. The committee also recommended that provisions be added to clause 4 to provide that appeals and reviews arising under Part 6 of the Accident Insurance Act preserved by section 391 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are subject to the new section 162. That will ensure that the requirements for obtaining leave to appeal are consistent in both Acts. 
I support the amendments recommended by the committee. As I have outlined there are a number of reasons that this bill should proceed. On behalf of the Minister for ACC I commend the bill to the members of the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Perhaps the Government thought that by sending George Hawkins to the Chamber to speak for the Minister for ACC the House and those who listen to it occasionally would become so bored so stupefied and so close to sleep that we would not notice what this bill is really all about. This bill shows clearly what a deceitful and incompetent Government this country currently has. Dressed up under the title of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill we have a tax bill. It is another tax bill from the Labour Government. Do members remember the big promise that there would be no more taxes? Well what a joke those people have made of that! What a disgrace it is that we should have a tax bill with a name like that put on it. 
All that this bill does is to empower the Minister year after year to reach into the pockets of New Zealanders and to take out as much as he or she likes to add to the cost of petrol. What price will we be paying for petrol by the end of the year? We already know that the 4c per litre we all contribute to Auckland’s roads will not come off. We now know today that another 5.5c per litre is to be added to the cost of petrol to cover accident compensation and we hear that very shortly another 10c per litre will go on to cover regional roads. But apparently there are no new taxes! 
The fact that this bill is a deceit can perhaps best be seen when New Zealanders realise that there is no way for them to know whether the costs of this motor vehicle account are reasonable. There is no competition for that type of insurance in New Zealand. There is one delivery agency which does not have to monitor its costs and tell New Zealanders whether it is doing a good job—whether it can do its job a bit more cheaply for them or whether it is managing its costs. The Accident Compensation Corporation can simply go to the Minister and say it has had a bad year and needs a few more bob. It can ask the Minister to stick a hand a bit deeper into the pockets of motorists—stick the petrol levy up a bit higher—and to give it a bit more money to play with. 
 Mr Hawkins said there was no real change because this levy was always included in the vehicle-licensing fees. He went on to say that increasing those licensing fees might have an adverse social impact. I tell Mr Hawkins that during the time of the previous National Government licensing fees regularly used to go down. In one particular year they were as low as—I think—$141 because the Accident Compensation Corporation was under some pressure as privatisation was looming to get its costs under control. The question now is whether if the corporation does make improvements like that the cost will go down. 
John Key 
: No not a chance. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No it will not. Because the levy will be included in the price of petrol after a time everyone will become conditioned to it. The Government is relying on the fact that people may not notice the levy. 
Here we have a very very sneaky move by the Government to simply load the same cost on to the same people by taking it off the licensing fee and putting it on to the price of petrol raising that considerably. One pays a price for deceit at the end of the day and this Government’s day of reckoning is not far away. When we start to look at the huge list of additional taxes the Government has imposed on this country in the last couple of years we see it becomes a little frightening. Not only do we have this 5c per litre or 14 percent increase in the petrol price being inflicted on New Zealanders today but we have also recently had the alcohol tax the tobacco tax the Accident Compensation Corporation’s employer and self-employed levies massively increasing trust income for final tax payments for minors going from 19 percent to 33 percent—unless one is Maori when one gets a special deal—and fringe benefit tax increasing from 49 percent to 64 percent. We all know that the number of New Zealanders now earning in excess of $60000 means that almost 20 percent of the full-time workforce now pays tax at a much higher rate than previously. 
John Carter 
: How much? Twenty percent? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Twenty percent of the workforce—one in five workers with a full-time job in this country—pays tax at a rate of 39c in the dollar. So where is the value in the “credit card”? Where is the honesty in the “credit card”? It does not exist. 
As I said at the outset this bill is about deceit and incompetence. Where does the incompetence come in? First I suggest it is incompetent for any Government to allow an agency to go completely unchecked when it comes to the costs it inflicts on the people it is empowered to levy. The Accident Compensation Corporation should be run as a business. It is a business. It is an insurer and anyone who thinks it is anything else needs to reconsider the whole issue. At the end of the day a premium is charged one way or another and a fixed benefit is delivered. It is an incompetent Government that does not try to reduce that cost for New Zealand but simply comes to the House and demands legislation that allows it to continue as I said before to put its hand deep into the pockets of New Zealanders and to take their hard-earned dollars off them. 
Then the second part of this bill amends the legislation passed in 2002 by restricting the way that appeals against Accident Compensation Corporation decisions can progress to the courts. There are a number of issues around that. Some aspects of the proposal may be sensible except that in New Zealand if we have an accident the body that deals with us is the same body that we go to if we are unhappy with the treatment we are receiving. We can go to the corporation and say we are unhappy with the treatment it has been giving us and we want it to be reviewed. But if we do not like the findings of the review we have to go back to the same organisation again and tell it we want to appeal that review. Now it would seem that if we are still not happy and want to progress to a court we can only do so if that organisation says it is OK. That seems to me to be somewhat Stalinist in its approach. That is the sort of country that Helen Clark’s Government is rapidly driving us towards. 
Where is the choice for New Zealanders in a bill like this? And how can the Government so openly deceive people into paying a higher level of tax in the name of injury prevention rehabilitation and compensation? Governments fall on that sort of thing. It has a cumulative effect. The “credit card” was put into the letterboxes of all New Zealanders before the 1999 election; it stated there would be no new taxes—other than for the 5 percent who earned over $60000. Mr Hawkins smirks over there on the Government benches because he knows that 4 years later 20 percent of the full-time workforce now pays that tax. One in five full-time workers now pays tax at the 39c in the dollar rate. We do not mind incomes growing. We are all for that; it is a great idea. But would we not have a great deal more investment in this economy if those hard workers who manage to get their incomes to maybe $61000 $62000 or $63000 were able to keep the few lousy dollars in extra tax that the Government takes off them? Would we not have greater investment in this country if those people were able to hold those dollars themselves? 
This bill indicates that the only solution this Government has to any problem is to tax people—just to tax them. We have seen that with the appalling electricity tax—$200 million a year on that one. This tax is worth $154 million. We have seen the Minister tell us today that if one owns sheep cattle horses or any other animals that happen to be somewhat flatulent then one will pay a tax on that as well. He has conceded it is a tax. A Government that has no answer to any problem other than to stick its head up and say it will tax people is a Government that is dying on its feet. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of this bill and I say it is a privilege to follow the member for Ilam Gerry Brownlee. This is an interesting time in the National Party which has had two bad poll results in a week and so has decided on a strategy of wheeling Mr Brownlee down to the House to speak in mock outrage. But the problem is that Mr Brownlee is very happy with the poor poll results and it does not matter how much he tries to criticise the Labour Party on its result. For the member’s benefit I have here— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not ageist by any means—and I never have been—but when we have a silly speech that starts like that then I think that perhaps 21-year-olds should not be allowed to take seats in this House. Furthermore this is a second reading debate. It is certainly somewhat broad but there is a need to relate one’s comments directly to the bill. Commenting on the polls is not within the orbit of this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Points of order should be terse and to the point. Under Speaker’s ruling 38/1 leeway is given for replying to a speech. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I thank the member for not being ageist. It is true that I have a soft spot for large people as well and I will never support a flatulence tax on front-benchers. Mention was made about the Labour Party’s commitment at the last general election and I happen to have the “Next steps” commitment card which states “No rise in rates of income tax GST or company tax.” There is no way at all that any of those things will happen under this Government because we are serious about keeping our word. 
I would just like to say that Mr Brownlee did make a contribution to the debate because as members know he was National’s accident compensation spokesperson until he was sacked from that role and replaced by the rising star Dr Paul Hutchison. I understand the bitterness in the speech in that regard. I was very interested to see in TV3’s preferred Prime Minister poll that Mr Brownlee the former shadow Minister for ACC was a very consistent rater. He started out at zero in August 2000 and ended at zero in June 2003. Those rates are very important in terms of credibility in the second reading debate on this bill which I firmly support. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I invite the member who has just resumed his seat to go out to his constituents and ask them whether they are aware that they will get a hike in their petrol prices and whether they are aware of the title of the legislation that will do that. The title of this bill is very deceitful. There is no New Zealand motorist out there who knows that that is occurring—at least very few of them do. 
I have asked people in the Tauranga area where I come from whether they knew that there was likely to be an increase in accident compensation levies through their petrol charges and they did not have a clue. When I told them the title of the bill that was doing it they said: “Why don’t you call it the ‘Increasing the ACC Levy Bill’?” I said: “Well that’s over to the Government. It is determined to do this. It wants to bring the legislation in overnight without anybody really knowing about it.” It is actually very very deceitful. If New Zealanders were made more aware of this measure I guarantee that there would be more submissions to the select committee. We received only three submissions and as I recall the most public of them all was the one from the Automobile Association. With due regard to the Automobile Association even it has not told the world that this bill is coming to pass. The average motorist does not have a clue. 
We will not be supporting this legislation—not because we do not agree that the Accident Compensation Corporation needs to address its commitment to full funding but because it is not being done fairly. We would be much more receptive to this legislation if the increase from 2.3c to 5.08c came out of the 18.7c that is taken from the petrol motorist and just hoicked into the consolidated account. If the 18.7c per litre were being used to fund this increase we would not have a problem. If even if part of it were being used to fund this increase we would look upon this legislation with more sympathy. But to just impose it on top of what the petrol motorist is paying at the present time is neither fair nor practical. Petrol prices are going up almost weekly. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: They are not. 
PETER BROWN 
: They are—they went up last week. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The exchange rate is knocking them down. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Cunliffe goes about in a Crown car—he would not have a ruddy clue what is going on out there. He sits there on his inflated salary then gets into a Crown car. He should have a look at the prices at the petrol station. Prices went up in the last few weeks. I can remember when the Hon Jim Anderton used to come into this House and raise merry Cain about the prices going up. As I recall at that time the prices were around 80c a litre. We never hear anything from Jim Anderton on that sort of thing now. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I can remember when the member was young. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am still a young member. 
Darren Hughes 
: You can’t mislead the House like that. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is the heart that counts—not the grey hairs on one’s head. I am still very much a young member. 
John Carter 
: Absolutely. 
PETER BROWN 
: Absolutely. This legislation shows no imagination. For example there is no provision for operating a car safely. If the Government had a mind to it could have reduced the proportion that the motorist pays in his or her registration fee—and I should perhaps add that that is $141.10 every year a car is registered—if he or she has an accident-free record. There is no provision at all for safe driving in this legislation. The Government had an opportunity to use some imagination and be a bit innovative. 
We recognise that in terms of accident claims the Accident Compensation Corporation has liabilities in the vicinity of $8.5 billion—give or take the nearest million. I believe it has approximately $4 billion in reserve which it invests. This bill will get through only with the support of the Greens yet only a week or so ago the Greens kicked up bobsy-die because the Accident Compensation Corporation invests in breweries. More of this money will go into investment and into breweries. The Greens might not mind about that now but they raised merry hell a few weeks ago. 
New Zealand First is not too comfortable with the Accident Compensation Corporation taking all that money and investing in breweries. On the other hand it is investing in “booze buses” and trying to scale down people’s drinking. It is certainly a firm advocate of controlling drinking and driving and we applaud that. But to get an increase in money and then invest it in breweries does not sit comfortably with us. I know it does not sit comfortably with the Greens but they will vote for this bill. They will push it through and add another 3c plus GST to the poor old motorist. This is “slug the motorist bigtime”. 
If there were a bit more imagination and innovation we could address the problems that the Accident Compensation Corporation has quite easily but to just say that it needs more money and that that will be put on the motorist come hell or high water is not acceptable to New Zealand First. We are not prepared to support this legislation. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Mr Key has to leave early and we have arranged with all the parties—with the exception of New Zealand First as I did not manage to speak to the “young” member Mr Peter Brown—that Mr Key takes the next slot and every one else drop down. I seek leave for that to happen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 National is opposed to the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill because we are worried about this legislation. We are worried the businesses of New Zealand are worried the taxpayers of New Zealand are worried—every New Zealander I have ever spoken to about this bill is worried. Every single New Zealander that I have had a conversation with in my own electorate of Helensville is worried. In that member’s electorate of New Lynn that I drove around in the car that will be taxed even more as a result of this legislation I had people waving me down and asking whether I as the honourable member for Helensville could do anything to stop the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I said to them that I would take their concerns to this House and debate them in a full and open manner. On behalf of the many New Zealanders who have complained to me about this legislation I will do my best and I stand proudly in this House to address the issue. 
Why are they worried? Why have they in their dozens from Kaitaia to Bluff sought the support of the New Zealand National Party to oppose this terrible piece of legislation? Why are they up in arms? This is the reason and it is a very simple one. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just remind members that under Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3) running commentaries are out of order. If members wish to make a speech they have the opportunity to do so. 
JOHN KEY 
: Why are they worried? Why are they up in arms about this piece of legislation? It is very simple. This legislation will remove the tax to fund the motor vehicle account away from the excise tax to its own levy. When those people heard the word “levy” they instantly knew that there was a problem. Why did they know that there was a problem? Because the current Minister of Finance the Hon Dr Michael Cullen said himself in the House that levies were nothing more than back-door taxes. As those people foraged through their wallets they said to themselves: “Here’s my Labour Party ‘credit card’ that says ‘No more taxes’. It’s in front of me and I can read it in black and white—‘No more taxes’.” 
But no once again those people have been wronged by this Government and they will seek their revenge and be merciless on the kind of back-door stealth taxation that is robbing them of their pennies. Those are the very people who are now having one glass of port or sherry not two because they know what back-door taxes mean. They saw it hit their pension books when $18 million was robbed from them. Now as they get into their cars— 
John Carter 
: They don’t sleep well at night. 
JOHN KEY 
: They do not sleep well at night Mr Carter. As they sit on their beds in the mornings getting ready to drive to work their hearts are heavy because their taxes will be rising by 120 percent. No one told them to stop worrying about a 5 percent or 10 percent increase; we are talking about a 120 percent increase—from 2.3 percent to 5.08 percent. They are worried. They have come to my electorate office in droves and begged me to stand in the House and object to this legislation. 
That is not the only reason they are worried. They are worried— 
John Carter 
: What else? 
JOHN KEY 
: Because they have been so concerned about this legislation they have done their due diligence. They have hunted through the Parliamentary Library and  
Hansard 
 and they have read the first reading speech from the Hon Ruth Dyson the Minister for ACC. 
John Carter 
: What did she say? 
JOHN KEY 
: Let me quote for Mr Carter. She said: “This bill will enable changes to the rate of petrol levy”—in brackets back-door tax—“without requiring further legislative amendments.” 
John Carter 
: What? 
JOHN KEY 
: Exactly. What that means Mr Carter is that willy-nilly the Government can put it up any time it likes. I suppose the Government could put it down but we know that will not be happening. 
 They are worried. They are scared— 
John Carter 
: Is this the Labour Government ? 
JOHN KEY 
: This is the Labour Government that promised on its “credit card” “no more increases” and it is worried. Why is it worried? It is because this account is funded because of what is required to pay for accident compensation claimants. 
John Carter 
: Really? 
JOHN KEY 
: Absolutely. This is where the money comes from for accident compensation claimants. Why are they worried? Very simply the amount they are having to pay has gone up 120 percent. Why? Because the Labour Government in its infinite wisdom renationalised accident compensation. It took away competition; it took away the private sector; it said we know best. One big Government department would run this thing and run rings around the private sector that had to operate in a commercial environment. That is bound to be a winner! Unfortunately the  
New Zealand Herald  
did a bit of investigation and disagreed with the Government. It told the public of New Zealand in its fine publication that for medium and small businesses in New Zealand accident compensation levies have risen $25000. 
John Carter 
: $25000? 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right. The levy has gone up by $25000 for the average medium and small business in New Zealand. That is why it is going up 120 percent. 
The second concern—a real paradoxical issue if I might put it in such a way—is that the long-term claimants for accident compensation were at 28000 a number of years ago. Today that figure stands at 14000. 
John Carter 
: That’s half! 
JOHN KEY 
: That is half. One would imagine that the amount required to fund those claimants would be less. Is it less? One would think that this shiny new levy that the Minister is introducing for everyone to have a little play with like a domestic pet would be 120 percent less than the original—1.01 cent. But no it is 120 percent more. 
The second point the Government should be worrying about is what is happening to long-term claimants of accident compensation. 
John Carter 
: What? 
JOHN KEY 
: They are no longer going down in numbers. In fact they are 864 above the predictions by the Accident Compensation Corporation itself and they are on an incline. That is another very good reason why the Government should be worried. 
The Accident Compensation Corporation deserves some credit. It is a very fine manager of its funds and I say that in all sincerity. In June 2002 it had $3.6 billion under management and it earned a return of 3.5 percent. That was an outstanding return if one takes into consideration what happened in the markets at that time. In the 2001 period it earned $223 million on $3.4 billion for 6.5 percent. But all good things come to an end. If the corporation does not manage that money as well the levy will have to go up. What is more it is severely affected by the discount rate. It has billions of dollars sitting in bonds and when the value of those bonds falls—by every 0.1 percent of interest rates—the effect is a $75 million increase. Government stock in this country has a four handle on it now for the first time in a great many years. The bond rate on Government bonds is 4.98 percent. The amount required to fund the accident compensation levy is going up. The Minister has told us that 5.08 percent might be the amount required this year but it is going in one direction. It will not be going down; it will be going up. 
Peter Brown 
: What was the percentage invested in bonds? 
JOHN KEY 
: As they told us today the percentage investment in bonds was 55 percent with 45 percent in equities. 
In the early part of my address I said that thousands of New Zealanders had run out from their houses had flocked to their cars had come to see me and begged me to oppose the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. They did so with very good reason. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is to bring into effect announced changes in the petrol levy. Because petrol usage takes into account the amount of time the vehicle is being driven it roughly corresponds to the consequent degree of exposure to risk of injury. The Government announced in December 2002 that for the 2004-05 levy year the petrol amount will be raised from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre. The reason for the increase is that the Accident Compensation Corporation motor vehicle account has recently faced a significant cost increase and the Government is legally required to collect enough levy to meet those costs. Although the number of fatalities has declined this has had the perverse effect of increasing the medical and rehabilitation costs for those who survive but sustain serious injuries. United Future supports meeting those costs for those who have suffered serious injuries and in no way wishes to deny them the best quality of life they can have. 
The other practical option for raising the necessary levy is to increase the annual vehicle licensing fee. However the Government considers that this has already reached a level whereby any further increase could have adverse social consequences. In the Government’s view the only practical and equitable solution is to increase the petrol levy. 
United Future does not fault the Government’s reasoning. We accept that the increasing costs faced by the Accident Compensation Corporation need to be met. As I have said we support giving quality care to those who suffer from accidents. We also accept that the increase in the petrol levy is the most equitable way of achieving this. However this runs counter to United Future’s view of the wider transport policy. Our view has been expressed many times by myself and my colleagues in this House. United Future cannot condone a further unnecessary increase in the tax burden already borne by New Zealand motorists. We already pay more than $1.7 billion in petrol excise duties road-user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees. Too much of this is siphoned straight back into the consolidated account. It is not spent on accident compensation and rehabilitation roads or anything else that is directly transport related. 
If one looks at the petrol excise duty alone one sees that the 18.5c per litre collected from the motorist at the pump goes straight back into the Government’s coffers with all other revenue. Currently 2.3c per litre is collected for accident compensation and is given directly to the Accident Compensation Corporation. The Government wants to increase this amount to 5.08c. That is fair enough. We like the idea that a tax is used in such a direct way for the purpose for which it was collected. 
In fact this is the point that United Future has been trying to make for some time: these taxes should be transparent and should be used for the purpose for which they were raised. Why can we not apply this same logic to the rest of the excise duty? It is supposed to be used for transport-related costs such as roads. For the purposes of this bill why can the Government not take this increase in the accident compensation levy from the 18.5c per litre that it already takes from the motorist at the petrol pump and diverts into the consolidated account? The Government should do that particularly in the light of the huge Budget surpluses it is currently running. Why not simply reduce the amount diverted into the consolidated account from 18.5c to 15.7c? 
Perhaps this could even be a precursor to our returning to the motorist in the form of transport-related benefits all the funding currently collected at the pump. That would be a policy that United Future could support. The Minister of Finance has indicated recently in answer to questions in the House that some work is being done—by Treasury I imagine—on trying to justify this money being taken from the fuel excise tax and put into the consolidated account. I have to say that United Future is open-minded about looking at the results of the research that is being done; if there is a good case for some of that money being taken and used in general expenditure by the Government we will be willing to accept that. But I do doubt seriously that it can justify the 18.5c being siphoned off into the consolidated account. 
At a time when New Zealand’s economy is said to be under pressure from external factors and from national infrastructure deficiencies is this really a good time to siphon an extra $75 million off the regions? Because that is what this bill does. Based on average levels of fuel consumption it will cost Canterbury an extra $10 million per year the Bay of Plenty $7 million Otago $4 million Wellington over $8 million the Waikato $10 million and Auckland $8 million. And all the time the Government is running Budget surpluses. Where is the sense in that? 
Jeanette Fitzsimons a co-leader of the Green Party in her first reading speech—after Peter Brown from New Zealand First and I had made this argument about money being siphoned off the regional economies—claimed that that was a very poor debate. I think that is what she said. I shall quote: “It goes back to the people who work in the treatment and rehabilitation systems in the regions and that provides economic development in the regions. Roads and motoring are not the only things that boost the economy. All the other services such as health services and care and rehabilitation also boost the economy and it is a completely shallow argument”—that is what she said—“to say that this money is being siphoned off somewhere never to appear again and never to play any useful role in the economy.” 
Well I would be the first to admit that these service industries—health services and care and rehabilitation—do play an important part in our communities and to some extent in our economies but that comment of Jeanette Fitzsimons reveals how little she understands about how the economy works and the importance of the producers in the economy and of service industries. Roads and motoring play a very very important part in the economic base of our industries of our businesses across this country. Having efficient and safe roads for them to operate on and for our freight to move around on is a key ingredient in gross domestic growth in this country. It is not the same as hospitals and health services and care and rehabilitation. If we take money away from those who are providing economic growth and give it to those who are simply providing services our economy will begin to shrink. So I do not accept her comment that it is a shallow argument; it is a very good argument to make and I believe that it is one that we need to continue to make until this Government acknowledges the desperate need we have to improve our roading infrastructure. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons mentioned in her speech in defence of the Government’s siphoning money off the excise tax that virtually every developed country in the world taxes fuel and motoring for general revenue. That may be true but I suggest that virtually every developed country already has a very well-developed roading network throughout its country. If our roads were in tip-top shape if our transport was running around without congestion problems then perhaps using some of the tax revenue from fuel excise for other purposes might be justified. But it is not justified to do so when we have such a huge transport deficit in this nation. We have been underspending on our roading network for the past 20 years and that is why we are in the current situation. 
In conclusion I shall make one further comment about Jeanette Fitzsimon’s speech. She said at the time that the Greens gave support to this bill on its first reading: “We hope that we will make some improvements at the select committee to take the bill further in some directions where it has started in a small way but not gone far enough. One simply cannot avoid a levy on fuel. People either buy fuel or they do not. So we are disappointed that we have taken only a small step in that direction.” At that point I looked forward with some confidence and some expectation that when the bill was reported back from the select committee there would be a number of changes—that there might be a reduction in the cost of registration in exchange for what is being put on at the petrol pump. But as I look at the bill today I find there are no changes like that at all. The Greens have continued to give their support for this increased tax on the motorists of New Zealand without their getting any of the changes they said they were hoping to gain. Therefore I am disappointed that the Greens are supporting a tax on the motorist—and this tax is being put on simply because of the Greens' support. United Future makes it clear that we do not support further taxes on the motorists of New Zealand until our roading network is improved. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure for the Green Party to follow the speech of Larry Baldock who has challenged us on a few points. The Greens will be supporting this bill because we think it is right that road users through this additional fuel tax do help cover the cost of road accidents. As we understand the bill it is not just a tax on petrol that is proposed; there is provision in the bill for that tax to be extended to other fuels such as diesel which I think is very important because trucks which use a lot of diesel are disproportionate contributors to road accidents—very much so if one looks at the statistics. So it is right that the tax is extended to diesel. I hope that in our implementing this law that will occur. 
I think incentives will result from fuel taxes being increased. It means that there will be a move towards a more level playing field between road transport and for example rail transport. At the moment rail operators have to pay the entire costs of the operation—the infrastructural cost of the rails as well as the operational costs of running trains and carriages over those rails. As for road users it is true as the last speaker said that money is put into the consolidated account. But if one adds up the money—the 18c referred to and the other taxes—it still does not add up to the real costs to the community of the roading infrastructure and what are sometimes called the externalities. One does not look at just the costs of building and upkeeping roads; one has to look at all the other costs to the community. 
Infrastructure Auckland funds different infrastructural projects in Auckland with money from Ports of Auckland etc. It published a study on these externalities a few years back and it estimated that if one added up all the externalities including the health costs of the fumes from road transport one would find that the cost was about $2.5 billion a year. It is estimated by the Auckland Regional Council that about 400 deaths a year in Auckland are caused by the pollution put into the air by road transport. That figure is equal to the number of people who die annually in road accidents. The health costs go beyond that. There are the costs of the effect on health of the stress felt by people using road transport as against other forms of transport and the costs of the effects of traffic noise particularly in urban areas and on big highways. There are also the costs to the environment in terms of the use of fossil fuels which are obviously in short supply and in terms of the contribution of greenhouse gases to global warming. If one adds up these and other externalities as Infrastructure Auckland did in its research project one finds that they add up to a lot of money. Even with this tax the road users will not be fully covering the costs of their use of the roads. 
So at least this legislation provides an incentive for the community to move towards fewer accidents a better transport structure and possibly if we do reduce the accident rate very substantially less tax in this regard. It is also an incentive I think to move freight from road to rail transport. One of the aims of the Government supported by the Greens is to have more freight and passenger transport moved by rail as opposed to road. If we are giving an incentive for road users or freight operators to say: “It’s getting a bit more expensive to use the roads because of this tax. Perhaps we’ll send more of our freight by rail.” that will be for the good of the community. This legislation is also an incentive for commuters who drive their cars to work in the big cities in particular to say: “It’s going to cost me more to take my car. I have to look at the cost of going by public transport.” I think this tax will encourage commuters to use different modes of commuting whether rail ferry or bus or other alternatives such as cycing or walking or a combination of those different modes. 
It is also an incentive for local government and central government to do something to decrease the rate of accidents so that there is less of them and they are not so bad. Both local government and central government can do that by various means including by improving roading—making sure there are good cycle lanes so that cyclists are not in danger and making sure there are proper pedestrian facilities so that fewer pedestrians are killed. Improvement of road design is one thing that this measure could encourage. 
We can look at the question of enforcement of the laws. I think that would reduce road accidents substantially. The police could deal more effectively with some of the things that I notice like cars following too closely. People who do that could be penalised a little more in order to make our roads a bit safer. The police could penalise people for overtaking in very dangerous circumstances which I think is a major contributor to road accidents particularly on highways. 
In addition to that this measure will encourage Government and local bodies to provide more education on road safety. More could be done in that direction. I have had a driver’s licence for many many years and I cannot see that there has been a lot of pressure on me to take up educational opportunities such as defensive-driving courses. There is a lot of room for greater community education of existing drivers and also new drivers to decrease the frequency of accidents. 
Within this discussion we are having on road safety and how to fund the accident compensation component of it we also need to look at the question of our not having longer or heavier trucks on the roads. I know there was a proposal to increase the allowable length of trucks on the roads and the weight of those trucks. There was much discussion on that a couple of years ago. The Greens got a huge amount of public support via letters emails and telephone calls because we opposed any increase in the size and length of trucks. Hopefully this sort of discussion we are having now will encourage the Government not to go ahead with that. It is a big issue. Travellers on the roads already have to face the fact that there are a lot of big trucks going round corners and making things very difficult for them. I talked to a resident of Gisborne recently who is very scared to travel from Gisborne to Wairoa because logging truck after logging truck goes along that very narrow road. Again that is an argument for pushing more freight such as the logs coming on stream from places like Gisborne on to the rail sytem rather than increasing the number of logging trucks and other trucks or increasing their length or weight. That would only create more accidents and put a greater burden on the accident compensation system. 
I am glad that when the Minister made the introduction he referred to the land transport strategy which the Greens were involved in. That strategy is to develop alternatives to road use across the range from a strategy for more people to be walking and cycling to the development of public transport in all its forms to promoting innovative things like the walking bus system which was referred to in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
. That system is developing both in Auckland and around the country. Parents get together to take their kids to school in a walking bus rather than a whole of lot individual cars going to school and resulting in a crush of traffic around the school that makes things more dangerous for the children. A whole lot of innovative solutions are coming out of that land transport strategy and are being implemented. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to support this bill. It is an unfortunate fact of life that people get badly hurt in motor vehicle accidents. The costs of remedying those injuries and caring for those people over a long time are high and in line with the escalating costs of health care those costs are rising faster than inflation. That leaves the Crown with a difficult issue. We have a legal requirement to collect enough levy to fully fund the motor vehicle account. The question then is not whether we pay for it but how we pay for it. Our contention is that this bill is the fairest way. It is fairest because those of lowest risk will pay the least and because prorating the cost against petrol which is broadly correlated with risk on the road avoids an increasing lump-sum payment through vehicle licensing. We note that the alternative which is higher lump-sum payments would be regressive in the sense that those least able to afford sharp one-off costs would still face them. Very briefly in principle this bill is necessary it is fair and it is timely. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand opposes this legislation because it is not as the Labour Government has tried to tell us a fair way to raise revenue for accident compensation. It is an unnecessary tax from the Government that campaigned on promising no new taxes. No matter how much Mr Hughes stands there and waves his “credit card” around it is obvious that he does not know what a tax is. The Government promised no new taxes and here we have yet another one. So far we have had the fringe benefit tax the tobacco tax other petrol taxes diesel and road-user charges driver's licence fees— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Richard Prebble introduced the fringe benefit tax. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I am glad that Mr Anderton is joining in here because let us not forget the sherry port and Madeira tax. 
I first became acquainted with the proposal for the increase to the accident compensation levy when I received an invitation from the Ulysses Club a group of older motorcyclists. They wrote to invite me to join them on the steps of Parliament last Labour weekend. They were very concerned that any levy would be added to their registration fee. So down I came to join them and who should turn up for the Government but the Hon Rick Barker. He was there in his full set of leathers and what a fine figure he cut in them too. I was not as confident as Mr Barker that I had the figure to carry off the full set of leathers so I came along in my jeans and a jacket. 
He turned up on behalf of the Minister and read out the set piece. It was obvious at that point that the Minister was veering towards the rise in the registration fee. The thousand motorcyclists were not at all happy. They had travelled the length and breadth of the country to come to Wellington on their long weekend. Rick Barker read out the set piece proposing the rise in the registration fee. Once he had read the speech in his full set of leathers he took a step to the left or actually it could have been to the right and said: “Now I’m going to speak to you biker to biker and what I actually favour is the rise in petrol tax. We’ll put the levy on petrol.” On 8 April when this legislation was brought to the House we saw that he had in fact got his way. 
Timing is very important in politics as we all know. The Government announced this decision in the first instance—when it decided whether to go with the registration fee or the petrol levy—on 18 December. It announced its decision to put the levy as a petrol tax on 18 December while most of the country was out doing its shopping for Christmas and would not notice. Labour’s Christmas present to motorists was the news that petrol prices would rise to cover an increase in the accident compensation motor vehicle levy. 
This is nothing more as we have heard this afternoon from this side of the House than a revenue rort that does not withstand close scrutiny. Increased revenue from petrol tax will supposedly pay for the rising costs of road injuries and deaths such as hospital and rehabilitation costs. However when we look at it closely we see that it does not add up. The number of weekly accident compensation claimants drawing from the motor vehicle account has dropped by more than 1000 in the past 5 years following a recent claimant purge. 
 The Accident Compensation Corporation’s motor vehicle account has run underlying net surpluses of more than $100 million a year before claim revaluation adjustments and changes in accounting treatments. Government members say that the increase is a way to cover rising health costs—and we have just heard them at it again—for road accident victims. Labour Party polling shows that this is the most acceptable excuse yet my questions to the Minister reveal that those costs are not rising as significantly as the Labour Government claims. 
It is interesting too to look at the corporation’s annual accounts. They show that the corporation’s problems are actually due to the revaluation of the future cost of social rehabilitation which over the next 30 years will be $858 million rather than $696 million. The accounts show that this is an estimate of future costs based on assumptions that social rehabilitation costs will rise by 20 percent annually. This just is not the case. The resulting difference in future social costs of $162 million has simply been deducted from this year’s operating surplus to provide a convenient deficit and an excuse to raise petrol tax. A change in accounting treatment increased this deficit by a further $50 million. It is amazing what can be done with figures. 
The Government has hiked the bill for taxpayers without providing any good reason. Either Labour is inept in going along with the corporation’s purported need for more money—and this is entirely possible I suppose—or perhaps the Government’s plan has always been to increase petrol tax thus making the consultation merely cosmetic. 
On 8 April the legislation was introduced into Parliament. If passed it will create the third unnecessary increase in petrol levies since the Labour Party came to power. The bill will increase the petrol levy used to fund accident compensation from 2.3c to 5.08c—an increase of 2.78c or 120 percent. Labour hoped that motorists would not notice its blatant tax grab because at the time the conflict in Iraq was occurring and there was a huge variation in the price of oil. Petrol prices reflected that. 
This increase of just over 5 percent per litre came on top of the 1 July 2001 Crown revenue petroleum excise tax increase and the 1 March 2002 National Roads Fund petrol tax hike. Like the previous two increases this tax hike is totally unnecessary—as I and other members on this side of the House have said today. What injury prevention are we talking about? The rate of serious injury and death has steadily fallen by 30 percent over the past decade while at the same time the number of registered cars has increased by 30 percent. The Government has inflated the estimate of future accident compensation claimant costs so that it can justify getting even more out of the back pocket of today’s motorists. The result is that this Labour Government can build up a fund. It is just the same as Dr Cullen’s fiddle with income taxes; he overtaxes workers so that he can achieve a surplus. 
Let us look at the Budget surplus of $4 billion. We have just reached a population of 4 million. If the surplus were to be divided amongst the population of New Zealand each person would receive back $1000. Dr Cullen had the perfect opportunity in the Budget to reduce incoming personal and company taxes with this surplus but of course he did not do it. He would much rather raise the taxes of New Zealanders in particular the New Zealand motorist. 
In short this is an anti-motorist nonsensical tax hike that will hit every New Zealander in the back pocket. For this reason ACT New Zealand strongly opposes this bill. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 This is a good start. I am delighted to rise in support of this legislation. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 That was the shortest debate I have heard from someone who is trying to impress upon the country that we will have taxation increases. The member stood up and said he supported the legislation. I would have thought he would get up and pound his chest saying that this measure is good for the country and is what we should be doing. But what did he do? He stood up— 
Peter Brown 
: He convinced me. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: He did not convince me. This issue is very serious. It is another serious attack on middle New Zealanders and on those in business. This is an attack from a Government whose members said we should read their lips when they said there would be no increases in taxation. That is what Government members said. 
Well I want to canvass some of the things that National is concerned about in this bill. We will not be supporting this bill. If we look at the number of long-term claimants for accident compensation we see that the number is reducing. It has gone down from 28000 to about 14000. But there will be a tail and that tail may well increase. That is how the Government would justify increasing the tax by 120 percent. That is what this tax is about; it is about a 120 percent increase. 
One of the issues I take great offence at is what the Minister said in the first reading debate on 10 April—and I will quote from the  
Hansard 
. She said that this bill “will enable changes to the rate of petrol levy without requiring further legislative amendments”. Do members know what that means? It means there will be an endless increase in taxes with absolutely no scrutiny by this Parliament. Under the regulations if the Accident Compensation Corporation wants to increase its levies—or its taxes which is what they are—it can do so because there will be absolutely no need to come back to Parliament for scrutiny. I find that quite unacceptable. 
The Minister also went on to say in her speech that funding the increase through a petrol levy is seen to be fairer. On whom is it fairer? What about the professional drivers? What about those people who make a living out of driving—the long-haul transport operators the courier operators and the taxi operators? Those people do not have the accidents. They have a very good safety record. Yet those people will be hit because the Minister said that that would be “fairer”. In my view it is not fair. Under the bill the more that people drive the more tax they will have to pay. People who are in business will have to carry the can on this. This legislation is absolutely anti-business. The bill does not include diesel. However the Green member said in his dissertation that diesel should be included. [ 
Interruption 
] The Government can bring diesel in at any time because under this legislation it will not have to come back to the House to discuss that. That can be done by regulation. 
This increase is more than the total of the old levy. In fact it is 2.78c per litre more than that. The levy will go from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre and that is an increase of 120 percent. An increase of 3c per litre will go through because the minority Labour-led Government has done away with competition. When there was competition with regard to accident compensation the Accident Compensation Corporation had to scrutinise what it did. It had to make its investments work but under this legislation there is absolutely no competition. Of course we are the people who will carry the can for that. 
I remind this Government of its pledge at the last election about taxation increases which was that there would be no more taxation increases. Since November 1999 we have seen an income tax increase. The taxation rate for those who earn $60000 plus went from 33 percent to 39 percent. That is what happened. We saw the rate of fringe benefit tax increase from 49 percent to 64 percent and the rate of trust income tax increase from 19.5 percent to 33 percent. We saw a tobacco excise tax come in that went from $7.20 to $8.20. We have seen petrol and road-user charges go up enormously with road-user charges going up by over 30 percent. The accident compensation levy on petrol that we are debating today will put a huge compliance cost on business. 
And what about the night when we sat here until 5 to 5 in the morning because the taxes on sherry and port were being put up? Do members remember that night? Not many Government members were actually here in the House. They were not here; they had gone home to bye-byes. We were here in the House saying that that was a straight-out tax on port and sherry. The Government’s view was that it had to stop binge drinking and it had to hit those people who would be drinking port and sherry. Of course what happened? The Government put up that tax. 
We have seen accident compensation levies increase in other areas. I am the Opposition spokesperson on racing which has had a huge increase of 52 percent in the accident compensation levies on trainers. What did we see in Parliament today after yesterday’s announcement of the flatulence tax on farmers? David Carter made a very good point in Parliament today that a flatulence tax of $8 million would hit farmers. That is what this Government is about. It has a hidden agenda. It may call the increases levies or charges but then the Minister Pete Hodgson said members could call the flatulence tax what they liked and they could call it a tax if they liked. I am saying that any tax any charge or any levy—whatever members want to call it—is a burden on the community and is a compliance cost that we are opposed to. 
Finally I congratulate the Accident Compensation Corporation on having been able to maintain its investments over the last couple of years despite the very turbulent market conditions. However the point I make here is that as the climate changes as the market changes overseas and as investment strategies change we will probably see an erosion in those investments. This Government now has a situation whereby accident compensation is a monopoly and is not open to competition and it will be able to increase the charges by way of regulation without the scrutiny of this House. 
It is quite clear that National is for business. This legislation is anti-business. It will hit the small people and the people who drive cars. I would have thought that most of those people were a constituency of this Labour Government. However the Government is hitting its people our people and businesses. This legislation is anti-business; it is a tax. There is no other name for it and National is opposed to it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Bill read a second time. 
Courts and Criminal Matters Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to refer this bill to the Law and Order Committee for its consideration. 
This is an omnibus bill designed to improve the effectiveness of the Department for Courts’ fines and civil enforcement activities through interrelated amendments to a number of Acts. The amendments extend the scope of the information the department can seek through information-matching programmes and through requests to other Government departments. They provide clarification for the public to ensure that people are informed of their rights and responsibilities and are not unduly penalised as a result of outstanding fines. Amendments also clarify certain statutory provisions so as to remove confusion and better reflect Parliament’s original legislative intention. 
I turn first to the improvements to the department’s information-gathering mechanisms that support its fines enforcement activities. In particular Parts 2 4 and 6 of the bill create an arrangement that allows the department’s collections operating unit to compare its database of fines defaulters with the databases of the New Zealand Customs Service and the New Zealand Immigration Service of people travelling into and out of the country. Currently most fines defaulters are able to leave New Zealand permanently or to leave and re-enter the country without attracting the collections unit’s interest. Only a small proportion is intercepted. That reduces the credibility of fines as a sentence by suggesting to the public that the fines and reparation that are imposed will not be collected. 
Under the initiative in this bill alerts will be triggered when serious fines defaulters enter or leave New Zealand at an international airport. Collections officers will use the information about the fines defaulter’s residential address passed on to them by the New Zealand Immigration Service to initiate standard enforcement action. The most serious fines defaulters will be intercepted at the airport where they will be given the opportunity to pay the fines immediately or to make an arrangement to pay or they will be arrested. 
Related to that clause 33 closes a loophole that would have allowed serious fines defaulters to evade enforcement action simply by travelling on a Sunday. The clause removes the current restriction against the issue and the execution of a warrant on a Sunday in the case of arrest for the non-payment of a fine. 
Clauses 29 31 32 and 35 make necessary improvements to the existing information-matching and information-sharing arrangements between the Department for Courts the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development. Location information—especially telephone numbers—is the key to cost-effective tracing of and contact with fines defaulters. As most wage and salary earners are no longer required to complete a tax return the address information derived from the Inland Revenue Department is becoming out of date and unreliable for the enforcement of fines. Instead obtaining employer information in respect of fines defaulters from the Inland Revenue Department will mean that defaulters can be contacted at their places of work to make arrangements to pay outstanding fines and reparation. Clause 32 extends the existing legislative protections for employees against wrongful treatment by employers to ensure that employees are protected against any unwarranted repercussions of fines enforcement action. 
The bill also addresses a number of other areas relating to the effective enforcement of fines. It proposes amendments that will better ensure that the public are aware of their rights and responsibilities so that they are not unduly penalised as a result of outstanding fines. Fines defaulters who are paying off fines or reparation by instalments and who experience a substantial financial improvement or who are found to have given misleading information when entering into the payment arrangements should take responsibility for paying off the fines and reparation as soon as practicable. That is especially important when reparation is owed to a victim. Currently a fines defaulter in that situation cannot be required to increase the instalment payment unless the individual defaults on it. Clause 27 enables the registrar to take appropriate steps to vary the amounts payable under the arrangement. 
Clause 22 provides clarification for victims of offences when multiple reparation orders have been made and the defendant has made arrangements to pay off the amounts over time. Distribution on a first-in-time basis recognises that those who have been disadvantaged for the longest period are entitled to receive compensation first and provides victims with greater certainty about the amount and frequency of payments. 
Clause 25 makes provision for separate forms for individual types of offences or classes of offences such as resource management dog control fisheries or local government by-law offences. As infringement offences have increased in number and type the currently prescribed standard reminder form has come to be used for an extremely diverse range of offending. Some sections of the form do not apply to many offences and the notes to the defendant on the reverse side of the form are lengthy and hard to read. More offence-specific forms will assist alleged offenders to understand their rights and their responsibilities. 
The bill also makes a number of amendments to provisions affecting the administration of the Department for Courts’ enforcement activities of which I will mention the three main ones. The department’s collections unit which is currently responsible for enforcing fines imposed by the District Court will assume full responsibility for enforcing indictable fines imposed by the High Court. That function is currently performed jointly by the registrars of the High Court and by the police for whom fines enforcement is not a core function. The transfer will create greater consistency in fines enforcement and will better align functions within the department. 
Clauses 9 and 12 will enable bailiffs to take bail bonds in situations when a debtor cannot practicably be brought immediately before a District Court judge or registrar. When a judgment debtor fails to attend a civil enforcement examination when the order cannot be served or when contempt procedures apply and the debtor is arrested he or she is bailable as of right by a judge by a registrar or outside the court’s normal working hours by a member of the police. In remote areas it can sometimes take several hours to take a debtor to a police station. It is appropriate and consistent with the current powers of bailiffs to empower them to do that. 
Clauses 9 and 12 also align the provisions of the District Courts Act relating to the issuing of warrants to arrest a civil debtor with the fines-related provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act. That clarifies the circumstances in which a court registrar in lieu of a judge may issue a warrant to arrest a civil debtor where an order for examination cannot be served or where the judgment debtor fails to appear before the court. The two Acts will become consistent in relation to District Court registrars’ powers to issue warrants for arrest. 
Overall the measures contained in the bill share a common theme of ensuring that the court system’s fines and civil enforcement activities operate fairly and effectively and I commend the bill to the House. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is obvious from the comments the Minister has made that he has a thorough and instinctive knowledge of this bill. That is demonstrated by the rapid-fire way in which he read from a script—I would say word for word—the background to this legislation and the compelling reasons for its introduction. National supports this bill and is glad to see that it will go the Law and Order Committee where there are many fine National members who can well evaluate the merit and the disbenefits of the bill. 
The imposition of fines for breach of the criminal law is a core sanction and in the mass of legislation passing through this House many criminal offences have been both created and refined. A common sentence is the imposition of a monetary penalty or fine. Both in the Sentencing Act that was passed by this present Government and its predecessor the Criminal Justice Act there is a clear direction to the sentencing judge that before a fine is imposed proper regard is to be had to the financial circumstances of the offender. Where the offender does not have the financial means to pay a fine a fine will not be imposed. That means that at the date of imposition of the penalty the court has formed the view that an offender has the wherewithal to make payment of the fine. The natural inference of that is that the fine should be able to be paid within the time frames if any set by the sentencing judge. So when a mass of money is not finding its way to the consolidated account we face a situation that requires the intervention of Parliament. 
Of course monetary penalties are not confined to breaches of black-letter criminal law only—for breaches of the Crimes Act for example. Fines may be imposed for breaches of a raft of statutes. There are fines for example for offences created under the Resource Management Act and quite swingeing fines can be imposed for offences under the Commerce Act. 
I would like to say something about the content of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which aims to improve the effectiveness of the Department for Courts’ fines and civil enforcement activities. The bill contains various amendments to a number of statutes impacting on those activities and the Minister now listening intently across the House has spoken briefly about that. The powers of the Department for Courts to gather information about fines defaulters and enforce fines were significantly extended in earlier legislation—the Summary Proceedings Amendment Act. Although the new tracing and enforcing options implemented through that legislation have made a significant contribution towards the enforcement of unpaid fines they require further improvement and that is what this bill is all about. 
The bill will do three things: first it will extend the scope of information the department can seek from other Government departments through information-matching programmes; second it will clarify certain statutory provisions to remove confusion and better reflect Parliament’s original legislative intention; and finally the plan is to extend additional protection to the public by ensuring that they are informed of their rights and responsibilities and are not unduly penalised as a result of outstanding fines. Those are praiseworthy aims. 
It must be of real concern to the administration that as at 30 June 2001 unpaid fines in New Zealand totalled $350 million and of that amount $204 million was overdue or in default. There are approximately 500000 individual defaulters and 1.2 million separate fines in default. In a population of 4 million people 500000 individual defaulters are failing to meet their obligations in respect of activity determined to be criminal by the court. On any view of it that is a significant number and the consequence is that fines start to lose credibility as one of the tools in the sentencing armoury. If the collections unit is able to trace the whereabouts of a fines defaulter the fine can generally be recovered or the matter otherwise resolved. 
I am offering these views to members opposite some of whom it is suggested—I know not the truth of this—owe significant outstanding amounts to the Department for Courts in respect of sundry offences. The collections unit however is unable to trace a significant minority of defaulters and if it cannot trace them it is unable to take any meaningful enforcement action beyond issuing a warrant for their arrest. It has to be a good outcome that those who seek to depart to distant shores by air might well feel the tap of a customs officer’s hand on their shoulder as they seek to board the plane. They could then find themselves being withdrawn from the waiting line in order to make appropriate payments to the authorities—or else secure or compound for the amounts at issue. 
One of the strategies that has proved quite successful in the collection of fines has been the public naming of such defaulters in the press. To date that seems to have been a South Island initiative and good on the South Island! It is not an initiative that has yet spread to Christchurch but there are members opposite with responsibilities in electorates in that area who might well see merit in that course. I will instance two illustrations where there has been some success one of which involved the  
Nelson Mail 
 in naming fine-dodgers. On March 31 this year defaulters from the Nelson and Blenheim courts owed $7 million in fines. There is no indication of how many of those defaulters were Labour voters but one would expect them to account for a significant number. That figure was a slight decrease on December 2002 when $7.3 million was owed. The Nelson district collections manager said there were too many defaulters to count so he selected a sample of names to be published particularly those of people who owed victims’ reparation for a crime or road accident. 
A similar initiative was embarked upon in South Canterbury where fines defaulters owe $1.2 million. The plan was for their names to be similarly published on the basis that that sometimes encourages the fines defaulters themselves to do something about their fines. More commonly however the collections unit would be provided with useful information by third parties about the whereabouts of those fines defaulters from whom the money could then be sought. It is not that the mechanisms are lacking for the enforcement and collection of the money when the defaulter is found; rather the situation is that if the fines defaulter can be located there are effective mechanisms in place. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support this bill in its first reading because we believe that legislative changes are needed to a number of Acts in order that the Department for Courts’ fines and civil enforcement activities can operate more effectively. A large part of the problem is the lack of credibility that the Department of Corrections has in terms of effective and timely enforcement activities. It is the perception that enforcement will be unlikely that contributes to most New Zealanders having considerable apathy when it comes to compliance. 
Over the last 32 years the total amount of new fines issued has grown from $22 million to $216 million. During that time the total amount of fines remitted has varied. In 1980 14 percent was collected; in 1990 36 percent; in 2000 30 percent and in 2002 just 23 percent. Clearly a number of people do not pay their fines. They are either not sufficiently informed or pursued to repay their fines or they simply choose not to repay them. In response to a recent drive to recoup fines in the Waikato one chap was reported to have brought out his goldcard and paid $10600 when he realised that his television was being taken out the front door. That indicates that some serious fines defaulters have the ability to pay if they are sufficiently informed or sought after. That apathy has led to approximately $420 million in outstanding and unpaid fines. That is unacceptable and United Future welcomes the move to amend a series of Acts under one bill in order to help identify and rectify the problem of serious fines defaulters. 
The ability for fines defaulters to leave and re-enter the country or to leave permanently without the Department of Corrections’ collections unit being made aware of that is a considerable problem within current legislation—the problem being that there is no sharing of information between the collections unit and the Customs Service to monitor people leaving the country. This bill pre-empts further changes in our current system that will see changes to the personal tax system to reduce the information that can be retained about an individual. This bill will establish a data-matching programme so that arrival and departure information from the Customs Service can be supplied to the Department of Corrections to help locate serious fines defaulters. United Future believes that effective use of technology and effective communication between Government departments is long overdue. A data-matching programme is a logical step towards identifying chronic fines defaulters. Because the information will be shared there is a greater likelihood of having correct and current information. 
Shared information will also help the 40000 applicants to the Tenancy Tribunal who attempt each year to recover rent arrears and compensation for damage to property. At present if a former tenant is a beneficiary Work and Income New Zealand will refuse to provide address details to an officer on the grounds of the Privacy Act yet in clause 29 of this bill the Government can access beneficiary information if the debt is to the Crown. United Future believes that is inconsistent and it intends to investigate whether this bill has the ability to remedy that loophole for property investors seeking civil debt. 
United Future believes it is important that the proposed data-matching system has two levels of alert to differentiate the seriousness of an outstanding fine because it is not appropriate to unduly disrupt an airport. We will be interested to hear submissions on the proposed silent and interception alerts and we are also interested in the processes that will be used at the border for fines defaulters particularly for those who are unable to make the repayments. 
United Future has reservations about the new border controls applying only to international airports. United Future will be advocating that data-matching programmes need to be installed and extended to include other ports of exodus irrespective of what mode of transport a person might use to leave or enter the country. Database programmes need to have that capability at the outset of implementation. 
Another key change in this bill is the increase of powers given to bailiffs. A bailiff will now receive greater powers to execute a warrant and collect fines and the bail bonds of debtors. United Future will be looking to ensure that those legislative changes have appropriate accountability measures. We appreciate at the outset that there are benefits from the increase in the powers of bailiffs but that has the potential to be exploited or abused particularly in rural areas. We will be looking to discuss those provisions in the select committee. 
This bill has particular importance for United Future because it is an opportunity for victims to be considered in relation to payments involving reparation. Figures have shown that in 2002 the total owed to victims was $41.3 million. We believe that victims should be paid reparation before court fines are paid and we would like to see that more explicitly stated in the appropriate amendments. It might also be worth investigating whether victims in some instances could receive reparation in terms of their greatest need rather than a blanket rule of payments being made on a first-time basis. Other changes in this bill—like the ability for a warrant for an arrest for unpaid fines to be issued and executed on a Sunday—is in our view bringing legislation up to date with current mobility. 
We believe it is common sense to coordinate Government department information in the effort to control crime. We predict as others have that updating the technology and communication between Government departments will lead to greater voluntary compliance by fines defaulters. We look forward to the select committee examining the concerns we have and looking in greater detail at the proposals and potential consequences of data-matching and increased collaboration between Government departments regarding fines defaulters. United Future supports the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill to its first reading. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I simply have one thing to say to our hapless Minister over there: well done finally! Welcome to the real world. The Minister might have finally done something to warrant the payment of that huge salary he gets the flash car he gets driven around in the flash car he has at home the ministerial credit card and all those perks and luxuries that he enjoys. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: You’re jealous. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Is this a bit of envy here? 
RON MARK 
: To the protestations of my colleagues in the Labour Party I say that I have been harping on about this issue for so long and it has taken as long as this to get it to the House. I hear all these cries and bleats from people on the Labour hustings campaigning about the need to provide more social services to the community and about the homeless the poor and the impoverished while sitting out there to one side is $488 million in unpaid fines. Members can just imagine all the good work that could be done in the community with that money but for the need to say: “Hey Ron you’re actually right and we’re going to get stuck into it. You were right to raise the question.” But no that Minister has a track record of knowing more than others and closing his ears and pretending the problem does not exist until it leaps up and bites him in the face. 
That Minister told me in the House that there were no problems with home detention and no one who had committed serious crimes was on home detention. In 30 seconds flat we found out we had rapists and people who had threatened to kill on home detention. In 30 seconds flat we found out that 11 people who had killed people were on home detention. Eleven people—more than I have fingers. 
Darren Hughes 
: This is a very gracious speech. 
RON MARK 
: I do not care about graciousness. I am more concerned about graciousness and care to the victims of those crimes I say to that young member. He needs to get his head around the fact that victims do not need to hear that that Minister says there are no people who have raped or killed on home detention and then find out that there are. That is why if that Minister is so blind ignorant and arrogant that he will not listen we end up with bills like this finally coming in when people have been saying that the problem is out of hand. Who has been saying that it is out of hand? Members should go to the statement of intent from the courts. 
Dail Jones 
: New Zealand First. 
RON MARK 
: New Zealand First for a long time has been saying that it is out of hand. New Zealand First has a couple of principles. We will support this bill. We will look at it very very closely and we want it tougher. I do not understand how any Government can grab an old-age pensioner within 7 days of that pensioner coming back from a holiday on the Gold Coast because he or she left the country and now the Government wants to get back in and get some of the money it might have overpaid because the pensioner was away for 2 or 3 weeks while on the other hand people who owe $30000 in fines are blithely popping in and out of the country. Duh! Someone has his or her priorities wrong. Someone would much rather focus on bagging pensioners than dealing with criminals who will not pay their fines. 
I will give the Minister one accolade—one bit of credit. Apart from winning an Oscar from Winston Peters—that was a Mongrel Mob nomination for his services to justice in New Zealand—he has actually brought a good bill to the House and right now I want to acknowledge the good work of the officials behind the scenes who have put this bill together and brought it here. We need to make sure that when we scrutinise this bill— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I’m going to nominate you for an Oscar. 
RON MARK 
: Here we go! They do not like it up them Mr Mainwaring do they? When we scrutinise this bill we will be firm about that. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister asks what New Zealand First did. Eighteen months is a lot shorter than 4 years going on 5 years. The mandate we had is a little bit less than the mandate this Government has had. This Government came making huge promises. We know that it broke the one about taxes. Everyone is paying more taxes these days including the beneficiaries. Members should go and read the food bank report. It came out today did it not? It is a bad situation. 
Look at what the courts have said. I have a rap here for the Minister responsible for the Land Transport Safety Authority and the Minister of Police. One of the problems that the Hon Rick Barker has to help resolve is that generated by the Land Transport Safety Authority and the Minister of Police with their myopic focus on cash-register ticketing. They are proud of the constable up in Taihape who dishes out 100 tickets in one shift. But in this report we find that the courts cannot cope with it. 
There is one simple principle that must underline all matters relating to law enforcement which is simply that justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done for if it is not seen to be done it becomes totally ineffective. If we hand out tens of thousands of traffic tickets and then find that only 46 percent of them are paid within the time they are meant to be paid and the rest go on the never-never and are never paid—like all the headlines about boy racers tearing up tickets and laughing saying that no one will chase them—and do not chase those matters up people start to mock the law. 
This statement of intent from the courts is damning. There was a quadrupling of infringement notices issued by the police from 1992 to 2002. Members should compare that with the court statistics and figures on fines imposed by the courts which over that same 10-year period have remained flat. 
Now one comes to a simple deduction. Some people know that ticketing and fining only works to a certain point. Beyond that point we have to throw people in jail. But this Government does not like people being in jail; it wants them on home detention going to the gym so that they can perv at all the chicky-babes and going to the rugby to see the Crusaders. They can do all sorts of wonderful things except be in a jail. Victims do not like that. They hate to hear that we have let them out to go shopping. They also hate to hear that the Government is also paying them the unemployment benefit while they are on home detention—gambling smoking dope and organising their next business deal with the Highway 61. Hello! Let us be sensible about law enforcement. Let us make sure that the bill that goes through is so tight that no one who has outstanding fines in excess of $5000 is allowed to roam free. 
Remember those statistics that I finally dug out of the Minister? There are 280088 people who owe up to $5000 just in traffic fines. I run another business now but if I were still running my little business in Christchurch and I let my debtors run up to 280088 people all of who owed me up to $5000 I would be broke. Some Ministers do not understand that because they have never owned a business. They have never run one. They have never mortgaged themselves up to the eyeballs and employed staff. They do not understand the basic economics of getting money in and putting jobs and services out. We cannot run a credible justice system if we will allow 38 people to rack up $30000 in traffic fines and laugh at us. No wonder they say the law is a joke. 
I will give members a true story. There is a young Maori man—I know him very well he is close whanaunga of mine—who told me straight to my face that he owes $2500 worth of traffic fines. I said: “Do you? What are you going to do about it?”. He said that he had just rung up the court the other day and told them to come and get him. The court said “What?”. He told them to come and get him because he owed $2500 and they were warning him that he had to pay. He said he would not pay but that he had some books and he was prepared to do 2 or 3 months or however long in one of the prisons. He said they could name the prison he would go there and catch up on his reading. I asked him how he could do that. He said it was simple. His car wasworth only $800 and the fines were $2500. He said: “Do you think I am going to pay that amount of fines on a car that is worth that? They can come and take my car. I don’t own a home. They can do what they like. I can do 3 months in jail. I will do some reading. I will catch up on the backlog of some letters I need to write and then I will come out and the fines will be paid off.” Guess what? That is exactly what ended up happening. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: That’s not true. 
RON MARK 
: It is true. I tell the Minister it is true and that is what happens in the real world. That young man was later convicted of assault and when he was in jail his case manager on the integrated offender management system—we have these wonderful things—turned around and did all the documentation so his fines were all remitted. The fines for $2500 were got rid of. He did a 3-month sentence for assault and he came out laughing. Do members think that the justice ystem will maintain credibility out there when that sort of nonsense is allowed to go on? Frankly the guy should have got another 6 months on top to settle out the $2500 worth of fines. If measures like that are in this bill the Government has our support. If not we will try our level best to make sure that they are and we will put a bit of steel in the Government’s spine so that it becomes more effective to deal with crime and will lend some credibility back to the justice system that has long since been lacking. 
New Zealand First has been right on this I say to the Minister. We were right on home detention we were right on deferred sentencing we were right on police and police serving on councils. We are here to give the Government any advice at any time that it may want it. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to exercise my rights under Standing Order 107 concerning misrepresentation. I simply say to the House that the assertions the previous speaker made about the contents of my answer to a parliamentary question are wrong. I suggest that he read the questions and answers and gets it correct. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I ask you to guide that member because the comments I am referring to were his oral answers to questions which were then followed by my tabling a document that completely disproved what he said. If that member wants that left on the record fine and he can pay the consequences of that. I do not have a problem over that. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am ruling on the point of order. That is a debatable matter. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I am a proud member of this Labour-led Government. I have much pleasure in standing to support the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. This is an omnibus bill designed to improve the effectiveness of the Department for Courts’ fines and civil enforcement activities through interrelated amendments to a number of Acts. I support the bill. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to support this bill to the select committee but I do so with huge reservations. This bill purports to get tough on the collection of fines and civil debt but when we look at the fine print we see that much of it is simply words. It is interesting that if we look at page 12 of the bill it talks about the level of debt in New Zealand the unpaid or uncollected fines and it quotes the 2001 figures instead of the more recent figures which show us that as at 1 May 2003 there is $487 million worth of unpaid fines in New Zealand of which $314 million is overdue. The first thing I would like to say to the select committee that deals with this bill is that it would be interesting to find out from the officials why they used information that is 2 years old. The situation is much much worse than this bill is trying to pretend. 
The problem is that we have a Labour Government that is soft on crime. That is why the amount of uncollected debt has increased so dramatically since Labour has been the Government. It is in all different areas whether it is civil debt criminal debt or beneficiary debt. In all of those areas we find that this is a Government that does not go out and demand that the money is paid. The problem with this bill is that it is without teeth. 
 The other point about this bill is it fails to deal with probably the most important issue about uncollected debt that this country faces—that is all those hundreds of thousands of landlords out there who are owed millions and millions of dollars in unpaid rent yet this Government is doing nothing about it. This bill was the correct vehicle to address this issue. This Government is failing once again to get tough on lawbreaking New Zealanders. 
The issue is that when a landlord and a tenant go before the Tenancy Tribunal and the tribunal says that the former tenant must pay some back rent or some debt for damage done to the property and so on if the former tenant is a beneficiary he or she is protected by this Government. This Government is not only soft on crime but also soft on welfare. It is now time that it did something about it. 
As I said hundreds of millions of dollars are owed to mum-and-dad landlords around this country. In fact $1.6 million is owed to Housing New Zealand by former tenants who have refused to pay. I understand that the biggest debt owing by just one former tenant—owed to Housing New Zealand—is probably in the region of $18000. I want to know what this Government is doing to collect that $1.6 million debt—a debt owed to the New Zealand taxpayer. 
The real issue for mum-and-dad property owners who bought a rental housing unit for their retirement income is that defaulting tenants are an absolute nightmare. Those landlords take their case to the Tenancy Tribunal—a court of New Zealand. The former tenant is ordered to pay up but before the court bailiff can go and serve the order on the defaulting tenant the bailiff has to be supplied with the tenant’s address. If those tenants are in the workforce that is not so much of a problem because even if they have moved jobs they can usually be traced. But if the former tenant is a beneficiary then it becomes an absolute nightmare. Although Work and Income knows where the former tenant lives it refuses to give that information out to an officer of the court. In other words Work and Income fails to uphold the rule of law. 
There are some 170000 private property investors in New Zealand who invest around $43 billion into the rental property market. They own some 230000 rental housing units. Every year those private property investors take some 42000 applications to the Tenancy Tribunal. A small number of cases are taken by tenants against their landlords—the majority against Housing New Zealand—but over 40000 are taken by landlords against their tenants. These cases are against tenants who have skipped without paying rent or without paying for damage that has been done to the property. 
The problem is that this Government has had an opportunity to really deal with this issue; the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill has now gone through the Social Services Committee and come back into the House. The committee heard hundreds and hundreds of submissions. This issue came up in almost every single case. All the landlords said that this was a major problem for people involved in rental housing. They said: “Government please please sort it out.” Instead of sorting it out this Government has said some nice words and done absolutely nothing. This bill before the House shows that Labour has no intention of dealing with this issue unless it is forced into it. 
The issue was taken to the ombudsman in 1999. Four landlords went to the ombudsman regarding six former beneficiary tenants and asked whether it was fair that the Government hides those people’s addresses and will not allow justice to prevail. The ombudsman spent 4 years investigating this issue. All the landlords wanted was that the new address of the tenant should be given to an officer of the court so that the order for paying the money could be served. That is all they wanted. They did not want the information. They wanted the officer of the court to get the information. 
I understand that that is one of the most difficult investigations the ombudsman has had to do because every time he tried to consult the Ministry of Social Development on this issue it apparently stonewalled him. Eventually last September the Chief Ombudsman ruled in favour of the landlords. He ruled that the Ministry of Social Development must give the addresses of beneficiary former tenants to the collections unit of the Department for Courts for the purpose of enforcing a judgment order. He figured that the public interest favouring disclosure outweighed the private interest of the individual debtor. 
Mum-and-dad landlords throughout the country welcomed the ruling. They said that at least somebody was seeing some common sense. But on 10 October proceedings were filed in the High Court against the Chief Ombudsman by the Ministry of Social Development. It tried to stall this ruling being made into law. CIV-2002-485-837  
Her Majesty’s Attorney-General  
v  
Chief Ombudsman 
 was filed in the High Court. The ombudsman then went on to prepare his case. The New Zealand Property Investors Federation had to prepare its case. The Crown had to prepare its case. Just before the hearing in the High Court on 8 May this year the Crown withdrew. 
 So far the cost to the taxpayer has been enormous. The Chief Ombudsman has now asked for $100000 to be funded to his office to pay for him preparing his case. The Property Investors Federation will have $30000 to $40000 worth of costs as well and the Government has given me information that shows that it has already spent $100000 of taxpayers’ money but it is simply the tip of the iceberg. This Government tried to stop the ombudsman’s ruling going through. The ombudsman’s ruling would have allowed landlords to find justice and I expect the select committee to deal with this issue. 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I stand in support of this bill. The bill will also enable the court to increase payment arrangements when fines defaulters’ financial circumstances have improved significantly or when it is discovered that misleading information has been given. There will be more scope for collecting and paying out reparation owing to victims in a more timely manner. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of the Green Party on this bill. As the honourable Minister Rick Barker has said this is an omnibus bill so it contains a number of different measures and provisions some of which the Green Party supports and some of which we have concerns about. We do have a number of concerns about parts of this bill and I will go through those during my speech. As well I recognise that the bill contains a number of sensible and positive amendments to current procedure and I also intend to acknowledge those. 
The first thing I would like to address is the amendments to the Crimes Act. The bill amends that Act by allowing a bailiff to execute a warrant to collect any fine or other money that an offender has been ordered to pay if that fine has not been paid within the specified time. Currently those powers are exercised by a police constable. A bailiff will also have the power which also at present is available only to a police constable to make a report for the sentencing judge regarding the making of such an order as he or she thinks fit as to an offender’s financial means or to the fact that an offender cannot be found after a reasonable inquiry. 
The question that raises for the Green Party is what limitations there will be on those warrants to be executed by bailiffs. The concern we have is that a bailiff is I understand appointed by the court and is not subject either to the kinds of rigorous selection procedures or rigorous training that a police officer undergoes. We think there are real concerns about giving such a power into the hands of a bailiff. We are unclear at this stage as to whether that power to execute a warrant will allow a bailiff the power to detain or arrest people or whether it is simply to obtain information and collect unpaid fines. That is one of the issues that we believe needs to be clarified with some certainty before we would feel comfortable about supporting this bill. 
The second thing I would like to address is the amendments to the Customs and Excise Act. The bill provides for the New Zealand Customs Service to supply arrival and departure information to the Department for Courts to enable it to locate serious fines defaulters and to take fines enforcement procedures against those persons where a warrant to arrest them has been issued for non-payment of the whole or part of their fines and the warrant has not been withdrawn or executed. When we talk about serious default that is defined as a person owing $1000 or more in fines or any other amount that may be decided by Order in Council—so we can say $1000 at this stage but that could be varied very easily by an Order in Council. 
The explanatory note of the bill refers to the enforcement of fines at airports and it puts forward a number of different procedures that may happen. They include information-matching on some or all fines defaulters against international travellers; information-matching plus advice to defaulters who are identified that they must pay their fines information-matching plus the interception and arrest of some or all fines defaulters at airports and general publicity. United Future referred to the different kinds of procedures that may apply at airports and we understand that they may be in the form of a silent warning—the tagging of a person and that person being contacted when he or she returns to the country—or that defaulters could be intercepted at the airport and not allowed to leave the country. United Future was concerned that there should not be too much disruption at the airport. The Green Party’s concern is that those procedures are not specified anywhere in the legislation as far as we can tell. They are simply an idea that is floating around and we would like to see more statutory clarity around the issue of how those people are to be dealt with at the airport. 
The amendments to the District Courts Act provide that a registrar has independent powers to issue a warrant for the arrest of a debtor. Currently the legislation states that that can be done if debtors cannot be brought before a judge. This provision allows a registrar simply to issue that warrant. I am not clear what the reasons are for that change and I think the select committee needs to look at that as well. There are amendments to the Immigration Act to allow the Department of Labour to supply immigration information to the department for the purposes of enabling any person who is in serious default in the payment of any fine to be located and for appropriate fines enforcement action to be taken. There are amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 around the enforcement of fines imposed by the High Court on an offender on conviction on indictment for a drug-dealing offence. 
The amendments to the Privacy Act are another area that concerns the Greens. The bill amends that Act to allow adverse information against an individual on the basis of a result produced under an authorised information-matching programme to be acted upon by any sworn member of the police or by any bailiff. Those officers are able to immediately execute a warrant to arrest an individual for the non-payment of the whole or any part of a fine. I think any amendments to the Privacy Act should give us a bit of a warning light and there are huge privacy implications all through this omnibus bill. 
I understand that the Privacy Commissioner has not issued a report on this bill at this stage although the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been working with the officials on the development of the bill. I understand that the commissioner will appear before the select committee to discuss matters that concern the office. The Green Party thinks that a more comprehensive opinion from the Privacy Commissioner is required before we would feel comfortable about supporting this bill. 
There are amendments to the Sentencing Act with regard to the payment of reparation simply stating that where reparation to multiple people is required it is on a first-in-time basis rather than on a pro rata basis. That simply means that if a person owes reparation to a number of people the one with regard to whom the first reparation order was made should be paid first. That is a sensible amendment and we support it. 
There are amendments to the Tax Administration Act to clarify the information that the Inland Revenue Department must make available to the courts in respect of fines defaulters. 
The last thing I would like to touch on is the amendments to the Summary Proceedings Act. There are extensive amendments in that Act in relation to infringement notices including things like allowing for separate reminder forms to be prescribed for different infringement notices. That makes sense; it makes things more flexible. There are also amendments to the procedural consequences of the serving of a reminder notice and so forth. 
That really brings up an issue with regard to infringement notices that I would like to briefly discuss in the last couple of minutes I have available to me. There is a huge injustice going on in our country where people who have been issued with an infringement notice are told that if they do not pay the matter will go before a court and they may then be subject to court costs in addition. That is fine. Currently the practice is that when the matter goes before a court the person is not informed that his or her case is before a court and people do not have the ability or the right to appear in court to defend themselves on that issue. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that people should be able to appear in court in their own defence. For people to be taken to court without even being informed when or where their case is appearing is absolutely wrong. It is a total injustice. People are then being informed that their cases have been to court and that they have to pay the additional court costs without having had the opportunity to defend their cases. If people are found guilty and there are additional costs then that is fine but I say people have the right to defend themselves in court. 
I very strongly encourage the select committee to look at this bill and at the opportunity it provides to address that injustice. While we are looking at procedures to enforce the payment of fines we also need to make sure that those procedures conform to the basic principles of natural justice. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. This is intelligent legislation. It will be widely supported by the community and I commend it to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in the first reading of this bill. I agree with my colleague Richard Worth who indicated that National supports this bill. Primarily we support the bill because we clearly believe in personal responsibility and this bill is aimed at ensuring that people are held accountable for their actions by providing for the better collection of outstanding fines and the tougher enforcement of fines. 
I personally have an interest as a former Minister for Courts in measures that enable the department to be a better collector of fines. I am hopeful that the measures proposed by this Minister will give additional grunt to the huge task that now faces the Department for Courts. Some newspapers now actually advertise the names of people who owe fines. While that certainly may give the department real leverage to collect fines from defaulters I do not know whether that is necessarily a reasonable development for New Zealand. I am hopeful that the provisions here in this bill might help to minimise that sort of activity. National supports the underlying purpose of the bill and looks forward to its scrutiny by the select committee. 
As the Minister has indicated the bill aims to improve the effectiveness of the Department for Courts’ fines and civil enforcement activities and it contains various amendments to a number of statutes that impact on those activities. The powers of the Department for Courts to gather information about fines defaulters and to enforce fines were significantly extended by the Summary Proceedings Amendment Act 1998 and the new tracing and enforcement options implemented through that legislation have made a significant contribution towards the enforcement of unpaid fines. This bill seeks further improvement in that area. 
I want to spend a little time on flagging what I think will be an increasing problem for the Government. I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and hope that he has these issues in his mind. When we look at the summary by the Department for Courts in the estimates this year and see the increasing trend towards infringement impositions then we really have to worry. The last several years have seen a massive increase in the use of infringement fines as a justice sanction. My worry would be that despite the best intentions of this bill the sanctions it contains may not be sufficient to get on top of the rising trend. It may be that the Government needs to look at the viability of using such sanctions. We in National are worried that if the Government is unable to bring the fines defaulters to account—in other words if they are able to get away without paying—then the law will be seen to be ineffective and will be brought into disrepute. We cannot allow that to happen. 
If members look at the statement of intent of the Department for Courts and at its review of the trend towards increasing numbers of infringement notices being issued then they will see that we have cause to be concerned that even with the additional provisions in the bill that problem may not be able to be properly addressed. It is something that the select committee will have to look at because such things as defaulters’ names being published and information being exchanged between Government departments—which this bill allows—even though they may be necessary sometimes come at a cost. The cost will be I suppose in terms of the loss of privacy of information for individuals. I think that all Governments need to ensure that they minimise the extent to which information about individuals can be passed backwards and forwards between Government agencies. 
The other matter of concern that I also want to refer to is that the statement of intent of the New Zealand Police states that 30 percent more infringement notices will be issued in the coming year than were issued last year. So already there is an intent there— 
Ron Mark 
: Look out Maori in your old cars! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is certainly an issue. My immediate concern though is that already we see a trend in the ballooning number of infringement notices being issued and nothing in the statements of intent of either the Department for Courts or the New Zealand Police suggests there will be any falling-away in the number of infringement notices issued. Parliament will have to keep in mind that at some stage that whole area may have to be reviewed. Unless the Department for Courts can get on top of the fines defaulters—they are absolutely numerous and the amounts owing are also huge—then we may be back in this House in the near future to look at the whole area again and that would be a pity. I hope the Minister has taken into account the trends that have surfaced over the last wee while and also the increasing trend indicated in the statements of intent—particularly that of the police—with regard to that issue. 
In terms of the statutes that are included in this omnibus bill Nandor Tanczos made some comments about an issue that arises from the amendments to the Crimes Act. I touched on this briefly earlier in my contribution in a general way. It is the issue about allowing the law to take its course and giving proper assistance and support when we call on a Government agency to bring the fines defaulters to heel. However there is also the issue of balancing against that need—the need for justice to be seen to have been done—the need to provide new powers that possibly have the potential to be used in a manner that would then make individuals wonder whether that is a reasonable sort of development. 
Lastly I say that when nearly 200000 people are involved with overdue fines amounting to $5000 that is a huge amount of money owed to the taxpayer. It will take a significant amount of resource for the courts to collect that money. When one looks at outstanding fines of over $30000 and sees 26 people are involved in them again I say those amounts are worrying. As I said the Minister has no doubt looked carefully at this matter in introducing these provisions. I hope that the Government does tackle the issue of the rising trend in the imposition of fines. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First welcomes this legislation because it is long overdue. We have been calling out for something to be done in this area for a long long time and at last the Government has finally got around to doing something about it. Ron Mark’s attacks on this issue and his pursuit of the question of fines are well known. Only the other day—about 1 May—he asked a question about how much was now owed in fines. I believe he was told that the figure was $487 million. Of that $487 million $314 million is overdue. What on earth is this Government doing? All right we have this legislation but it will take more than that to make sure that money is collected. It is no use the Minister over there shouting across the floor of the House to me. The public of New Zealand want this minority Labour Government to do something about it. Legislation on its own will not be enough. New Zealand First will continue to make sure that action takes place. 
Under the inspiration of this Government and its Ministers we are now in a somewhat ridiculous situation where clearly the police department has been requested to put out more and more infringement notices regardless of whether it collects the money. There seems to be a belief that if a traffic officer in Taihape stands at the bottom of a hill taking photographs somehow that will sort out law and order once and for all. I see from the police department statement of intent this year that in 2002-03 the performance standard for issuing tickets was somewhere between 200000 and 250000. The department intends to up that figure in the 2003-04 year not just to 275000 or 300000 but to 325000 notices. How stupid can this Labour Government’s policy be! On a policy of about 200000-plus infringement notices it cannot collect the money but it is willing to take the figure up to 325000. All that will prove is that there will be more money that they cannot collect. The cost and the time taken to put out those notices and suchlike will be an entire waste for the taxpayer and a waste of the police department. No wonder it cannot cope with burglaries and motor vehicle thefts! 
In question time only today we heard how statistics for those crimes were soaring. We heard how the situation in south Auckland—the Minister of Police’s own district—is out of control. Anyone whose car is converted these days will not see a policeman. He or she will ring the police department and be given a number for the insurance company and that is it. I am sure that the citizens of New Zealand would much prefer to see the police out there inquiring into car conversions rather than standing on the side of the road taking photographs. 
The offenders know the rules. They owe thousands of dollars in fines but what happens when they finally turn up just before Christmas at Mt Eden and other prisons on a warrant to arrest? It is Christmas so they are let off.  They turn up at 10 a.m. in the morning and at 10.01 a.m. they are let off again. What sort of a police system is this minority Labour Government running? We in New Zealand First intend to make sure that that sort of problem is looked after in this bill because it is not at the moment. The Government has turned up with a bill that is a bureaucrat’s dream—all this bill is is more and more bureaucracy. It is also the fines offender’s dream as well. All the rorts that were so ably mentioned by Ron Mark in this House today will continue as well as the rort about turning up just before Christmas. This bill is a dreadful piece of management of our fines collection system by this Government. 
Of course we also have the problem—similar to that of hospital charges—where everyone particularly in the Auckland area gets loads and loads of traffic tickets. They park endlessly double park and all of those things. One just has to live in Auckland to know about it. What happens? They get all the fines and then they go back home again. No one collects the fines and the Minister says: “Oh look! I have issued another 25000 notices. Aren’t I a clever laddie? Aren’t we all clever blokes?”. But there is no one there to pay the fines. Everyone knows the system. 
Ron Mark 
: They wouldn’t get away with it in China. 
DAIL JONES 
: If the fine were not paid in China I expect the car would be seized straightaway. We need to be tougher. This minority Labour Government is just soft on law and order. It thinks that if more and more notices are put out somehow that is being tough on law and order. It is not. In practice it would be better to have fewer notices and collect the money. What is the point of having $314 million-worth of overdue fines? Would it not be better to collect $150 million-worth of that and really do something about it? It would take fewer people to collect $150 million than not to collect $314 million because that is what it boils down to. More and more staff— 
Ron Mark 
: Sell it to Baycorp. 
DAIL JONES 
: We could sell it to Baycorp but I do not think that Baycorp would buy this one. Baycorp is far too clever for that. I am sure the Government has thought of selling it to Baycorp. There seem to be nods of agreement at that suggestion from members on the other side of the House but no that one has not worked. 
To conclude and allow this bill to be introduced tonight I want to say that I agree with Nandor Tanczos about the sentencing aspects and about how people should be allowed to turn up at court and be heard on infringement notices. Through a young person with whom I am closely acquainted I have first-hand experience of the fact that more thought needs to be given to students and low-income people who do not know the system but get caught up in it. Those infringement notices do nothing to allow students and low-income people to gain a good appreciation of the law. 
On the one hand I commend the Government for introducing this bill. New Zealand First thanks the Government very much for bringing it in; it is what we wanted. On the other hand we say it is not enough and we will make sure it is improved upon in the select committee process. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee. 
The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.