Volume 623 Week 79 - Tuesday 8 February 2005 
Volume 623 Week 79 - Tuesday 8 February 2005 
[Volume:623;Page:18365] 
Tuesday 8 February 2005 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
111 System—Highway Patrol Units 
1. RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he satisfied that the policy of police having dedicated highway patrol units is not reducing the ability of police to respond to emergency situations? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. 
Ron Mark 
: Has he read the letter sent to him dated 29 September 2002 and tabled by New Zealand First in the House on Tuesday 2 November 2004 from a non-sworn member of the police Southern Communications Centre stating his concerns over not being permitted to dispatch highway patrol units to any other events including traffic accidents; if he has why are people still being put at risk more than 2 years later due to a policy he said he is clearly comfortable with? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes I have seen that letter. The Commissioner of Police answered it and in that letter he said that the highway patrol standard operating procedure states: “Highway patrol staff will attend events off the state highways when there is an immediate risk to life or property or when other staff need back-up.” 
Tim Barnett 
: Does the Minister have any specific information on the 111 emergency-call incidents raised with him by Mr Mark and concerning events in July 2004? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am advised by the police that despite the member blacking out identifying information which would enable the police to quickly identify the sources being referred to inquiries this morning have established that there were two 111 emergency calls in question. These related to a domestic issue and an assault case; both were in the Papanui area of Christchurch. I am advised that a car was dispatched to the domestic incident within 4 minutes of the call coming in and a car was dispatched to the assault incident within 2 minutes of the call coming in. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What specific evidence does this Minister have to back his claim this morning that the public is more worried about traffic than dealing with serious crime? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police regularly survey the community that they serve and that is what they got in their survey. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a joke! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If that side does not believe the police there is a real problem. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can the Minister have any confidence in police surveys and record-keeping in light of an article in the February issue of the  
New Zealand Police Association News 
 by “Doubting Thomas” a serving police officer who said that all of their statistics are an utter and absolute sham; for instance burglaries are often put down as resolved and detected when no investigation whatsoever has been done? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member Mr Swain will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the only warning today. There are to be no interjections during question time. That has wasted the time of the Government. The member will completely re-ask the question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can the Minister have confidence in police surveys and record-keeping when an article featured in the latest edition of the  
New Zealand Police Association News 
 by a serving constable under the heading “Doubting Thomas” states that police record-keeping is an absolute sham and issues are coded and filed under different categories implying that they have been detected and resolved in some instances when no investigation has even be carried out; how does the Minister explain that and how does he have the confidence that he just gave to the House? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I doubt “Doubting Thomas”. I think people who want to write in their union newsletter should actually put their name by it then people would think it is more credible than that. If the member wants to believe “Doubting Thomas” it is about as useful as doubting Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister comfortable with a situation that occurred in July 2004 where highway patrol units were sitting on the side of the road logged out of service and not listening to their radios at the same time as an abduction was taking place for which three units attending priority two events elsewhere were redirected from a much further distance? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the member should produce the evidence because the evidence he has produced so far is short on the facts and completely wrong. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you give the Minister an opportunity to answer the question? There is no evidence to say that vehicles were not diverted from priority two events to this incident at all and he needs to answer the specific question that I asked him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister disagreed with the member that there was such a case and he is entitled to do so. It might not satisfy the member but it was certainly an answer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Could the Minister answer my earlier question and advise what specific research he is relying on to make his claim that the public are more worried about traffic than serious crime and is this Minister seriously trying to tell this House and the people of New Zealand that the women of New Zealand are more worried about a speeding car than they are about being attacked in their homes? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The answer to the second part of the question is yes and later on I will table information in the House. I think people are more worried about having a car accident than their houses being broken into. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has twice quoted figures from a survey. He was asked what the survey was. Do you think it reasonable that he might tell the House which survey he quoted from? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said he was quoting from a survey. If he is asked to produce the survey by way of a supplementary question that can certainly be allowed. But I have not heard that supplementary question yet. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect that was exactly the question that the Hon Tony Ryall just asked the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member got a reply that I adjudged addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have been fair during question time over your term here Mr Speaker to allow two tranches to each question. The Minister was asked what the survey was and could he comment on whether New Zealand women were more concerned about car accidents and speeding incidents than they were about being assaulted in their homes. The Minister said yes to the second part of that question but is refusing to tell the House what the name of the survey is that he was quoting previously. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the answer to the first question along those lines the Minister indicated that it was a regular survey taken by the police. That actually answered the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question was also most certainly answered. 
Ron Mark 
: How many of the 12 to 15 traffic patrols on duty in Auckland 3 months later than the incident referred to earlier in my question on the night of Sunday 10 October 2004—the night Iraena Asher called 111 fearing for her life—were diverted to come to her aid; if none how can the Minister claim that his policy is working? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member needs to put down a specific question on that and I will give him a specific answer. That point was not contained in the original question. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have brought to you in this House on numerous occasions difficulties we have had with even getting this Minister to answer written questions on time. Now he has the audacity after 4 hours of being able to prepare himself for this question time in answering an oral question to waste our supplementary question by asking me to put it to him in writing. I ask you to ask him to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not. The Minister gave a perfectly proper reply. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. May I just clarify something? Is the Minister saying that he has never heard of the Iraena Asher case that he does not know anything about the facts of that case and wants the question set down in writing? This was a well-known case where the girl died in west Auckland. Is the Minister saying that he knows nothing about that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister is not saying that. The member is making a point by way of a point of order and he knows it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What is the primary purpose of highway patrol units and what is the evidence of success of those units? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Could the Minister ask the question so I can hear it please? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What is the primary purpose of the highway patrol units and what is the evidence of the success of the units in achieving that purpose? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Road deaths are down 40 percent since 1990 despite an increase of 15 percent in vehicles on the roads and a 5 percent increase in population. I remember that before the highway patrol came people used to say that they never saw police on our highways. Now they do. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The Minister has been providing members of the press gallery with a copy of the 2001 victimisation survey as evidence of his claims. I seek leave to table table 9.6 from that report which shows in the most worrying category that women have identified being sexually assaulted or raped as much more important than any other issue. 
Document not tabled. 
Ron Mark 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House on 2 November 2004 that all staff who are on patrol are available to attend general duties call-outs; if so how does he reconcile that statement with an Auckland City police district strategic traffic group policy statement: “The primary task of the strategic traffic group is accident prevention patrol duty. They are not to be diverted to other tasks.”; and was the Minister unaware of the police policy at the time or was he deliberately misleading this House? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Neither. Actually the Commissioner of Police told that member on television last night that traffic units including the highway patrol will attend events where there is immediate risk to life or property. Of course that is his instruction and that is what he expects and what I expect should happen. 
Rodney Hide 
: Was the Minister for real when he wrote to a constituent who had written to him concerned about the diversion of police resources to police being traffic cops that: “Criminals are often bad drivers. By stopping them when they drive police detect and curtail offending such as burglary.”; and in that case if thugs and criminals leave the scene of a crime sedately obeying all the laws does that mean they can get away with it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I stand by what I said. Criminals use the roads the same as anyone else. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Further to my previous supplementary question can the Minister confirm that the reduction in the number of road deaths referred to equates to more than twice the average number of murders in New Zealand each year? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes. Last year there were 47 murders and over 400 road deaths. 
111 System—Rural Communities 
2.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he accept that the 111 system’s ability to handle a rural emergency has created a “culture of mistrust” among rural communities as stated by Federated Farmers of New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 No. Nevertheless the police acknowledge that with regard to rural community policing perceptions are as important as facts and figures. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What responsibility does this Minister take for the average response time to priority 111 emergency calls in rural areas increasing by 40 percent in the last year? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police advise me that the police standard for non-urban priority one emergency events is a target of 30 minutes. The average response time in 2003-04 was 24 minutes. There was an overall success rate of 84 percent. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What other initiatives are the police taking to communicate with the rural community? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am advised that the Northland district commander Superintendent Viv Rickard has been appointed to liaise with Federated Farmers and other rural groups. Federated Farmers vice-president Charlie Pederson said that he welcomed police efforts to improve the emergency response in rural areas. Of course the Minister for Rural Affairs has been talking to me about that. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why on earth would any frightened family half an hour from the speediest police help trust a police force that cold-bloodedly lies to them about when help may arrive and is instructed to stop them from getting their neighbours to help when the Minister of Police endorses that conduct and calls it a textbook response? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not accept that the police are liars. I think that member should start honouring the police and supporting them for the very good job they are doing overall in New Zealand rather than dumping—and he can point his finger all he likes. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister accept that the police are so under-resourced and so mismanaged from the very top that the 111 system can offer no comfort to those who use its services whilst under threat whether or not they take up the Commissioner of Police’s suggestion of screaming to get attention; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What would this Minister say about this Government’s priorities to the Bentley family of Te Puke or the Asher family of Auckland whose 111 emergency calls were handled so badly given that this Minister believes they are more worried about speeding than that? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I want to say that the Commissioner of Police has a review being done over the 111 system. It is being done by an independent international panel. Of course we are interested in providing better service not only to people in rural communities but to those across New Zealand in urban communities as well. I think the police are doing well. Crime is down the road toll is going down too and resolution rates are going up. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: As this Parliament has no confidence in this Minister and front-line police have no confidence in him— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member start his question with a question word. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer to the Standing Orders in relation to the kinds of assertions that can be made as part of a question. To start off with two statements both of which are at the very least highly debatable is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it is. I would ask the member to start by asking a question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why as most members of Parliament have no confidence in this Minister— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No such motion has ever been moved and we are certainly not going to have one. The member has no capacity to make an assertion of that sort as part of a question. I refer him to the Standing Orders on questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the member to rephrase the question so that it can come within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why are there substantial questions in Parliament about this Minister’s competence that indicate front-line police are losing confidence in this Minister and why with more bad news stories of his misadministration of the police every day should the public of New Zealand have any confidence that they can be assured of security in their homes and towns? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The public can be assured that this Government is funding the police very very well—not cutting funding back as National did when it was in office—and it is increasing police numbers not cutting them by 540 which National did when it was last in Government. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to move a no-confidence motion in the Minister of Police. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to do that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave to move a no-confidence motion in the Leader of the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have had one all now. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You just—correctly—ruled that questions should be quite concise and specific and I agree with you. But I also draw your attention to Standing Order 370 “Replies” which states they should also be concise and confined. Listening carefully to that Minister’s answer I heard a lot of rhetoric there which was absolutely unnecessary and not needed. If we in the Opposition are expected to put concise questions then we should also expect the replies to be the same. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course that is right. If I wanted that to happen and if I just wanted simple questions with simple answers it would make my job about a thousand times easier than it is. However this is Parliament and this is a democracy. I do not mind a little bit of rhetoric in the question but if it comes in the question—which it often does—I expect the answer will develop it just a little too. As far as I am concerned I think that the way we are handling questions in this House at the present time is by and large satisfactory. I get very very few letters from members of Parliament about it. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table an email that shows quite clearly that in order to respond to a priority one call where a child was being abducted three general duties units had to be diverted from priority two jobs they were on because the traffic highway patrol would not respond. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just seek an assurance from the member that he has not blanked out any information on that matter as he did on the last matters he tabled things on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh no. The member asked for leave. Leave was granted. 
Working for Families Package—Results 
3.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How will New Zealand families be better off as a result of the Working for Families changes taking effect from 1 April this year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 From 1 April this year 260000 families or 55 percent of households with children will be eligible for extra money to help with the costs of raising a family. Family support will go up by $25 for the first child and by $15 for each additional child. The accommodation supplement will also rise for a number of families particularly those in the central and North Auckland areas. The child component of benefits will become part of family support payments from 1 April making it easier for parents to take that financial support with them as they move from benefit into work. That is all part of our $1.1 billion per year Working for Families package. Eighty thousand households have already benefited from changes to childcare and the accommodation supplement as of 1 October last year. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that New Zealand families receive what they are entitled to as a result of the Working for Families package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Radio advertising started this week and will be followed by advertisements in newspapers and on television over the next month to raise awareness of the 1 April increases to family assistance and the accommodation supplement and to the 3 October increases to childcare. We need to get the message out to as many families as possible to call the freephone lines and check their entitlements. The 1 April changes will benefit almost all families earning less than $45000 a year and a substantial number of families earning between $45000 and $70000. We do not want anyone to miss out. 
John Key 
: Is it not a fact that those low-income families who take their Working for Families entitlements on a fortnightly basis but who underestimate their anticipated incomes will be forced to repay those debts to the Inland Revenue Department—remembering that in a similar programme in Australia only 4 percent of families calculated their incomes correctly—and is it not a fact that those Kiwi families who decide to take their payments on a lump-sum basis are likely to run up credit card debts in anticipation of bonuses they will never get so how can that possibly be helping low-income families by burdening them with debt? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. Two can be answered. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Those hypothetical questions raised by Mr Key have of course been thought through by the Inland Revenue Department in relation to how it will deal with its clients. We expect there will not be those problems. 
Sue Bradford 
: What specific steps will the Minister be taking to help bring all New Zealand children out of poverty given that the Government has acknowledged that the Working for Families package will not address the needs of two-thirds of the children currently estimated as living in poverty? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This is a specific step aimed at lifting children out of poverty and as has been said by independent commentators once this package is fully implemented New Zealand will be in a situation very similar to that found in countries such as the Netherlands or Denmark. In other words we would be pulling ourselves into line with some of the richest countries in the world with policies of redistribution such as this Government has. That is a huge step forward. This is a specific step. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table an article in the  
Sydney Morning Herald  
entitled: “Family debt trap even worse—Labor” which shows that in the first 2 years of the same programme in Australia 1.3 million Australian families ended up owing a billion dollars in debt. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Inconsistency 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Who will be accountable for any unfairness or inconsistency in NCEA results? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 The New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Ministry of Education have operational and policy-setting responsibilities respectively with regard to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). If any unfairness or inconsistencies are identified as having arisen out of the performance of those agencies I will take responsibility for ensuring they are addressed by the respective agencies. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does he think students feel when they have seen in the last week stories in the media about a student who won a geography scholarship yet had never attended a geography class; claims that while 1 percent of biology entrants won a scholarship 60 percent of accounting students won a scholarship; and that students who did poorly in level 3 ended up winning scholarships at level 4; and why has he sat dumb while the credibility of the NCEA has been eroded? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Some such experiences clearly are not uncommon in examination systems and equally clearly need investigation. However it should be no surprise that such matters occur when examiners mark approximately 1.8 million exam scripts as they have in the 2004 exams. As I have already stated I will ensure that such perceived inconsistencies are fully investigated. 
Jim Peters 
: Would there not be greater integrity with regard to the NCEA if all unit standards were separately noted on the student’s record of learning thereby making clear and distinct the record of achievement standard credits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am certainly prepared to entertain incremental improvements to the NCEA and I thank the member for his suggestion. I must say that in a system that is overwhelmingly supported by the community—students and parents—it is much more productive to work to improve the system rather than try to pull it down. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister agree that the NCEA’s inability to act decisively gives the public no reason to have any confidence in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I must acknowledge some difficulty understanding the question. I do not understand why the NCEA should be required to act decisively. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that schools have been asked to comment on the scholarship exam from 2004 by 18 February but as of today 8 February schools have still not received the national profile results which would enable them to compare their performance with the national norms—results that were in fact promised in a circular put out by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to be delivered in late January and why have those results been delayed? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The member will recall that I said in the House last week that it was my understanding that those results would be sent to schools “within the next few days”. I have inquired further and I am informed that those results will be going to schools this afternoon. For the member’s information and for the interest of the House the results for which Mr English is clamouring were last year released to schools in April. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister answer the question I asked him earlier on which was this: why has he subjected students to a week of bad publicity based on rumours about a qualification for which they have all worked extremely hard while he has sat around plotting neat little spin operations with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and students watch the credibility of their qualification go down the drain? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I rather think it is the questioner who has subjected the students and candidates in our exam system and scholarship system to appallingly bad publicity and I think he should look in the mirror rather than accuse me of making statements like that. 
Sentencing—Serious and Recidivist Offenders 
5.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What evidence does he have that new sentencing laws are providing greater protection to the community from serious and recidivist offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There is a wide range of evidence that new laws are both tougher and more effective in dealing with high-risk offenders. The latest evidence is that preventive detention a lifelong indeterminate sentence for this category of offender that means that somebody can be locked up till the day he or she dies is being used far more frequently. Last year 34 offenders received the sentence nearly twice the highest number of serious offenders given this sentence in any previous year. The number of offenders who received this sentence in the last 2 years was about as many as those who had received it in the previous 5 years combined. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How does the new sentencing legislation promote the greater use of preventive detention? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Sentencing Act broadens the eligibility for preventive detention to cover those aged 18 and over and those without a previous qualifying offence. It also extends the number of sexual and violent offences that qualify an offender for the sentence from 17 to 38. As a result it is being used far more frequently now for violent offending including for the first time aggravated robbery kidnapping and the use of a firearm against a law enforcement officer. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a New Zealand Qualifications Authority circular dated 26 January that promised schools their provisional results and interim statistics in late January. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Land—Public Access to Private Land 
6.  
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she reconcile her plans to “build a more broadly based ownership society in which New Zealanders can enjoy the security of their own home” with her Government’s plans to allow the public access to private land beside waterways? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Easily. Just as owning a home is an important element of the Kiwi dream so is walking along our significant waterways. The security of landowners is a key element of the walking access proposals with access excluded within 50 metres of a home. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that allowing members of the public to wander at will alongside a water body on private property has no material impact on the owner’s use security or enjoyment of his or her property? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is well aware that there is no wander-at-will provision in the proposal. Also there is provision in the policy for a range of exclusions to apply including those for situations like lambing or tree felling where members of the public might be in danger or obstructing a farming operation. 
Hon David Carter 
: Will the legislation that liberalises public access over private land be before the House before the general election—yes or no? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is still work to do in developing the legislation. I am not able to give the member a yes or no answer. The legislation will be introduced when it is ready. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. I asked whether the legislation would be before the House before the election—yes or no. Even such an outstanding New Zealander as you will not be aware of the answer to that question from the answer given by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot demand such an answer; the member can ask for an indication. The Prime Minister certainly addressed the question. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that allowing the public to walk over her private property—in which there will be considerable public interest—would in any way diminish her property rights and security and therefore her ownership of her property? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: First there is no 50-metre exclusion around my house and second it does not have a significant waterway through it. 
Hon David Carter 
: What compensation will be paid to the private landowner for this land-grab? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Compensation does not arise because ownership does not change. I happen to be one who agrees with the sentiment that New Zealand has a “unique culture of not having private beaches rivers and lakes”. Those words are taken from the Hon Nick Smith with whom I agree. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Prime Minister not understand the anger of private landowners who are to have the right to keep trespassers out overturned through legislation with her self-satisfied answer: “Oh this legislation doesn’t apply to my property in Auckland.”; can she not see their concern? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: People most certainly have a right to keep trespassers out; what this is about is ensuring that where access is wanted over private land it will be gained either by permission of the landowner or by formal negotiation with the landowner. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Cabinet paper sets out clearly that the legislation will change the Trespass Act so that members of the public can walk along a 5-metre strip beside significant waterways for up to 20 minutes; does she not understand that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would not have thought that that was changing the Trespass Act; it is saying that this Government stands for walking access along significant waterways. Significant waterways will be systematically defined. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Hon Jim Sutton’s statement that the public will be able to come to the access commission and say that they think there is a big demand to get access to this piece of bush or that piece of conservation land and that the logic of gaining access to waterways also applies to gaining access to bush wetland or other areas of significant interest to the public? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If getting to those places required the crossing of private property where there is no significant waterway to which access has been allowed for permission would have to be gained from the property owner unless there had been a formal negotiated agreement. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific. I asked whether the Prime Minister agreed with the then Minister for Rural Affairs who said that yes we were to have an access commission and that the public would be able to go along to that and demand access to a particular area of bush. The question was whether the Prime Minister agreed with that statement. She is the one who is supposedly so good; I am sure she can answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No—that member is trivialising the point of order procedure. 
Coal—Solid Energy and Aichi Expo 
7.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: When he said in his press release on 4 February that Solid Energy was chosen to host the New Zealand pavilion at the Aichi Expo 2005 in Japan because it is “making coal clean” and that it is “meeting objectives to be environmentally sustainable” what exactly did he mean? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Minister that his first answer will be a little longer than usual. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The quote in the question from my press release on 4 February is incorrect and I will seek leave of the House to table the release. I said: “New Zealand’s exporter of the year Solid Energy has faced up to one of the biggest challenges there is—making clean coal. That’s why they have been chosen to host the New Zealand pavilion at the Aichi Expo 2005 in Japan.” Solid Energy— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have no particular interest in this question to be truthful but we go through a process to have our questions accepted through the Clerk—they have to be authenticated. Jeanette Fitzsimons has asked the question in good faith and has gone through the process. The Minister got up and said that he had said no such thing. He then said what he did say which was exactly what the question stated. In doing so he has impugned the questioner and certainly has impugned the Clerk of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not think he did either. I thought he was expressing his point of view which he is entitled to do. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Solid Energy is doing the following work to make coal clean and to develop clean fuel alternatives. With Genesis Energy and the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences it has committed $2 million to develop viable methods to capture and store carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. 
It is investing in other coal-based energy sources including methane and in ground gasification and the production of hydrogen fuel cells using coal; expanding its biomass business—which includes clean-burning wood pellets made of untreated pine wood and sawdust—and gradually withdrawing the supply of coal for the home heating market as Solid Energy believes that it creates too much pollution. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen the recent report from the UK the US and Australia that states that if global average temperatures rise only one more degree—expected to occur in around 10 years—it will be too late to stop worldwide agriculture failure famine drought and disease; if he has seen that report how can he possibly advocate making coal which is the worst source of greenhouse gases the centre of our marketing strategy to the rest of the world? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have seen that and several other similar reports. That is why Solid Energy is taking seriously the work it is doing with other institutions and agencies both in New Zealand and overseas to move towards more environmentally sustainable production of an important energy fuel of which New Zealand has 1000 years of supply. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Is the Government committed to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emissions and is there any economic development work—[ 
Interruption 
]—occurring in this area? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a member who was just about asked to leave. He should know that on this occasion because his interjection had the tiniest fraction of wit I am allowing him to stay. But he should not take it for granted in future. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Work is being done to substantially reduce the carbon dioxide produced per megawatt hour by increasing combustion efficiency. Ultimately technology will be able to capture and store carbon dioxide thereby directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Solid Energy Genesis Energy and the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences are currently working on a project to achieve this with our trading partners. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that only between 5 and 6 percent of New Zealand’s electricity is generated from coal and that in many larger countries—including the three countries that Jeanette Fitzsimons just mentioned—over 50 percent of electricity is generated from coal; if so will he tell the House categorically whether he supports greater use of coal in generating electricity—yes or no? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am aware of the very small portion of the world’s coal energy reserves that New Zealand both uses and produces. However it is an important source of potential energy supply and as technology improves I am confident that the organisation that Solid Energy represents which is now practising state-of-the-art methodology in this area and moving towards new productive techniques is capable of making a greater 
contribution to New Zealand’s energy production and to a cleaner world environment than it has hitherto. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why does the Government believe that having a New Zealand pavilion at the Aichi Expo 2005 is important? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In Solid Energy’s case of course Japan is its most important market. Of the $200 million in value that Solid Energy exports $180 million goes to Japan. Secondly only 160 New Zealand companies out of a total of 300000 earn more than 80 percent of our entire export earnings. Being at the Japan expo is part of presenting New Zealand to the world and improving that export base. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware that Solid Energy’s own chief executive has said that even though research has been going on for many years there is no clean-coal technology that will be available within 10 years that can in any way reduce let alone eliminate the climate-changing emissions from burning coal; if not why is he not aware of this given that the Kyoto Protocol which his Government has signed comes into force next week and binds us to targets? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I am aware of that and I am aware of many other things that the chief executive of Solid Energy has said. I have a whole series of statements recording the chief executive of Solid Energy as committing Solid Energy to reducing greenhouse gases and to being part of the solutions to the future not part of the problems. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has he personally seen the devastation at the Stockton mine owned by Solid Energy and the water-monitoring reports that show it discharges high levels of toxic heavy metals acid and sediments into the Ngakawau River; if so when does he expect the company to put the best mining practice methods he describes into practice? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No one denies—neither the Minister responsible for Solid Energy nor anyone else who knows about the mining systems in the past—that there have been many mistakes made. But one has to say with all due respect that Solid Energy is addressing many of those problems and the rehabilitation of old mining areas and new technology to reduce some of the problems that we have seen in the past are all at the front of the mind and on the agenda of Solid Energy. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand’s biggest coal-fired power station at Huntly still has no measures in place to remove sulphur dioxide oxides of nitrogen and toxic trace elements such as mercury that the proposed Marsden B coal-fired power plant also proposes only minimal controls with old technology and that in the United States there have been many spectacular failures of so-called clean coal; if so why is he promoting coal rather than New Zealand successes with wind power and other sustainable technologies? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was too long. I will allow it but there can be only a brief reply. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Because New Zealand needs all the potential and sustainable energy sources that it can possibly have if it is to have a forward-looking economic future. We need balance in all of these things. My view and the view of the Government is that Solid Energy has a balanced view of its future development. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Did the Minister discuss the choice of Solid Energy as the host for the pavilion at the Aichi expo with the ministerial group on climate change; if so what response did it have to the proposal? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: All Ministers in Cabinet were involved in the decision about the Aichi expo and who was going to be a foundation supporter which Solid Energy is. On this side of the House there is extreme pride in the way Solid Energy has developed its business. It is contributing over $200 million to the export earnings of New Zealand and is conscious of its environmental responsibilities. We are proud of it and I suggest that other members start to be proud of it as well. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that potentially there is a huge payback for New Zealand from making coal clean and I refer to the huge deposits of lignite in Southland and the possibility that they could become the long-term salvation of New Zealand’s energy crisis? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister replace Solid Energy as the face of New Zealand industry at Aichi with a more appropriate host for the New Zealand pavilion at least until coal is actually clean so that we are showcased to the world as a country with a green future rather than a brown one? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: These decisions are collective Cabinet decisions. I do not resile from it. The answer is no. 
Cyber Communities Programme—Performance 
8.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is he satisfied with the performance of the Cyber Communities programme; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am reasonably satisfied with the progress so far of Cyber Communities which is one of 13 initiatives being run under the Jobs Jolt programme. It seeks to provide people—especially those long term on various benefits who are difficult to get into employment—with information and communications technology skills and make them familiar with their application in the workplace. It is being run as a pilot in three sites—Otara Tokoroa and Southland. It began operation in April 2004. To December 2004 there have been 157 participants of the 420 expected over 3 years. One hundred and sixteen of the 157 continue to participate 41 have left including 10 to full-time employment four to part-time employment one to a voluntary organisation and six to further study. That is just over half of the 41. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister stand by his press release of 2 April 2004 titled: “Cyber Communities Jobs Jolt Programme a Win-win”; if so how can a programme that cost $445000 of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to put four people into work be seen as a winner for anybody? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It may help the member if I just repeat my earlier answer because she clearly was not listening and that was the answer. This pilot is being run in three sites—Otara Tokoroa and Southland. The report that the member is relying on was a report 3 months after the programme started. By December 2004 157 participants had been in the programme of the 420 anticipated over 3 years. One hundred and sixteen are still in the programme; of 41 who have left 10 are in full-time employment four are in part-time employment one is in a voluntary organisation and six are in further study. So far the investment seems to be OK. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: How satisfied is the Minister with the overall performance of the Jobs Jolt package? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer briefly because the original question was more specific. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Overall I am satisfied. Over 7000 Jobs Jolt participants have moved off benefit in its first year which means it is well on track for its target of 22000 over 3 years. If I take two examples of the programme the mobile employment service has seen a 44 percent increase in the people who should be going into employment going into employment. Employment coaching has seen a 43 percent success rate. Those two initiatives alone have seen 893 participants move off benefit at the end of September which was the measurement period. The programme is going extremely well. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: What was the objective behind the Cyber Communities scheme and could the Minister give the House an itemised breakdown on the funding that was spent? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the second question evaluations will be made available as they always are on programmes like this and the member will be able to access those evaluations. In answer to the first question I answered that when I first answered the substantive question. However I will repeat it for the member. It seeks to provide people especially long-term people on various benefits who are difficult to get into employment with information and communications technology skills and make them familiar with their application in the workplace. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister inform the House what change there has been in the employment situation since the Jobs Jolt programme was launched? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am delighted to do so. Job Jolt was announced in August 2003 as a series of initiatives to run over 3 to 5 years to move more people into work. At that time the unemployment rate was around 5 percent and forecast not to decline below that. The most recent unemployment level we know about of course is 3.8 percent. The number of people on the unemployment benefit has also reduced dramatically with the number being 36 percent lower today than when we started this programme. This means that in Southland for example we no longer have any long-term unemployed people. As a result all of our programmes will be evaluated against the dramatic change in the unemployment situation as we go on trying to get all New Zealanders into paid employment. 
Judith Collins 
: Is he satisfied that nearly $109000 was spent on one national project management position and is this happy beneficiary of the Minister’s win-win Cyber Communities scheme one of the four people who was helped into permanent employment by the end of June 2004? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This is sort of like shooting ducks in a barrel. But anyway the question unfortunately is absolutely—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Government members can have as long as they like during question time. It is their business. But a brief answer to the question would help. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The question of course is not accurate. There is no national project manager for Cyber Communities. The position became vacant in September 2004 and was not filled because Community Employment Group was disestablished. The previous national project manager was an employee of the Department of Labour not of Cyber Communities. The salary level of the national project manager was far less than $108000. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a report from the  
Dominion Post  
dated 3 February 2005 entitled “$445000 to get four off the dole”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table an evaluation of the Cyber Communities released under the Official Information Act. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That was not released it was leaked. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said: “Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection?”. I heard no one say anything. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made a comment during that point of order when he said that the document was not released under the Official Information Act it was leaked. I ask you to ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the Minister should withdraw and apologise because he should not be interjecting during points of order. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave was sought to table that. There was objection taken. 
Judith Collins 
: I am sorry there was objection or was not objection? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was objection taken. 
Judith Collins 
: OK. I seek leave to table a press release from the Hon Steve Maharey headed “Cyber Communities Jobs Jolt Programme a Win-win”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a press release from the New Zealand Government headed “Jobs Jolt Will Get More New Zealanders into Work”. That press release states that 22000 new jobs are going to be created. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Primary Health Organisations—General Practitioner Charges 
9.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she confident that extra targeted funding made available to primary health organisations for the purpose of reducing the cost of visiting general practitioners has in fact reduced these costs in all locations; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 On average there has been a signification reduction in fees for those populations in the age groups for which additional funding is provided through primary health organisations compared with the fees charged for people who do not get Government funding. For those aged 65 and over the average reduction in July 2004 was $23.40. That reduction represents a reasonable flow-through of the increased funding that the Government made available of around $26 per visit. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is she aware that general practitioners in some areas are increasing their fees and effectively absorbing increased Government subsidies as profits for themselves thereby ensuring that access to affordable health-care for our senior citizens remains dependent on where they live; if so how does she plan to remedy the situation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Some general practitioners did take the opportunity to adjust their fees when they received additional funding after no change in their fees for many years and no additional Government funding. However the Government does expect a sizable amount of the taxpayer subsidy to be passed on to patients. Where there has been a change in fees that has not been negotiated a process has been put in place to address that. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is the process for deciding the fees that general practitioners will charge and what mechanism is in place to review charges that are considered to be too high? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The fees charged are agreed through contractual negotiations between a primary health organisation and the district health board with Ministry of Health oversight. Should a primary health organisation decide to increase fees outside the period of the contract a fees review committee can be established to see whether the increased charges are justified. I note that the Capital and Coast District Health Board and the Wairarapa District Health Board have established such committees. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Can she provide any rational evidence why the Government plans to roll out hundreds of millions more of the scarce health dollars on patient subsidies for 18 to 64-year-olds when there is clear evidence that universal subsidies are associated with waste; and is she prepared to change her strategy as Treasury and many others have suggested? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No we have no intention of changing our strategy. I suggest that the member spends more time speaking to the public than trying to invent a health policy. The public will tell him that they would like to see the cost of going to their general practitioner reduced because they believe that has been a barrier to access. In fact research shows that to be the case. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister believe that there is any link between general practitioner shortages in some communities and fee increases in the same communities; if she does what does she plan to do about that and if she does not think there is a link what advice can she give to patients who do not have the choice of changing to an affordable general practitioner practice? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A shortage of general practitioners in New Zealand has been a problem that we have faced for quite some time. The good news is that we have more doctors wanting to be part of the general practitioner training scheme than we have had before. However I do think it is true that one of the problems has been that the income of general practitioners is considered to be low in relation to that of other doctors and they have sought to adjust some of that income over the last few years. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is that practice by some general practitioners not a predictable consequence of the creation of another layer of bureaucracy in the health system with resultant costs to general practitioners that they are now recouping by bumping up fees while taking the subsidy? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. Most general practitioners in New Zealand were already part of an organisation. Many of them were part of what were called independent practice associations and many of them became primary health organisations. So in terms of another level of bureaucracy I disagree. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a memorandum to Cabinet from the office of the Minister of Health where Treasury notes that tying additional funds to specified age bands within the working population may not have the greatest— 
Document not tabled. 
Student Loans—Repayments 
10.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent reports if any has he received on average student loan repayment times? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received a report that indicates that $250 million has been written off student loan balances thanks to Labour’s “no interest while studying” policy. That fact and the buoyant economy mean that the average student loan repayment time has decreased from 14.8 years in 1999 to 9.3 years now. I thank Steve Maharey. 
Moana Mackey 
: What feedback has he received on student satisfaction with Government student support policies? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am pleased to report that students are much happier than they were 3 years ago. I thank the New Zealand University Students Association for its survey where it asked students about them. It asked whether they thought Government policies treated them fairly and 62 percent agreed that Government policies did. That is a huge improvement from when National was in Government and only 15 percent thought they were treated fairly. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister explain whether his figures include loans from parents loans from banks bank overdrafts and loans from other facilities all of which have increased since 2001 according to the same New Zealand University Students Association report that he has been quoting and have been adding to the steadily increasing average student debt? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That could well be the case according to the survey. Unfortunately the New Zealand University Students Association included overseas students in its survey this time which totally distorted the numbers. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Has the Minister accepted the offer from Camilla Belich Co-president of the New Zealand University Students Association to brief him on the accurate figures for student loans following his recent embarrassing blunder on National Radio; if not why should we rely on his figures today? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am to have a meeting with Ms Belich at some stage and I will be able to provide her with the facts on which I base my answers. I think it might reveal to the New Zealand University Students Association and to the public that things are not quite as black as she pretends. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister aware of the New Zealand University Students Association research released in January that indicates that two-thirds of school leavers are concerned about being able to repay student debt; if so what does he believe are valid reasons for students getting a student loan in the first place? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and I think it is fair to say that the student loan policy has helped drive a massive increase in participation rates in tertiary education institutes and private training establishments—something I think that member approves of. 
Stony Creek Station—Ngati Aukiwa Occupation 
11.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What reports has she received if any on the Ngati Aukiwa occupation of lands at Stony Creek station in the Far North? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I have been kept informed of developments through regular briefings by officials. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the police have taken no action against the Maori occupiers of Stony Creek station because of Government instructions not to do so before Waitangi Day; if not what is the explanation for the 6-week delay in evicting these illegal occupiers? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: On behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations no I cannot confirm that because it is untrue. The officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements laid a formal complaint with the police on 1 February 2005. It is now an operational decision for the police to determine how best to resolve the situation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister now telling the House that the Office of Treaty Settlements a Government agency is having to wait for a considerable period of time for the police to take action on this serious matter just like thousands of other rural households throughout the country that have no confidence in the police either? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: On behalf of the Minister no I am telling the member that an occupation that has arisen out of a longstanding dispute between members of the hapu and Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa is being attended to and that the police after this period of time have had a complaint laid. They will make the operational decision as is their responsibility in due course. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did the Office of Treaty Settlements take so long to lay its complaint with the police and is it true that the farm has been unattended since the occupation began in late December; if so what has the cost to the taxpayer been? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those questions can be answered. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly the Office of Treaty Settlements as is its wont has worked with the police and particularly with local police liaison in an endeavour to find a constructive resolution. At this point that has not worked so a complaint has been laid. I can say to the member that I am informed that the property has continued to be looked after by the farmers and the stock have been farmed. There has been some difficulty with access to some buildings but there has been no detriment to the farm as such. 
Labour Force Participation—Women 
12.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she received any reports indicating the level of support among women for her Government’s policies to improve labour force participation announced last week? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have seen reports of the views of many women quite a lot of whom are very supportive of policy that provides opportunity and choice for women. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Government have any plans to survey working-age women to find out their work-life aspirations to ensure that Government policy reflects what women want; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No we do not have such plans. Government policy is very supportive of women making choices that are the best for them and their families. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Prime Minister agree it is ironic that only last year her Government claimed to acknowledge in the  
Achieving Balanced Lives and Employment 
 report the frustrations of women who felt contributions made by unpaid carers and voluntary workers were not valued in this country yet suddenly this year their concerns are not significant; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Their concerns most certainly are significant and are fully taken account of. 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate resumed from 3 February. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 While I was suntanning over the Christmas break National and United Future were pontificating on the virtues of their parties. The leader of the so-called “Clayton’s Family Party”—the United Future leader Peter Dunne—again pontificated on Radio Pacific and in the papers on how his party stopped the cannabis bill which I applaud. But he did not say that United Future could have stopped the despicable Civil Union Bill and the Prostitution Reform Bill from becoming law in this country. Yes his party could have done that. Shame on United Future! It rolled over again for the minority Labour Government in relation to those two bills. 
To the Labour Government I say quite frankly that in relation to the economy at the moment the surplus it has in the kitty did not come from this Government. In 1996 the Rt Hon Winston Peters—whose party was in coalition with the National Government—interfered with the dollar and that is how the rural sector has helped the Labour Government’s surplus. I say to the Government that I think the land access legislation will become a contentious issue for it and I urge the Minister of Agriculture to look at that bill very very carefully in the coming year. The Prostitution Reform Bill will come back to haunt the Government in this coming election. United Future also will be haunted for allowing the Prostitution Reform Bill and the Civil Union Bill to become law in this country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The next speech is a split speech. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. I could be wrong on this but my understanding of the Standing Orders is that matters containing messages are not to be displayed on the tops of desks in the House. I would ask that the matter be removed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes that will be removed thank you. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The start of election year is a good time to reflect on the issues that most deeply interest people in our democracy. If New Zealanders relied on many media outlets and the Opposition parties they would not realise that reliance on welfare benefits—which skyrocketed under the Rogernomics policies of the 1980s and 1990s—has stopped mushrooming or that unemployment is at its lowest level in generations. It can only be hoped that this year’s media coverage of the election will step up a gear and focus on the real pressing issues of deepest and most widespread interest to the voting public. 
For most people the foremost social or public issue is about winning better access to education for themselves and their children. It is about access to affordable high-quality health-care especially for the young and the retired. For some of our families having the opportunity to own a home is the biggest ambition and most cherished dream they have. Pollsters tell the news media companies that those are the issues that readers and viewers care most passionately about. Those bread and butter issues of social justice are all invariably closely connected with a lot of other issues that might provide better TV pictures but in relation to which in truth politicians are much more likely to deliver hot air than real progress. I am talking about the law and order auction and about welfare and race relations which are used in the same way. 
We know that if we could get every single young adult into education training or a paid job with prospects then welfare dependency and crime would decline even further than they already have. We know that because under the Labour-Progressive coalition Government elected in late 1999 the number of people in employment has increased by a quarter of a million the unemployment rate has collapsed to 3.8 percent and the 1980s and 1990s explosion in welfare has been arrested with many indicators now turning positive. 
The Progressive Party is proud of all those steps taken for regional economic growth and for better and more effective health-care and education for all New Zealanders. But that does not mean there is not a long way to go to achieve social justice for all. For instance we cannot ignore any longer the iniquitous and burdensome student debt that is hampering our development and blighting the lives of hundreds of thousands of students past and present. Nor can we continue to turn a blind eye to the problem of adult illiteracy and functional illiteracy. 
In a survey of adult illiteracy in New Zealand in the late 1990s it was shown that the majority of Maori Pacific Island people and those from other ethnic minority groups are functioning below the level of competence in literacy required to meet effectively the demands of everyday life. Over half of New Zealand adults are operating at the level considered to be the requirement to meet the demands of everyday life. We are similar to the United States Australia and the United Kingdom but lag behind Sweden where close to three-quarters of the population is operating at a level at which they cope well with the demands of everyday life. Of particular concern is the high concentration of adults with very poor literacy—around one in five New Zealanders. In December 2004 a New Zealand Treasury paper found that there were five adult literacy levels with level 1—the worst—being illiteracy or poor functional literacy. A total of 26 percent of the population were in level 1 for either prose document or quantitative literacy and 15 percent were in level 1 for all domains of literacy. Out of a current population of 2.65 million people aged 16 to 65 a staggering 530000 people have literacy skill at level 1 and 45 percent of the working-age population is at level 1 or 2. Serious attention needs to be paid to this problem and the Progressives want to do that both in the present term of Government and following the next election. 
At present a non-Governmental organisation Te Wananga o Aotearoa with its Greenlight video-based programme is leading the way in overcoming illiteracy in New Zealand. It had 6000 students last year and has 6000 this year but it should not and cannot bear the burden. We in Government have to make sure that as part of our programme we pay serious attention to adult illiteracy in New Zealand. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 What a relief to National members it must be—to those aspirants—that Don Brash has an outing only once a year. The casualty rate otherwise would be just too high. 
I think that Don Brash’s ideal portrayal of women was in the Hollywood classic  
The Stepford Wives 
. He wants that notion of women who actually do nothing and make no waves for their leader. 
I want to congratulate Lynda Scott Georgina te Heuheu and Katherine Rich on refusing the demeaning role that he would have them play in the National Party. While we are on congratulations I want to congratulate that leadership aspirant Simon Power. I am told he is the person who convinced Katherine Rich to reconsider her resignation. Well done—he will need the vote when it comes time for his leadership bid. 
What a contrast we had last week between the misery and the backward-looking vision of Dr Brash and the proud positive vision of a strong inclusive New Zealand outlined by our Prime Minister Helen Clark in her state of the nation speech. She described 5 years of achievement by this Government working in cooperation with New Zealanders. Growth is higher than the OECD average for the past 5 years—National does not like that but it is true—more than a quarter of a million new real jobs have been created in just 5 years and unemployment has come down by 44 percent from September 1999 to September 2004. [ 
Interruption 
] Dr Smith can like it or not but crime is at its lowest rate in 21 years. 
I find it particularly interesting that there are 100000 fewer New Zealanders living on benefits—a 23 percent drop. But what was Dr Brash’s greatest ambition? It was 50000 in the same time period. National took 10 years to achieve what this Government has achieved in 5 years Frankly I do not think that Dr Brash and National are even half as good as Labour. We fixed the demolition of apprenticeships by Bill Birch with 7000 new Modern Apprenticeships. Health spending has gone up by 40 percent and education spending has gone up similarly. The Working for Families package benefiting 300000 families is worth over a billion dollars. 
We are looking to the future as well. Labour is continuing to build on that programme in order to move New Zealand forward. We are lifting labour productivity increasing participation rates in the workforce and developing new savings initiatives. We are working with New Zealanders to build a strong inclusive country in which all New Zealanders can participate—a country in which all New Zealanders can take part and of which they can be proud. 
The choice this year as we move into election year is to have an inclusive positive proud country for all New Zealanders or the backward-looking misery of Don Brash. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 That was a short and unspectacular contribution from the Speaker-aspirant. That poor member who was led up the garden path for the best part of 5 years and led to believe that he would be the next Speaker of the House is in for a rude shock upon your departure Mr Speaker because the job that that member has been looking for for 5 years and probably been promised for 10 has just disappeared from right in front of his grasp. 
That Minister the Hon Mark Burton talked about 5 years of looking forward. Well we on this side of the House would refer to it as 5 years of interference—5 years of interference from a Prime Minister who acts like a big sister in the sixth form to all New Zealanders throughout this country of ours. New Zealanders are actually quite capable of getting on with their own lives and of making informed decisions for themselves about how they wish to lead their lives. Instead we have a sort of bossy sixth-form head prefect who is running around New Zealand busily telling New Zealanders how they should be running their lives—in their homes in their workplaces and in their play times. New Zealanders are sick to death of it. They are sick to death of being told what to do by Helen Clark the sixth former who is running around bossing this country. 
I want to wish all members a happy New Year and to say that after 6 years of sitting through six prime ministerial addresses including this one—and a few of those have been addresses from the throne—one thing still amazes me about Helen Clark. I have to ask how a set-piece debate with no interjections for 20 minutes with a packed press gallery and with five previous speeches having been delivered by the Prime Minister in the same environment can be delivered in such an appallingly dull uninspiring and boring manner. One would think that after having had a crack at it six times the Prime Minister might actually inject a bit of life inspiration and verve into the speech. But no we had the same old droned-out monotone that we have had every year at this time when the Prime Minister thinks that she would much rather be doing other things but feels compelled to be in this House giving that boring speech. So she thinks that what she will do for the rest of New Zealand is to make it even more boring than she did last year. 
 This Prime Minister has decided that her idea of an inspiring speech full of soaring rhetoric is to include the word “dream” six times in one paragraph and one believes as she obviously does that if she just includes the word “dream” six times in one paragraph that will be inspiring enough. But she is a person who can take a spectacular occasion and make a very unspectacular speech—not once but six times since I have been in this Parliament. It was hopeless actually and the sad attempts by Labour Party MPs over the last 13 hours of debate to try to make it less of a flop have failed dismally. 
What a tired dull lot this Labour Party has become. What a tired wrung-out dull lot members opposite have become. The Hon Jim Anderton has turned into a sort of guest ambassador in Parliament for the Progressives—he sort of wanders in and out at will without making any contribution to the mechanics of government at all. While Steve Maharey his benchmate who was sacked from the tertiary education portfolio for making a hash of it—[ 
Interruption 
] He was sacked from the tertiary education portfolio now his Jobs Jolt package is a shambles his career is over his life of blameless excellence is finished and he is going nowhere. Whereas Annette King has already been told very publicly: “Don’t hold your breath Ms King for the health portfolio because that’s off to Pete Hodgson.” Well what a vote of confidence in Annette King that was—to publicly let New Zealand know that dear old Annette King is about to lose her job and it will go to Pete Hodgson. Well that will be inspiring! And does not Trevor Mallard suddenly look competent as the Minister of Education compared with the Associate Minister David Benson-Pope who has made a complete hash of the matter within his first 2 weeks as Minister in charge of schools. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement is in a shambles; scholarships are a farce. All that David Benson-Pope can say—a man who the House will recall was previously responsible for fish—is that there are no issues on the table in education. Well that Minister is in for an uncomfortable ride. 
Then there is George Hawkins who is in a league all of his own. Because of caucus factions in the Labour Party George Hawkins is still in a job. This side of the House is going to make Helen Clark sit through question time every day until the election and regret the day she did not bite the bullet and do what every New Zealander who worries about law and order knows she should have done—that is sack George Hawkins when she had the opportunity. Ministers know they are in trouble in question time when Michael Cullen asks them two supplementary questions. It is the kiss of death when Michael Cullen gets up in this House in question time and asks two supplementary questions of a Minister. When that happens the Minister is gone. 
Through it all Phil Goff sits there with his head down wishing he had just invited another three or four people to the barbeque. Well it is just too late. I want to know where Ruth Dyson was over the summer with regard to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) helicopter debacle. While Anne Tolley in the East Coast collected thousands of signatures and Nathan Guy in Otaki collected thousands of signatures where were Darren Hughes and Moana Mackey? They were on holiday. Ruth Dyson was on holiday. I have news for Moana Mackey and Darren Hughes: going on holiday at that time will be the single biggest tactical mistake they will make this year. Their communities were crying out for representation on that ACC helicopter issue. I tell them they are in very serious trouble in their electorates. 
One thing we do know is that if we put enough pressure on a Minister in election year we get whatever we want. They cave in like a pack of cards. Ruth Dyson Darren Hughes and Moana Mackey were on holiday while National candidates were working their guts out on the ACC petititon. But where was Darren Hughes? His car was parked in the parliamentary basement probably while he was overseas during December. Did we see Moana Mackey sticking up for the people of Gisborne? She was nowhere to be seen. Those members know it and the people of those communities know it. I say just look at the polls. 
National will finish this year by wiping this Labour Government off the face of the earth. By the end of September Don Brash will be the Prime Minister of New Zealand and we will be finally rid of Helen Clark’s bossy sixth-former older-sister interference in our lives—of which this country has had a gutsful. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 “Dream on!” I say; “Dream on!” I say to that sour bitter member. He is a member who is given to anger a member who can display anger and can pretend anger but underneath it actually is anger as well. He said of the colleague sitting to my left Annette King that she had had the health portfolio taken off her. Can I just remind the House that no one has held the health portfolio for 6 years as Annette King will have done since Don McKay the member for Marsden in the 1960s a person who influenced my own childhood because I grew up in the electorate that he represented. Can I remind the member—the angry member—who has just resumed his seat that when his Government was last in power it got through five health Ministers in 9 years and that since then it has quickened the pace and gotten through five health spokespeople in the last 5 years. Who knows where that will lead because soon it will run out of caucus members to shift that portfolio to. 
While we are at it the member—the angry member—who resumed his seat also had a go at my colleague further along on the front bench Steve Maharey and said that that member had got the sack too. Well let us have a look at tertiary education spokespeople and former Ministers on the National Party side. The first one I can recall was Lockwood Smith the guy who broke his promise and who as the years went by jumped out of windows around universities to avoid students. But then Wyatt Creech took it on and he had a different approach altogether. He never went to universities. They were politician-free zones for years during the 1990s. Then we had Max Bradford who gave tertiary students a bit of “biffo” and that was one of the reasons though not the main one that he was removed from politics altogether. The concluding speaker for National is a sour bitter and angry man and so he should be. 
He also mentioned that there were troubles with the rescue helicopters and that National Party members worked their guts out. Well let us look at the facts. The facts are that they started a petition from their beach bach and while they were doing that the Government— 
Hon Annette King 
: Fixed it! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: What did it do? The Government fixed it. Start a petition or fix the problem—take one’s choice. So let us not go there. 
A week is a long time in politics as they say and certainly last Monday morning National members were looking chipper. They had come back from their holiday. They were all rested up and all energetic. They were all finished with their annus horribilis of 2004. Members know the one—the one that began so splendidly with Orewa I when they bounced in the polls in a spectacular fashion. Then they thought they had better get a strategy to maintain themselves there but they did not. They thought they should put out some more statements to make sure that the people knew where they were coming from but they did not. So there was no policy development no focus and no consistent message. There was no anything really—no momentum. So that support evaporated inexorably and by December 2004 National was back to where it had begun. That concluded the annus horribilis of 2004. 
But 2005 was going to be different. They had an opportunity—it is an election year after all—and National said it was ready willing and able to go and that it was going to take the fight to the Government. Hours later Katherine Rich was gone. 
Before lunchtime she had gone. The caucus split was all over the media. Named members of the National caucus—named members—were openly expressing their regret or their distress or in one case sharp criticism. The unity had exploded. Then over the week the media ran endless analyses of how it had happened and what a graphic display of mismanagement by Dr Brash it was—and it is Dr Brash’s mismanagement that we have under scrutiny here. 
This is not something that happens with all National leaders. One would not expect it from Bill English. One would most certainly not have expected it from Jim Bolger who stayed on as Prime Minister of this land for 8 years. He got rid of his Minister of Finance after 3 years but it was not a bloodletting; it was just a mere by-election and there were no problems. Dr Brash cannot do that. Dr Brash has no ability to do that. This man actually has limited ability to do anything. He cannot for example win elections. He tried 20 years ago and he lost a blue-ribbon seat on the North Shore twice. Even his own election by his caucus which was done by a majority vote—thin as it was—was won by accident. How do we know? Because of the celebrations the night before by Bill English and company and because of the behaviour of Dr Nick Smith in the days that followed. That election was won by accident. We all know how that happened. It is now a matter of unwritten history. 
So winning elections is not exactly a forte of the current Leader of the Opposition. He does not have a strong history; actually he has no history. But it does not matter; maybe this guy’s skills lie elsewhere. Maybe he has certainty of policy. Maybe he is good at holding the line. Maybe he is good at staking out an agenda. Let us have a look. 
The most serious and systemic error of Dr Brash has been his failure to contest the middle ground. He does not know how to contest the middle ground. Middle New Zealand votes Labour which is why Labour remains ahead. Instead Dr Brash has not contested the middle ground. Instead he has looked to the right where he is himself most comfortable and in doing so he has taken his party from centre-right to right. He has managed to exclude one assumes ACT from Parliament altogether come the next election therefore losing his coalition partner—a careless thing to do—and he has taken his own party from the centre of politics out to the fringes. 
But wait there is more. Even if he has never won an election and even if he has taken his party out of the centre and off to the perimeter of politics might Dr Brash none the less be able to articulate a clear message and stick to it so as to provide the attraction of certainty—a man who knows what he wants even if one does not agree with what he wants? Well no. No he does not offer any assistance there either. This is the man who ran both for and against the so-called “Cullen fund”. He is for and against civil unions. He is for and against tax cuts for rich people. He is for and against 4 weeks’ leave. He is for and against a change in major nuclear policy. It is a case of “gone by lunchtime” stateside but never say a word back here. 
Then last Sunday in the latest instance of personal and political uncertainty Dr Brash a self-described agnostic came on the television and breathlessly advised the nation that it was time for him to come forward and confess the Treaty of Waitangi sins of the past. To whom this agnostic might confess is unclear but when he said it on the 6 p.m. news on Sunday night an apolitical friend of mine spluttered her disgust at his duplicity and left the room. So the alienation continues and so do the mixed messages. All last week Dr Brash was saying that Tame Iti is a bad guy but come the weekend he sits next to him. He cannot win elections he cannot position his policy he cannot give a firm direction he cannot stop flip-flopping he gives out mixed messages and he cannot get on with women. 
Losing one woman after Orewa was careless; losing two in 2 years is a pattern. Not only did he lose Katherine Rich; he dumped her. As the story started to break early last week I assumed—because one likes to think ahead—that he would swap the health and social welfare portfolios leave her in position and say openly that there had been some disagreement but that that was the best way to handle it. He did not do that. He dumped her. He changed her from the front bench to some other position. He set out to humiliate her and that is a fairly interesting thing to do. He could have used the risk minimisation strategy I just outlined but he did not follow it. He turned the spotlight on himself it stayed there all week and it will stay there for longer than that. 
Dr Brash will lose the next election and then aged 65 will leave Parliament to be forgotten except for his actions in the 1990s when he squeezed the life out of the New Zealand economy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The time for this debate has concluded. The first question is that Mr Peter Brown’s amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That 
 all the words after “this House has no confidence” be omitted and substituted with the following words: “in the Labour-led Government because it continues to promote policies which keep New Zealanders at the lowest level of per capita earnings in the OECD which fail to promote export growth and fail to meet the targets set out in the Labour Party’s 2002 election manifesto and because it continues to offer no competitive future for the people of New Zealand especially the youth of New Zealand.” 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We now come to the question that Jeanette Fitzsimons’ amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put  
That all the words after “this House has no confidence” be omitted and substituted with the following words: “in the Labour-led minority Government because despite there being some positive elements in its programme its decision to allow the release of genetically engineered organisms exposes our health our environment and our economy to significant and quite unnecessary risks.” 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The final question is that Dr Brash’s motion be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That 
 this House has no confidence in the Government led by Helen Clark who given the opportunity to outline her vision for New Zealand has failed to even identify the big challenges which lie ahead for our nation whose Government has confiscated from hard-working New Zealanders the fruits of the best international economic conditions we have enjoyed for many decades and who sees our future as the creation of an all-powerful all-knowing Government rather than the result of the Kiwi spirit of enterprise skill innovation and hard work which resides with individual New Zealanders. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time. 
Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move at the appropriate time that this bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee and that the committee have the authority to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during an evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c); and that the committee report back to the House on or before 10 May 2005. 
This bill recognises and addresses longstanding and significant grievances of Nga Rauru Kitahi one of eight iwi in Taranaki. The iwi is situated between Patea and Wanganui. The iwi has approximately 3000 members. This bill settles all their historical claims. 
 This bill will give effect to the third treaty settlement in the Taranaki region. The historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi relate mainly to the Crown’s waging war in Taranaki in the 1860s and the confiscation of large areas of the iwi’s land. The claims also relate to the treatment of prisoners of war during the wars the Crown’s unconscionable actions in dealing with the Parihaka community the Crown’s actions that resulted in the loss of life during the Taranaki wars including the lives of unarmed children and the unfair labelling of some Nga Rauru Kitahi as rebels. 
This bill contains a formal apology to the iwi to their ancestors and to their descendants for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged by the Crown. In April 2000 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Nga Rauru Iwi Authority to represent the iwi in negotiations. In October 2000 the Crown and the iwi authority entered into terms of negotiation to specify the scope and objectives of and general procedure for the negotiations. The Crown acknowledged the objective of Nga Rauru Kitahi to revitalise their own values or tikanga—Nga Raurutanga—through the settlement process and redress. 
In May 2002 the Crown and the iwi entered into a non-binding agreement in principle. In November 2003 the Crown and Nga Rauru Kitahi signed a deed of settlement after an overwhelming majority of the iwi showed their support for it by postal vote. A representative transparent and accountable governance entity was also ratified by the people to receive and manage the settlement assets. 
I want to acknowledge those who suffered from the breaches of the treaty who carried the grievances and who are no longer with us. I want to pay tribute to those who negotiated this settlement on behalf of Nga Rauru Kitahi—and some of them are here today. I want to thank the other Ministers and departments involved in this process and to acknowledge the debt this bill owes to the outgoing Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations my colleague the Hon Margaret Wilson. I also wish to thank and acknowledge the Office of Treaty Settlements for its outstanding efforts in seeking an honourable and reasonable settlement. 
As New Zealanders we can be proud that real and significant grievances are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law. The public can be reassured that the Crown is certain of the validity of the claims settled by this bill and that the settlement has been negotiated with the interests of all citizens in mind. It is not possible to fully compensate Nga Rauru Kitahi for all the prejudice and loss they have suffered. The people of Taranaki and of New Zealand generally have benefited from the land and other resources confiscated and otherwise alienated from Nga Rauru Kitahi. I wish to congratulate the iwi for negotiating on this basis. If claimant communities insisted on full recompense for what has been lost there would be no settlements and therefore no resolution of the historical grievances. Our goal is to reach together settlements that resolve grievances of the past. This settlement also lays the foundation for a strong and positive relationship between the Crown and iwi into the future. It is the first settlement that has been completed through all its stages under a Labour-led Government. 
The Nga Rauru Kitahi people have agreed to a settlement package that includes a Crown apology for the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; recognition of the iwi to seek to revitalise their values and practices known as Nga Raurutanga; financial redress of $31 million; the gifting of four properties of high historical cultural and spiritual value to the iwi including 110 hectares of the Nukumaru Recreation Reserve; the gifting of the Rehu Village site to Nga Rauru Kitahi and Ngati Ruanui; a statutory acknowledgment of the special association of Nga Rauru Kitahi with eight statutory areas; entry by the Crown and the iwi governance entity into deeds of recognition relative to five statutory areas; the granting of renewable camping entitlements over two sites; the right of first refusal over certain Crown properties; and various items of fisheries-related redress. The settlement also includes the establishment of a forum to enable regular meetings between Ministers and the iwi to discuss the health of the treaty relationship. 
The bill makes it clear that this is a final settlement of all the historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi. This settlement has had a high level of support from the iwi community with 92 percent of the eligible voters who participated supporting the Crown’s settlement offer. The people of Nga Rauru Kitahi have been waiting a long time and have worked extremely hard to realise the settlement of their historical claims. That is why I consider that the bill should proceed without delay to the Maori Affairs Committee and be reported back by 10 May 2005. This timing will facilitate the timely transfer of the settlement redress to Nga Rauru Kitahi. With that I commend the bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting this settlement bill going to the Maori Affairs Committee for its final consideration by Parliament. We will though be questioning some aspects of the bill itself. The first of those is the issue of the marine-farming opportunities that are provided for in the bill. Last year just before Christmas the Government raced through Parliament aquaculture legislation that reserved 20 percent of all future quota for Maori. That quota has been put in place and is being administered by Te Ohu Kai Moana. That 20 percent quota administered by Te Ohu Kai Moana will in part provide funding eventually—if they are lucky—for Nga Rauru Kitahi as it will for many other iwi around the country. But in addition to that entitlement the Government has decided to give this group another 20 percent of marine-farming opportunities presumably within their rohe. 
We simply ask why it was necessary to pass the aquaculture legislation last year at all if the intention was to give these sorts of specific preferences to various Maori claimant groups as treaty issues are settled. Nga Rauru Kitahi will effectively have control of 40 percent of the marine-farming activities in their tribal area. Whether that is a good thing is something New Zealanders will make up their minds about at the polls later this year. 
The other thing we are a little concerned about is the proposal to hand over in the settlement a number of properties one of which is described as a beach site. We will want to find out through the select committee process how that ties in with the foreshore and seabed legislation that was also rushed through Parliament on the eve of Christmas last year. It appears to us that the Labour Party has said to New Zealanders that it has preserved the seabed and foreshore in Crown ownership on the one hand and on the other it is progressively negotiating with iwi groups around the country to hand over the very customary title that they might have sought through the courts in the first place. 
I see the Minister of Maori Affairs nodding his head and agreeing with me. I ask the Minister what the point was of passing the foreshore and seabed legislation in the first place. Just like the aquaculture legislation it is being quietly pushed to one side as the Government goes about doing deals to hand the ownership of the foreshore and seabed of various parts of this country over to iwi groups. We know that a number of other settlements with large tracts of coastline involved are being negotiated at present. So we will have some questions about that. 
Then there is the issue of mandating. This is something that causes me a great deal of concern. I noted that the Minister said that 92 percent of those eligible to vote within the iwi had supported the progress towards the settlement. I wonder how many participated in the vote to ratify the settlement. Because what has been concerning us a lot lately is that many of these settlements that are said to be full and final have in some cases had as little as a 27 percent participation rate from the iwi concerned. I do not know what it is in the case of Nga Rauru Kitahi but we will find out because it is no good saying the settlement is full and final if anything up to 70 percent of the iwi has not voted in favour of such a settlement. It leaves open the opportunity to say that Parliament forced the settlement on the iwi when future generations consider how well the settlement has treated them. 
The historical issues around this part of the country—the Land Wars and the activities around Parihaka—are well known to most New Zealanders. I do not think it was a particularly proud part of our history and it is appropriate that we do settle matters amicably and reasonably so that the grievance that is held by many of the descendants of the people of those times can be put to one side. New Zealand has overwhelmingly told politicians that in opinion polls on frequent occasions so we do not want to stop the treaty settlement process. Rather we have a party policy to say that we should get all the grievances on the table very very quickly. We have said 2 years. We have said we should resource the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements so that the settlements can be put through to a final conclusion within 5 years. It is a very ambitious goal but one I think the country needs to pick up on. 
It is interesting to note that the Minister told us today that this is the first settlement that was fully negotiated under the Labour Government. The Labour Government has been around now for 5½ years and it shows just how much the treaty settlement process has slowed under its governance. The previous National Government which started this managed in just 6 years to conclude two of the biggest settlements. They were the Ngai Tahu settlement and the settlement for the people of the Waikato—the Tainui settlement. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Two of the easiest. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Although the member might say that they were the easy settlements I do not think settlements of that size were particularly easy. They were very big. This is a $30 million settlement; they were—10 years ago—$170 million settlements. I think it is fair to say that Maori have not been served well by the Labour Government and have not prospered as a result of having Maori MPs in Labour’s caucus. I am sure the voters will make a decision about that later this year. 
The other thing we will ask some questions about is a new term that appears to have come into this bill—ukaipo. Although in the past there has been a pretty easy and well-known description of particular rights to occupy at particular times it appears to us that there is a new term coming into this bill. We want to know whether it is an invention of the Office of Treaty Settlements or a term customarily used by Maori in that part of the country. There is no doubt that this term confers upon this group a particular opportunity that no other sector of the community will have. I am sure that during the process of the select committee we will find out what ukaipo or temporary occupation actually means. I suspect that it is not something that was a customary activity of Maori in this area but is rather a modern invention of the Office of Treaty Settlements. I think we need to be very careful about inventing new terms for activities that will be undertaken when we are settling historic grievances. 
The National Party will support the first reading today. We have a number of questions to have answered in the select committee. We make a commitment to the people who are most affected here Nga Rauru Kitahi that if everything is found to be satisfactory we will be found— 
Jill Pettis 
: Pronounce it better than that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. An important issue was raised by the boisterous and often unruly Labour senior whip. I was not able to answer it. I would like to. Could we have that question asked more formally? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows it was just an interjection. The member’s time has expired. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. But 
  
i mua i te haere tonu o tenei o tatou tunga he wahi poto tenei ki te mihi atu ki a koutou kua tae mai i tena pito i raro o te maunga tapu o Taranaki. Ara koutou o Nga Rauru Kitahi. Koutou i haere mai ki te kite i te whakaurunga mai i te pire ara kia turengia ta koutou kereme whakataunga i raro o te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
[ 
But before continuing I wish to extend a brief greeting to you of Nga Rauru Kitahi who came from that end below the sacred mountain of Taranaki—those of you in particular who came to witness the tabling of the bill that will enable your settlement claim under the Treaty of Waitangi to be passed into law. 
] 
As I said I stand on behalf of New Zealand First which I might add is the only non-aligned political party in this House. I acknowledge the presence in the House today of representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi and their negotiating team. I have no doubt that it is with a sense of relief and joy that they now witness the introduction of this bill—a bill that will help to provide the foundation for a better future for their iwi members. 
The bill is intended to settle all historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi. I remind the House that Nga Rauru Kitahi is just one of eight generally recognised iwi in Taranaki. As with other claims already settled with the Crown claimants are required to have in place an infrastructure that ensures the proper management and administration of the resources they will be responsible for under the settlement they enter into with the Crown in order to ensure that all beneficiaries will be suitably considered in terms of the resources. 
The bill is also intended to be a full and final settlement and to provide full redress for all loss and prejudice. Given the circumstances in which this claim has been made the bill is considered to be fair; yet although we support the intent of the bill we do not feel that this settlement will in fact provide full and final settlement. 
 Like earlier bills of a similar nature it is indeed the intention of this bill to give effect to the deed of settlement entered into by the Crown and Nga Rauru Kitahi dated 27 November 2003. In view of the fact that this Government has failed on a number of occasions to provide when invited to do so a clear and precise definition of “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” New Zealand First has some disquiet about reference to “the principles” in the bill albeit that that be part of the explanatory note. Our concern is that if those words are retained then somewhere down the line without a clear understanding of what “the principles” mean we could be opening ourselves up to further claims. New Zealand First makes that point. I signal to this House that in supporting this bill going to a select committee New Zealand First will vigorously seek the removal of that reference from all parts of the bill albeit that it is in the explanatory note. 
The previous speaker Gerry Brownlee referred to ukaipo sites. He felt that ukaipo was a new word that he had not seen before and that it was creeping into legislation. Just by way of explanation ukaipo sites are those sites considered by the people of Nga Rauru Kitahi to be linked to their poetical maternal origins. Although that might be a new concept for that member for Maori ukaipo sites are very common and very sacred. So I just reassure the member that he should not be fearful of that expression. 
Secondly the previous speaker also referred to the handing over of a beach site and said that he thought it may be in contradiction to the intent of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. My understanding of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is that it covers only the wet part of the beach. I do not believe that it would honour the spirit in which Nga Rauru Kitahi have accepted this settlement just to give them a beach they can enjoy only when the tide is out. I just remind the member of that. 
My other concern is about some of the terms in the bill. The bill suggests that a number of local bodies should give due regard to the views of Nga Rauru Kitahi. Although that is a laudable point to include the bill does not state that those local bodies are obliged to take on board the concerns and advice they receive through consultation with Nga Rauru Kitahi. 
New Zealand First has a number of issues with the bill. However we would prefer to discuss them during the select committee process because I think they could be easily explained then. So without further ado New Zealand First supports the motion to send this bill to the select committee. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
:  
A kai te maunga Titohia tena koutou. Tena koutou i haere tawhiti mai i te mata o te whenua na runga i te kaupapa o te ra kia whakatutukihia hoki tenei kereme o koutou. Na runga i taua korero kua hoki mai ra te kawanatanga ki tana ukaipo kia whakatutukihia hoki nga taimahatanga kai runga kai a koutou kia watea ai te huarahi ki mua. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Indeed my greetings to you all and the mountain of Titohia. Greetings to you who have travelled some distance to witness the introduction of this bill which will eventually see this claim of yours under the treaty passed into law. As a result of what was stated before the Government has returned to its seat of power to settle the encumbrances upon you and in doing so clear the way forward for you. So greetings to you and to all of us 
.] 
I just want to acknowledge the presence in the House today of representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi and to acknowledge the very very long journey to have this outstanding claim settled. At the same time I acknowledge their great mountain maunga Taranaki te maunga Titohia. 
Nga Rauru Kitahi have longstanding claims against the Crown. Regardless of the statements made by the National Party spokesperson on Maori affairs nothing new has been said in this House today and there is nothing in this bill that many of us around the country do not already know. I want to make clear the history of Nga Rauru Kitahi particularly as it pertains to the muru raupatu o Taranaki. This bill will end those claims and provide a platform on which Nga Rauru Kitahi and the Crown can build a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation. 
The history of Nga Rauru Kitahi is filled with regrettable actions by the Crown in the 19th century. Those actions contributed to the dismantling of nga raurutanga and resulted in much loss of life and property for Nga Rauru Kitahi during the Taranaki wars including the lives of defenceless children killed by Government militia at Handley’s woolshed in an unprovoked attack. Nga Rauru Kitahi became virtually landless. In 1865 the Crown confiscated a third of Nga Rauru Kitahi land under the powers of the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863. The confiscation was indiscriminate in extent and application. Land was taken from those who were loyal to the Crown as well as those who were deemed to be rebels. In response to the confiscations Nga Rauru Kitahi supported acts of passive resistance. In 1881 the Crown invaded Parihaka with more than 1500 armed troops. Men women and children were expelled from the settlement their leaders were imprisoned their crops were burnt and their homes were destroyed. 
This bill records that the confiscation of Nga Rauru Kitahi land was wrongful and in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. It also records the elements of the Crown’s purchase of the large block known as Waitotara which was also in breach of the treaty. The bill acknowledges that the west coast commissions set up in 1880 to inquire into confiscated lands were inadequate in their scope and did not fully address the injustices suffered by Nga Rauru Kitahi. In fact those commissions compounded the prejudice suffered by Maori in Taranaki that had arisen from earlier confiscations. The land returned through the west coast commissions process was then vested in the Public Trustee and leased in perpetuity or sold. 
The acknowledgement by the Crown of the injustices suffered by Nga Rauru Kitahi is long overdue. I therefore commend the Government for introducing a bill to this House that contains a formal apology to nga tupuna o Nga Rauru Kitahi and to nga uri o Nga Rauru te Kitahi for the breaches of the treaty acknowledged by the Crown. In this bill the Crown unreservedly apologises to Nga Rauru Kitahi for actions that have caused them hardship and suffering up to the present day. 
The bill records that Nga Rauru Kitahi have pursued their claims for redress and compensation from the Crown with vigour and fortitude over the past 150 years. I join my colleague the Hon Mark Burton in commending the individual kaumatua members and negotiators of Nga Rauru Kitahi who have demonstrated commitment leadership courage and integrity in achieving a settlement of the claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi. I say courage because it is a huge responsibility for this generation of Nga Rauru Kitahi to end the pursuit of their claims and accept redress that we all know is less than the total loss they suffered. 
This final and comprehensive settlement is an important milestone for Nga Rauru Kitahi and for the Crown. The settlement redress will provide Nga Rauru Kitahi with resources to assist them in revitalising their nga raurutanga. The settlement will assist the Crown to restore its honour and assist both parties to move forward together as treaty partners. 
I am encouraged by the fact that in negotiating the settlement Nga Rauru Kitahi have expressed a desire to establish a forum to provide for an ongoing relationship with the Crown. That has been done through the establishment of a paepae rangatira or a chief-to-chief forum. The forum will assist in contributing to the development of an ongoing and positive treaty relationship. Nga Rauru Kitahi have established a new governance entity Te Kahui Rauru to represent all 12 marae of Nga Rauru Kitahi. The trustees have pledged to uphold and be guarded by manaakitanga rangatiratanga whanaungatanga kotahitanga wairuatanga mana whenua kaitiakitanga whakapapa reo and matauranga. 
[ 
respect principality kinship solidarity spirituality authority over the land guardianship genealogy language and knowledge. 
] 
Their vision is to live as Nga Rauru Kitahi to enjoy good health and equality of lifestyle to foster unity and to enable their people to embrace the Nga Rauru Kitahitanga. I offer my best wishes to Nga Rauru Kitahi for their future. Koina te korero ko Rauru Kitahi e!Tena koutou! 
[ 
So that isthe statement and it is Rauru Kitahi indeed!Greetings to you! 
] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is very pleased to support the first reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill and congratulates Nga Rauru Kitahi on reaching this milestone. I note that it is 150 years since the grievances have been sought to be addressed—a long time—and I give my greetings to the negotiating team led by Marty Davis and congratulate them on the achievement they have reached. 
United Future members have pushed for a speeding up of the historical grievance settlements ever since we arrived in this House. We are pleased that as a result of our efforts more resources have been allocated to the process by this Government including a second claims negotiation team. The fruits of that are now being seen. We believe there is still room to speed up more and we will need to do so if the goal of resolution of all historical grievances within 10 to 15 years is to be achieved. I am particularly keen and grateful to be able to speak to this bill and to support it because of my own ancestral links to the South Taranaki area and the fact that my tipuna my great-grandparents in particular farmed in and around Maxwell. They would have been there at the time when a lot of these grievances arose. I want personally to extend the apologies of my own whanau and tipuna for the events that caused such hurt and injury to the people of Nga Rauru and to give that apology personally so that I can recognise it on behalf of my own family. 
I do not know a great deal of my own family history in that area but my family and my tipuna may well have been involved in military activity—certainly they were involved in farming—and may have been beneficiaries of some of the land confiscations and to the extent that that happened I want to apologise. 
The bill refers to a number of the grievances that Nga Rauru Kitahi have had and has general references to the legitimate grievances that they have had that arose out of the Taranaki wars—the labelling of some of Nga Rauru Kitahi rebels their arrest and internment in the South Island the indiscriminate confiscations of their land the inadequate compensation awarded later and the delays in payment the lack of consultation in that process the scorched-earth policy the Crown adopted that resulted in the destruction of the people’s homes and crops and the effective landlessness that resulted from that. 
We are also very aware of the events of Parihaka and acknowledge that Nga Rauru Kitahi were the people involved directly in the injustices that were caused there. However there is one incident in particular that struck a chord with me—the incident in Handley’s Woolshed. It is worth this House again dwelling on the specific facts of that situation because I think it shows some of the worst excesses of the way that the Crown treated Nga Rauru Kitahi and Maori generally. 
On 27 November 1868 a colonial militia led by Sergeant Maxwell encountered a group of unarmed Nga Rauru Kitahi and Taranaki iwi children at Handley’s Woolshed near Waitotara. The children were from the Tauranga-Ika Pa the eldest of whom was about 10 years old. In an unprovoked attack the militia fired on the group pursued them on horseback and attacked them with sabres. The children were wounded and killed. It seems to me a huge injustice adding insult to injury that we then find that the town of Maxwell was named after the same Sergeant Maxwell and that the events that occurred in 1868 have been recorded in posterity almost by naming the town after the sergeant who perpetrated them. I personally am very keen to see the pursuit of the renaming of the town of Maxwell. I am aware that the Crown has declined to do that as part of the settlement. I accept that there needs to be consultation with the community but I would really encourage the local community to get behind the support to change the name of Maxwell so that that injustice and insult can be put behind us and a name more fittingly reflecting the land of Nga Rauru Kitahi can be adopted. 
I was delighted to see that the ratification of this settlement agreement and the ratification of the governing authority was among the highest if not the highest that has been achieved during the historical grievance process. Ninety-two percent of people participating have approved the settlement and 94 percent have approved the governance entity. I congratulate the work that Nga Rauru Kitahi have done in getting that result and commend the people for the unity that shows in their approach to this settlement. 
One of the unique features of this settlement has been a paepae rangatira a new concept a chief-to-chief forum that will bring about an annual hui between the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the chiefs of Nga Rauru Kitahi to discuss issues of concern they may have. In other settlements we have had provision for consultation between iwi and the Crown. This settlement goes further by providing for a very specific forum to be dealt with on an annual basis in order to ensure that Nga Rauru Kitahi are being heard and that any issues they have are being dealt with on a timely basis. 
I am also aware that part of the settlement proceeds include the transfer of ownership of the bed of Lake Moumahaki—a lake of some 50 hectares that is of particular importance to Nga Rauru Kitahi because of the waka that were scuttled in the lake by the Crown and the loss of taonga that the iwi have suffered as a result. I understand that a prophecy was given about that time: “When our taonga returns our grievance will be over.” I hope that the return of this lake and the waka that are in it will go a long way towards the fulfilment of that prophecy and bring about a genuine resolution of the grievance and a feeling of contentment and settlement among the iwi that their concerns have at last been heard and that they can move on in strength and in confidence. 
I am pleased also to learn that the access to the lake through a paper road over the land owned by the Murphy family has had an amicable resolution. I understand there was some apprehension in terms of the Murphy family’s support of the Crown’s endeavours but they have been supportive and there are signs that there will be a very positive relationship between the Pakeha families who own the land around the lake and the iwi itself. That is pleasing to see too because it is evidence of a direct positive relationship that reflects the unity between Pakeha and Maori and the Crown and Maori that this bill seeks to exemplify. 
I commend Nga Rauru Kitahi and their future as they see the fruits of this settlement and are able to get on and rebuild as far as they can the lives that they had before these things were taken. I acknowledge that Nga Rauru Kitahi like all iwi who have accepted settlements have accepted far less than was taken from them. It is to their tremendous credit that they have bent over backwards to provide a resolution and to agree to a resolution that can put these grievances behind us all as a nation and allow us to go forward as a nation together. 
I personally am not unhappy if there are some small aspects of this settlement that people may have some question marks over because I think what Nga Rauru Kitahi are accepting here overall is far less than what was stolen from them. Some of it of course can never be replaced—the loss of lives the loss of mana and the loss of a large part of their land. But at least this goes some way towards it. I commend this bill to the House and to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise this matter before beginning because I am not sure whether it has been covered by anything that I have seen in terms of translation. We have in this bill two texts of acknowledgments. The text of acknowledgment in English in clause 8 states or appears to imply that it is a translation of the text in clause 7. I raise this to ask whether you could inquire into whether we are entitled to get a translation or to get some confirmation from the Crown that this is a translation because I cannot see in the Maori version some of the words that are in the English version. It does not need to be immediate and I am not trying to hold up the debate on this but I would like you to consider that when the House is considering a document that is in English and in Maori we should be able to ask for the same kind of assurance that we get when discussing that the translation is appropriate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for raising that point with me. It is really a matter for the select committee to deal with and we now need to proceed. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am aware of that. But I am asking as a matter of principle that when we are debating written material with both languages what mechanism there may be for assurance as to the accuracy of the translation. That is something that is not holding up this debate but I raise it because the word “rangatiratanga” which is a word of considerable interest appears in the English version here. I do not see it in the purportedly corresponding Maori version and I ask what assurance the House has that materials placed before it for debate which purport to be representative of each other are representative. However I will proceed if you have delivered yourself on that but ask you to consider whether it is an issue that does need some sort of ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I again thank the member. The issue really is one that needs to be dealt with by the select committee. There are many different pieces of legislation that have all sorts of interpretation and it is often for the select committee to work that out with the members present and I encourage the member to do that during the select committee process. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I raised that point because I have been trying to see what kind of development there has been in this pattern of settlement document over the period I have been in Parliament. This has evolved to some extent. One point that was raised—and I was glad to see it raised by New Zealand First—was that we could now find in this document only a couple of references to the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So the Government has obviously taken on board the weakness in its position and the weakness that there has been in the entire consideration of these matters when such contentious terms have been sprinkled throughout documents without any explanation. ACT has not been able to vote for settlement bills for quite some time because we have been asked to vote on the translation into statute of words that no one can give an authoritative definition or a provenance for. 
So I am pleased to see that that has been diminished. However I am sorry to warn New Zealand First that it still does appear. It still does appear in the actual text of the document in clause 8(5) in Part 1. There is a reference to “basic human rights” undefined and “a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” So there is still some work to be done in cleaning the stables of this pernicious term. 
I believe that in fact it would be in the interests of both the counter party with the Crown—the iwi concerned—and the Crown to make sure that we do not leave those sorts of terms there. These people deserve certainty after all these years. They do not deserve to have themselves or the next generation pointed yet again to another area for suspicions about each other. Why are weasel words being used instead of clear and straightforward words of intended agreement? 
I was also pleased to hear New Zealand First members say that they were looking forward to the select committee process of examining some of these provisions. Because in the past this process has been seen as a rubber stamp. In fact Parliament has been told that there is a very strong convention that these deals cannot be altered. It has made a mockery of the debating process and the vetting by Parliament of these deals that they come here and are then processed through as if it were a rubber stamp process because it should not be. 
In these bills we see a whole lot of issues postponed for the future. Future generations will look at these bills and be completely baffled as to what could have been meant. They will be looking at them assuming that we were more courageous and more deliberate in what we are doing than in fact this generation has actually been. For example there is a guardianship created for the bed of Lake Moumahaki. There is a vesting in the beds of rivers. There is a creation of ukaipo sites and topuni with definitions by the Crown which look as if they ought to be creating some kind of substantive right. Then in the same legislation statements that categorically say that they do not have a legally enforceable effect or if they do it can be avoided by the Minister changing a protocol or that any effect is simply one that an authority must take notice of but there is no indication of what that notice means. 
Now it may be very simple for people accustomed to being mealy-mouthed after 20 years of conspiracy between the two big parties to pretend that the treaty industry was a highly principled and necessary process. It may be very simple. It may be very easy for this generation to see those kinds of lip service statements and those kinds of spurious rights as just a process of face saving. The trouble is we will not know whose face is being saved. Future courts will say that surely the Crown must have meant more surely the Crown and the legislature cannot have been saying: “You people have a grievance you have legitimate grounds for complaint we will recognise and register solemn documents around particular areas of value to you but nothing in those documents means a thing in the law.” 
Surely we can do better than that. In matrimonial law many years ago it was decided that a clean break was a better arrangement than forcing the parties to continue in relationships that could provide grounds for misunderstanding. We are seeing this Government do it repeatedly—postponing a dispute to the next generation. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill did it and this bill does it. This bill gives some sort of preferential right to the new aquacultural areas. We do not know what the principle is that lies behind that. We do not know whether these aquacultural areas can be what used to be called the arse-end of allotments or whether they have to be primaries. We do not know because this is deliberately fudging. This bill is providing an opportunity for future generations to say quite rightly that the Crown must have known that it was in the wrong that the Crown said it was in the wrong and that the Crown purported to make compensation. We have been obliged to accept the compromise by being worn down and by fear of the industry coming to an end but all we got was shadow with no substance. 
 Worse it seems to point those people Nga Rauru Kitahi in the direction of being a constant pain in the neck to their neighbours the local authorities the people administering the Resource Management Act the Department of Conservation and all the other bodies that will have to consult them and appear to give weight to their concerns. The rights that they get are not the positive rights of real property ownership promised by article 2 of the treaty. They are not the rangatiratanga that was intended to describe the property owners’ right of exclusive use possession enjoyment and right to sell. The new rights have nothing in them other than an encouragement to always be negative to block to oppose to object and to hold out for ransom payments in settlement of purported grievances. 
Sure they are for relatively small areas. When we go through the schedule to the bill we see that quite meagre areas are being offered for that special status. We can understand that the original inhabitants desire to be recognised for the importance to them of those sites. But we should be deciding right now in this Parliament what that recognition means not postponing it to a Minister under a protocol for the future and not postponing it in the fond hope that the Environment Court will know what to do. We know what this does. It does the sort of thing that we have just seen in the Whanganui River where one of the State’s power companies has been told to throw away between $10 million and $20 million a year’s worth of electricity generation for 10 years in the hope that the parties can come to agree in an irreconcilable conflict. 
It is hopeless because in that case the iwi should be able to convert their concerns to some concrete rules to a monetary compensation or to a set of remedial actions that then result in clear legal rights being given to the other side. Instead the Environment Court faced with just that kind of fudge instruction has said that it cannot decide it will give them 10 years and to sort it out. That is not a responsible position for Parliament to be adopting. It is not a responsible position particularly now that the scales have fallen from the eyes of the New Zealand establishment and it realises that the treaty industry is in its dying days and that the treaty has lost its talisman status. The treaty is not a trump card any longer to block debate. The generation of politicians who refused to recognise the concern of ordinary New Zealanders about setting up one law for Pakeha and one law for the rest is going. Those statutory instructions to bodies to take note of that agreement without saying what it really means without creating concrete rights without creating a process for compensation of breach of them is simply ensuring that this will not be the final settlement. That is why ACT will vote against it. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 E te manuhiri tuarangi nga kaumatua nga rangatira nga tungane nga tuakana koutou o Nga Rauru Kitahi kua tae mai ki te tautoko i tenei ahiahi nau mai haere mai whakatau mai. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar to the elders chiefs brothers elder sisters and brother and to you especially of Nga Rauru Kitahi who have arrived here this afternoon in support welcome welcome alight here 
.] 
The Green Party congratulates Nga Rauru Kitahi on its settlement. Nga Rauru is one of the eight Taranaki iwi as we have heard whose lives and lands were shattered by the vicious attacks of the New Zealand settler Government which out of greed unlawfully confiscated their lands and imprisoned their people. The Waitangi Tribunal in its interim Taranaki report upheld the two platforms of that iwi’s claim: those of land deprivation and disempowerment. By disempowerment the tribunal referred to the denigration and destruction of Maori autonomy or self-government. We are very pleased that Nga Rauru is to receive some financial compensation however poor in comparison with the resources that were wrongly taken. 
We are also pleased to see in this bill the opportunities for the protection of ukaipo and topuni. The Greens are strongly in favour of co-management options whereby the arrangements recognise the kaitiakitanga of the iwi or hapu and whereby the Government agencies are actively responsible for protecting those values. We do not doubt that there will still be some issues to work through and we look forward to exploring the effectiveness of those mechanisms in the select committee. We are also very supportive of the paepae rangatira which operates as a forum for leaders to deal with treaty matters. The Greens strongly urge the Government to engage in that process to make an active commitment to ensure that the process is effective and to explore similar forums with other iwi and hapu. 
The treaty settlements provide the Government of New Zealand with a ready-made opportunity to engage in a community dialogue with New Zealanders about our collective history as a nation. The Greens have long advocated for such a dialogue. In our view the settlements provide an accessible localised history that can be of enormous benefit to our communities. New Zealanders are crying out for information about our collective history. In a television poll held just last week race relations was the second most important issue for those polled. Our education system does not provide enough information and too many people in our community have missed out on learning about our nation’s history. We urge the Government through the Office of Treaty Settlements to hold community meetings in areas where settlements occur. 
The Nga Rauru Kitahi settlement is a good opportunity to do that—to provide the community not just with information about the history of the area but with the opportunity for people to ask questions and to hear the histories of Maori and Pakeha. That is one mechanism to undo the 19th century racist scaremongering and false representation of special treatment for Maori that are continually advocated by the radical revisionist right. Although most people will agree that actions such as the sacking of Parihaka were unjust many will still deny that it was racist and that the purpose of those sackings and thefts was to destroy the Maori culture. One need only read the  
Hansard 
 of the time to know that that is the truth. New Zealanders must look their history clearly in the face and learn from their mistakes. Knowing their history is a first critical step. All people in this country will benefit from the settlement not just Nga Rauru Kitahi. Every effort to redress the wrongs of the past and remedy the breaches of the treaty is a good thing. 
But the Treaty of Waitangi is not just about property rights. It is about the ongoing relationship between iwi hapu and the Government. That relationship is continually abused by the Government in its operations—not just in its legislation as we saw last year but in its policies and resourcing decisions. It is generally assumed that the treaty settlement process is an attempt to resolve the injustices of the past and represents a genuine effort on the part of the Government to bridge the divide between Maori and Pakeha but it is not. The Waitangi Tribunal although it has achieved a great deal through its meticulous report writing and its ability to operate on the proverbial smell of an oily rag is a creature of statute. Yet it is literally starved of resources and its recommendations reached after considerable work are continually ignored by the Government. In negotiating settlements such as this one claimants are routinely presented with a “take it or leave it” bottom line from the Office of Treaty Settlements with the Government prepared to negotiate only on the minor matters. 
We must remember that Maori are extremely generous in accepting these settlements. Nga Rauru Kitahi has agreed as part of its settlement to forgo full redress for all the loss and prejudice it has suffered and to take the settlement described as “fair in the circumstances” rather than its actual rightful entitlement. Nga Rauru Kitahi has agreed to operate within a Government process that does not recognise tikanga Maori but requires Nga Rauru to operate within a Pakeha—not a Maori—framework. That is why these settlements cannot be full and final—not until the Government commits not just to the financial redress but to the implementation of te tiriti. The primary problem with the settlement process is that it is the Government that dictates the way in which things should be done in the tangata whenua domain. It is the wronged party that is expected to submit to terms imposed by the wrongdoer. That method of dealing with the injustices of the past cannot possibly hope to achieve a real resolution. The same thinking chooses to ignore the benefits to all communities reaped from addressing those injustices of the past while arguing that the on average 1 percent compensation that is paid in treaty settlements and other initiatives that are designed to bring Maori on a par with Pakeha is considered to be too generous. An unfair process for the resolution of wrongs does not have any durability. Our own history proves that and it is about time that the Government learnt from those mistakes. Had the reaffirmation of Maori authority and the second article of Te Tiriti o Waitangi been adhered to in the past the relationship between Maori and Pakeha would have resulted in a far healthier relationship than the one we currently have. That relationship continues to be abused. 
This is a time when our constitutional make-up is to be examined by this Parliament through the select committee and when the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to be discussed in our communities. Therefore we eagerly welcome the establishment of the Nga Rauru - Government paepae rangatira. 
We very much look forward to seeing how it will work and how it may be a model for future Maori-Government relations—if that is what Maori choose. It is a forum that is very important to the treaty relationship. Any discussions about the nature and implementation of te tiriti must not be about the relevance of the treaty because that is not the question. The question is and always will be how we work with it how we implement it in our daily lives and how we address those issues. The paepae rangatira that is recommended and suggested in this bill has been talked about for quite some time now as far back as the Hirangi hui in the 1990s. It has taken 10 years for this model to come to fruition and we congratulate Nga Rauru on their pursuit of it and on the achievement of it in this bill. 
We look forward to hearing the concerns and views of Nga Rauru and of those involved in the settlement during the select committee process. We again congratulate Nga Rauru Kitahi on its perseverance and commitment to achieving a settlement for the benefit of its people. We recognise the hardship the iwi has endured in doing so and the cost to it and to its people in the past and in the future of obtaining a settlement that does not fully address the issues and wrongs that were committed against it. However we will be voting for this bill because we believe that it is better than nothing and we want to support Nga Rauru in its achievements. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak briefly to the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. This is a historic occasion and I am sure everyone in the House is pleased to see that some settlement is being reached in these longstanding claims. Eight Taranaki iwi have been working through their issues and this will be the third settlement to be reached. A great deal of work has been done. I thank all of those who have been involved in that work and congratulate them on the job they have done. I look forward to the continuing work and to the report from the Maori Affairs Committee on this issue. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge the presence of representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi in Parliament today. I cannot see their eyes or faces but I know they are up above in the gallery behind me. I say greetings to them all—tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. There they are in all their dignity upholding their mana—their rangatiratanga. I congratulate them on being here today. The very fact that they are here given the sad and tragic history that underpins this settlement bill is cause for celebration and commendation. 
As we all know the history that underpins this settlement bill is like the history of all the Taranaki and other tribes that suffered raupatu particularly following military action. It is one of total dispossession of humiliation of belittlement of the loss of life of men women and children—sometimes in the most appalling circumstances—and of the suspension of the law so that the Crown could have its way. It is not a history that any of us can be proud of but we—all of us New Zealanders today—can take some pleasure in the fact that we have found a way to try to restore some justice to tribes like Nga Rauru Kitahi. I again congratulate the members of Nga Rauru Kitahi on their settlement and on being courageous and brave enough to conclude a settlement. I congratulate them on their patience their long forbearance and on the fact that they have been through so much in order to get here today. They give Parliament the opportunity to restore the honour of the Crown in relation to circumstances that have not been honourable in the past. 
My colleague Gerry Brownlee has outlined the three or four issues in particular that National is concerned about but thankfully we will have the opportunity to explore those issues in the Maori Affairs Committee so I do not intend to traverse them again. I do want to make some general comments. First of all I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Hon Mark Burton on taking over the treaty settlements portfolio. I am sure it is not the job he intended to have as we go into the new year but none the less it is as important as any other job in this Parliament. In the long run it may be more important than any other job in any event. I congratulate Mark Burton particularly because he is from home—from where I come from. He is a longstanding Taupo resident. I hope that his interactions with my own tribe Ngati Tuwharetoa over the past years will have given him a particular and unique understanding of tribal dynamics and of the ways that iwi think and work. Those matters are not always visible to people who do not take the time to try to understand them but who think that they know it all anyway. This Parliament is full of that kind of person. 
I just want to say that in a way although I was surprised by the appointment of Mark Burton having thought about it I think it is probably a good choice. I hope it will be. The Minister will know that our people at home—the members of my tribe—will always be there if he wants to run ideas by them or to receive some input in a general way on matters he is dealing with. I think Maori people have not necessarily been well served in the last few years by the previous Minister. Not the least of that was because she seemed to have a lot of work in any event and the success of the treaty work depends very much on the ability of people to listen. The portfolio needs a Minister who will listen who will talk straight and who will not try to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes. Maori people are not dumb; they can see through all that. As I say my congratulations go to Mark Burton and we are always there at home if he thinks members of my tribe can help him. 
I want to comment about something that Mita Ririnui said. He mocked the record of the previous National Government by describing our settling of the Ngai Tahu and Tainui claims as two of the easiest settlements. He would not have a clue about that. He would have no idea of the effort commitment dedication brainpower and sheer hard work—the 80-hour weeks—that the Hon Douglas Graham put into settling those claims. And those weeks were not just the odd week here and there; it was week after week after week. Although the settlements that are now coming through under the Labour Government have some differences in them the reality is that the National Government of the 1990s developed the treaty settlement framework which survives almost intact to this day. The Labour Government had the benefit of coming into office in the year 1999 picking up that framework and running with it. Although it may not be perfect it is the best that we were able to put together in the 1990s. Stephen Franks should take note of that. I would have thought that his legal background would suggest to him that it is absolutely imperative to give Maori a sense of having the injustices that were wrought on them put right. For this country to be putting right only now the things that happened 160-odd years ago does not say a lot for us. On the other hand New Zealanders can take some pride that our generation is trying to address those matters. 
I think that Stephen Franks should also think about this: as far as I could see there was certainly no intention on the part of the previous National Government—at least from the time I first entered Parliament in 1996—to be pulling the wool as he tried to imply over the eyes of New Zealanders. This is a complex thing we are doing. It is difficult it is hard and it has been sitting around for years. It is about total injustice. To put a framework together that would hopefully work was not easy—not easy at all. Our country can be proud that we are doing these settlements. Other countries have not dealt as well as New Zealand with the same problem. If I look across the Tasman as I have said before in this House I for one can say that I am glad we are not Australians given the way they are dealing with their indigenous population. But I can certainly speak for the previous National Government when I say that there was never any intention to suggest that we had developed a perfect framework. We have never said that. The framework was the best we could find and it still seems to be the best we can offer. I do not think that Nga Rauru should in any way feel that their settlement is diminished just because someone in this place thinks that that framework is not good enough. 
I congratulate Nga Rauru again. The iwi’s members will require some more patience before we get to the end of this process. But I hope and trust that what they have agreed to will see them in good stead and at least provide some building blocks for them to feel that their mana has been restored and that they at long last will feel that all those things that happened to their tupuna in the late 19th century will have been put right by this legislation. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call in support of the first reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill another piece of legislation that has come before the House to give effect to treaty settlements that the Crown has entered into with iwi and hapu groups around the country. I particularly acknowledge the hard work that Nga Rauru Kitahi have done in bringing their claim forward to this point and the work done by the Crown led by the Hon Margaret Wilson and the Hon Mita Ririnui along with officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements to come to an arrangement with Nga Rauru that can now be considered by our Maori Affairs Committee of this House. This is one of the good things our Parliament often does—the discussion of these matters and the fronting up to parts of our history—and we do it in quite a formal proper and professional way. I know that that is the way this matter has been dealt with since the negotiation settlement began in October 2000. I think it is appropriate that our having just marked the commemoration of Waitangi Day one of the first bills the House deals with after our formal business with the Prime Minister’s statement is this settlement bill. I support its first reading. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Members of the House can be in no doubt that the National Party supports this settlement bill the Crown’s settlement with Nga Rauru Kitahi. We absolutely support that. I would like to acknowledge those from that iwi who are present today those listening in and those who are here in spirit for all that the iwi have been through firstly in recent years in bringing their claims and their case to the Crown—which is a reasonably watertight one; I think all could acknowledge that—and also way back when their ancestors went through catastrophic times in the way they were treated. 
I feel ashamed in some way—and I speak personally not for the National Party—to think that as a European New Zealander some of my ancestors may have been involved in the terrible undertakings back then. We heard a little about that from other speakers. I would like to lay on the table my personal apologies from my family line through the last 150 years. The stories that come out of Taranaki about the way Maori were treated historically I guess call on future Governments to make sure that those sorts of things never happen again and that they are put right. Perhaps in other areas of the country maltreatment of Maori was not quite as severe but that does not mean to say that all claims for restitution should not be put forward and settled once and for all. So my voice certainly joins that of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in acknowledging the Nga Rauru Kitahi present here today in acknowledging the fact that there needs to be a settlement an apology and this official process and in acknowledging that the National Party supports the passing of this bill. 
The Hon Georgina te Heuheu gave Mita Ririnui a verbal clip across the ear because in his youth and enthusiasm he had made the statement that some settlements with iwi in this country like Ngai Tahu’s were easy settlements. Well I can tell Mita Ririnui and members of the Labour Party that no settlement is an easy settlement because even in the discussion there is pain. Whether it is a settlement of a dollar and an acre of land or thousands and thousands of acres of land and millions and millions of dollars is not what is important; what is important is that the ancestors of many Maori went through much pain to bring their claims to the table and no settlement is a small minor or easy settlement. We would like to see Mita Ririnui go through the process of sitting down at the negotiating table like some of my forebears in the National Party did—Sir Doug Graham Georgina te Heuheu herself and others—to see how he would get on. We in the National Party take settlements seriously. We take this one seriously and we certainly took seriously the settlements with Ngai Tahu and others. 
In that light in talking about the serious nature of settlements and the National Party record in that area I say that we have always sought to get them right and to ensure that settlements are enduring. That is our wish for this particular settlement also. Members will note that the agreement around the general nature of this bill was actually nutted out and pretty much decided on in about October 2003 which was about 18 months ago. Some time has passed since then. To get the legislation correct and to have it improved through the select committee process all takes time. We on this side of the House are disappointed that there has not been the number of settlements in the last 5 years that we hoped could happen but we do understand how long they take and we acknowledge the efforts of the current Government. 
The National Party wants to get this one right and we want to make sure it is enduring. That is why Gerry Brownlee raised the four issues that we will be examining in the select committee process. I would like to highlight a couple of them myself. The first is around the issue of coastal space. Members will recall that last year we saw 20 percent of aquaculture space passed on to iwi throughout this country in a sort of blanket approach to coastal aquaculture space settlement. So whether an iwi was inland or just on the seashore or had had coastal marae many many decades ago or has them currently each iwi got some sort of equal share of 20 percent of the coastline for aquaculture. 
 On top of that there was up to 40 percent provision of new aquaculture space. Part of that was new aquaculture space to go directly to Maori and to iwi groups but there was also an extra 20 percent which made up the 40 percent in case this Government was not able to throw existing space to Maori. We could not see the sense—and we highlighted this—in a blanket settlement across the country of aquaculture space being thrown at Maori unless of course the Government was trying to placate Maori who are upset about the seabed and foreshore legislation. I know that is why Tariana Turia left the Labour Party—because she felt there was a bit of a deal done there. 
We still have that question arising because in our view this bill deals with aquaculture space better than the aquaculture bill does. Under this Nga Rauru Kitahi Claims Settlement Bill the iwi get a preferential right to buy a certain percentage of space because of their particular situation their individual requirements the case that they put up during treaty negotiations. As opposed to last year when we saw a blanket 20 percent given to all Maori here we have a negotiated agreement based on its merits. We applaud that and think it should happen throughout the country. Every case should be dealt with on its merits—not like last year. 
But we will question the reason why Nga Rauru Kitahi also receives the 20 percent of space that was thrown at Maori throughout the country last year to placate them. We do not question whether they deserve the space allocated in this bill although I must say that “deserve” is a poor word; rather this settlement is in some sense a compensation package. It has not been earned; it is an acknowledgment of the pain they went through. We do not argue about why space has been given away in this bill because it is an individual negotiation on merit and is completely understandable but we will have to question the iwi getting the blanket 20 percent of space thrown at Maori last year. 
There is also the issue of shellfish quota. I note that a certain percentage of quota for kina and surf clams will be given to this iwi some time in the future. Does that ignore the fact that there was a 1990s fisheries settlement which already gives 20 percent of total quota to Maori? Clearly this quota is over and above that and that makes one wonder about the finality of that 1990s fisheries settlement. 
Our questions will be around those particular issues not to rob Nga Rauru Kitahi of anything— because in fact one could never give them enough given the pain they have been through traditionally and historically—but to question the authenticity and endurance of this particular settlement. How can it be enduring given that those other two settlements—the 20 percent of aquaculture space allocated last year and the 1990s fisheries settlement a decade ago—are being relitigated? I question Labour members about what promises they are making out there on the hustings to iwi. They will have to throw them a lot more than that I would think to pull Maori away from the Maori Party. 
We commend this bill to the House and will be supporting it. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Nga Rauru Kitahi is situated in South Taranaki between Patea and Wanganui which is part of the electorate of Whanganui that I am privileged to represent. I am very pleased to know a significant number of Nga Rauru people who live within the Whanganui electorate. They are fine hard-working and forward-looking people who do an awful lot within their community. The iwi has approximately 3000 members which is a significant grouping of people within the geographical area. 
This bill is important because it settles all the historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi and gives effect to the third treaty settlement in the Taranaki region. The historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi relate mainly to the Crown’s raging of war in the Taranaki area in the 1860s and a fascinating history that is. Many events of the 1860s and the land confiscation remain at the forefront of many people’s memories. The Crown acknowledged the objective of Nga Rauru Kitahi to revitalise their own values their tikanga through this settlement process and redress. 
I look forward to this bill progressing through the House. I also look forward to the magnanimous statements that have been made by the Opposition this afternoon continuing during the further stages of the bill as it progresses through the House. I wish all those associated with Nga Rauru Kitahi well. I know that they too are very keen to get on and with the forward-looking attitude they have today continue to assist their people particularly the young people who are so important to the continuation of Nga Rauru Kitahi within our area. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 10 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
referred to Maori Affairs Committee 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I put the question on the Minister’s motion the honourable member Stephen Franks has lodged an amendment which is to omit from the instruction all the words after the expression “10 May 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask that the motion moved by the Minister be read again so that we can have the exact wording of what was proposed. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The wording of the motion was: “That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 10 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).” 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very serious matter and you might recall that on numerous occasions in the past I have raised the question of the difficulty that arises when the executive by its referral motion circumvents the Standing Orders—principally Standing Order 194. 
The point I am making is that under this Government this executive it has become standard practice automatically to circumvent the Standing Orders every time a bill is referred to a select committee. As you will appreciate the Standing Orders are there to protect members of Parliament particularly the interests of minor parties and Opposition parties against abuse by the executive. Here again with that very close vote following the vote on my colleague Stephen Franks’ amendment it is quite clear that it is only the executive with the support of United Future that effectively is allowing this House to suspend the Standing Orders. I draw this matter to your attention. What remedy do Opposition members have to protect the interests of members of Parliament who are here for a very good purpose and a very good reason? It is really the arrogance of the executive that means that select committees can sit through urgency or at any time the House may be sitting and that impinges on the rights of members of Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members to Standing Order 284(4) which states: “An amendment to substitute another committee or to alter any proposed special powers or instruction may be moved if notice of such an amendment is delivered to the Clerk at the Table before the bill is read a first time.” The question now is that the motion be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill contains two amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The first amendment will increase the level of excise duty paid on petrol by 5c a litre excluding GST. The second amendment provides for the proportion of excise duty or excise-equivalent duty allocated to the National Land Transport Fund to be indexed to inflation. The Consumer Price Index All Groups excluding credit services will be used for this indexation. 
Outside the provisions of the bill but closely associated with the measures undertaken the Government will also by Order in Council make an equivalent increase to the road-user charges payable by diesel vehicles weighing 5 tonnes or less. 
The Investing for Growth strategy announced in December 2003 was designed with a strong focus on improving the governance of transport in Auckland in particular as a significant economic centre and also to fund regional transport funding throughout the country. Good transport systems however cost money and this bill is about ensuring that there is money now and in the future to make improvements to land transport. 
During the progress of this bill through the House motorists have faced significant hikes in pump prices. Political uncertainty in oil-producing parts of the world has pushed up the global price of oil. The Government is sensitive to the extra costs motorists face at times of high oil prices. With this in mind the Government has proposed an amendment to the original bill which is supported by the Finance and Expenditure Committee in its report to this House after considering public submissions on the bill. We need to balance the need for improved transport systems and the need for businesses and family budgets to manage the increase. The amendment will mean that the increases in excise on petrol and excise-equivalent charges cannot be introduced before 1 April 2005 and it allows for increases to be imposed at a later date by Order in Council. The extra money urgently needed for building better national transport systems will come from this increase but the timing of the increase can be at the discretion of the Government. 
The bill also provides for the excise and excise-equivalent duty allocated to the National Land Transport Fund to be indexed to inflation from 1 April 2006. This provision remains unchanged. In the past successive Governments have had to pass new legislation every time increases in the excise tax on petrol were required. At no time was this legislation ever referred to a select committee. The House must be aware that in the case of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill this is the first time provisions that will increase the price of petrol have been referred to a select committee. The select committee process provides for members of the public to make submissions on legislation being considered. I am pleased to say that 16 submissions were received by the Finance and Expenditure Committee that considered the proposed legislation. 
Some submissions were concerned about the impact of an increase in excise duty and road-user charges and inflation-indexing on consumer spending. Firstly Treasury has calculated that the impact of indexation on inflation will be extremely small. Officials estimate that it will add 0.014 percent to the consumer price index. That is within the margin of error. 
Taking a longer view the benefits of building a better transport system are vast and measurable in terms of strengthening businesses and also at the local level making it easier to move within cities. Together the increases in petrol excise and road-user charges will generate approximately $207 million annually excluding GST. 
I note that a number of the submissions to the select committee objected to the increase in excise because it was claimed that the funds were raised for Auckland. Those claims are wrong. The revenue collected will be distributed according to current population and projected population growth and all around the country regions will be allocated funds for land transport according to population. While Auckland receives 35 percent of the additional funding the remaining 65 percent will be distributed proportionally around the country. This is based on Auckland having around a third of New Zealand’s population. 
This Government is acutely aware of the need for additional investment in land transport nationwide. We believe that the fairest method of allocating funds for land transport is by population-based distribution. On the basis of population $1.3 billion will be distributed over the next 10 years to areas outside Auckland. This means for example that my part of the country Hawke’s Bay will gain approximately an additional $70 million. The Canterbury region gains $252 million. Wellington gains $219 million. Further north Northland will receive $73 million. Auckland will receive $716 million and $900 million from the consolidated account. 
I emphasise to this House and to members of the public that all additional funds will be dedicated to land transport and allocated under the National Land Transport Programme. Submitters to the select committee were well aware of this. The provisions promise to improve land transport systems roads and local networks. 
We all know that after many years of neglect by National our land transport was near breaking point and becoming unworkable. This was impacting not only on the personal lives of many but also on the economic social and environmental life of our nation. Companies complained that their domestic freight was stuck in traffic as the roads were clogged. People running businesses were sitting in traffic. That is bad for productivity and this Government is determined to turn this round to keep New Zealand competitive. 
The bill is designed to provide a more secure funding base for improvements to land transport. Only with a dedicated revenue stream indexed to inflation can we all be confident that our land transport will receive the ongoing improvements it will need. We are a growing and vibrant country and land transport is a vital infrastructure that must never again be deprived of investment. This legislation ensures that investment funds will be available now and into the future. It shows a far-sighted approach to our country’s land transport that we have not seen before. The Government is committed to investing a massive $18 billion in land transport over the next 10 years to rebuild the country’s neglected infrastructure. The provisions of the bill are part of a wider package of growth and innovation measures that the Government is undertaking to support business and to build a strong competitive nation. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 If the people of New Zealand ever want to get a sense of what the Labour Government is really like then I strongly suggest that they pick up a copy of this bill. They will see to the core what this Government is really like. This Government is quite happy to mislead the public. It is so political it does not care what it has to do to get there. It has the Karl Rove philosophy of politics: do whatever it takes but do not necessarily tell the public the truth or deliver results. 
I do not want to spend any time reflecting on Rick Barker’s speech because it was just such a waste of time. I will not even dignify it with much comment except to ask why if he really believes he has the vested interests of the public at heart he sold out to the Greens and signed up to the Land Transport Management Act in 2003. Why was he so flaky on that stuff that he was prepared to have walkways put where cars go? [ 
Interruption 
] No that is absolutely germane to the debate because this Government is so flaky about this sort of legislation. 
I want to talk to the Minister. He would be shocked himself as I am sure he is not up to speed on what will actually happen under the bill. First the bill allows the Government to index increases in petrol tax whenever it likes. So year in and year out it will be indexing increases. That is very interesting. This Government is happy to pass on costs through indexation. It is more than happy to tell the people of New Zealand they will be paying year in and year out for the effects of inflation through the price of petrol. It has no problem with building in inflation. The Government wants its revenue stream inflation-proof; that is Dr Cullen’s message. 
The funny thing is though the Government is absolutely not happy with that approach when it comes to income tax. It did not want a bar of United Future’s proposal to index taxation thresholds. It wanted the support of United Future for confidence and supply but did not want a bar of indexation when it came to the revenue stream. That is why one in three New Zealand policemen pay the top rate of taxation as do one in four secondary school teachers—because they have been robbed of any benefits through inflation. But when it comes to its own income the Government has no problems at all taking money out of the pockets of pensioners and everybody else through inflation. 
The Government had the absolute gall to leave the petrol tax element out of its press release on this bill in December 2003. The Government forgot to tell the public. When it was found out the following February it made lame excuses saying that it had forgotten to mention the news—it was a mistake an oversight; not intended and not deliberate—when the Prime Minister announced the Auckland transport package. That is the way this Government wants to treat the people of New Zealand. 
Very interestingly we have an Auckland package—backed by the 5c a litre petrol tax which I will get to—for this reason and for this reason alone: the Labour Party president Mike Williams knows absolutely nothing about transport. He is on a whole bunch of flaky boards. I will have a lot more to say about Mike Williams in the months ahead and that will be a very interesting debate. Mike Williams the Labour Party president picked up Transit’s 10-year programme and happened to notice that 17 out of the 20 projects were in Auckland. He did not like that. He was going around electorates in other parts of the country saying that he did not like the fact that 17 out of the 20 projects were in Auckland. He wanted something done about it. Lo and behold he got himself on the board of Transfund as he did with many other boards—and we will come back to his remuneration in due course. He overrode everything to do with those 17 projects and Auckland ended up with three—three when Auckland had ground to a halt and people on the north-western motorway could have got out of their cars while they were listening to the Minister’s speech and walked faster than they could drive. It was an absolute disgrace. The Government could not allow that but it could not have the 17 projects. It had to come up with another plan for fixing Auckland’s roads so it decided to just send the bill to the taxpayer. 
That was all going OK until Orewa I when all of a sudden the Government lost its big lead in the polls. It started getting a lot more nervous when that happened. Then it had to come up with a very good excuse for not introducing a very unpopular petrol tax—because Mike Williams cares more about the Labour electorates than about fixing Auckland’s roading problems or fixing productivity. The Government came up with its flaky excuse. 
In response to a supplementary question to a question Peter Brown asked in the House Michael Cullen told us that—lo and behold—he was suspending the introduction of the petrol tax. Why was the Minister doing that? He said it was because of the rising price of oil and the burden that would have on the New Zealand community. I told him that it was a good answer—I respected that answer—and asked at what level the Minister would not put the petrol tax on and at what level he would put it on if the oil price dropped. He did not have an answer to that question. The problem with answering it is that any number specified could coincide with a date 3 4 or 5 weeks out from an election and the one thing Dr Cullen does not want to do is defend a flaky position set up by Mike Williams 3 or 4 weeks out from an election. So lo and behold there is no answer. That is why we cannot define whether the level would be oil at $35 a barrel $40 a barrel or $45 a barrel—because the Minister does not know. It depends not on the price of oil but on the week of the election and that detail is really hard to write into legislation. 
So in this bill the Government is giving the Minister of Finance permission without further recourse to the House to put a 5c petrol tax on whenever he wants with no time or date limit ever. He could do that in 15 years’ time if God forbid he were still in the job. I could do that when—as no doubt I will be—I am Minister of Finance in years to come. I could do it with no recourse to the House any time I wanted to. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Dreams! 
JOHN KEY 
: Aucklanders are dreaming when they think they will get their roads fixed—that is the dreaming bit. 
That is exactly what the legislation does. It says that the Minister of Finance can put the tax on for whatever reason he or she wants whenever he or she wants at any time in the future. That is the truth of it. The Government cannot write into legislation that subject to 4 weeks before fighting an election it will put in a very unpopular petrol tax forced on it by Mike Williams because he is on a lot of flaky boards pumping out Labour Party policy. The Government is unable to write that into its legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I am sorry for Lynne Pillay because that is absolutely the case. Her constituents will not be getting anywhere near to getting around their electorate because their roads are not being fixed. The roads cannot be fixed because local authorities do not have the money. They do not have the money because this Government to its core is prepared to do whatever is political. 
 When I listened to the submissions on this bill I asked the people from Treasury to tell me about the work they had undertaken for Dr Cullen in relation to what would be the appropriate price at which the petrol tax could be implemented. 
Peter Brown 
: What was the answer? 
JOHN KEY 
: Interestingly I say to Mr Brown the answer was that some work had been done on that issue for Dr Cullen. The interesting thing about that answer was that a couple of weeks earlier I had asked Dr Cullen in a question for written answer what work he had had done and whether he could supply it to me. The answer was that he did not seem to think he had had any written work done on that. Then I pushed the officials a bit further—but I do not blame the officials; they are just there as puppets for the Minister. They said really that Dr Cullen wants us to have this. Dr Cullen wants this provision. The poor officials were put up like little lamb chops for the sacrifice. There was no work done no rationale for it and no logic behind the provision. Like little lamb chops to be put on the barbecue the officials were put in front of the National finance spokesman to be rotisseried because they did not have a reasonable answer to a reasonable question. 
I started my address with one very simple statement: this bill demonstrates to the core what the Labour Government is all about—doing whatever it takes doing whatever has to be done and breaking whatever arms have to broken. But to fix the problem of fixing Auckland’s roads people should vote National. That is how Auckland’s roads will be fixed. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me make it quite clear: New Zealand First is totally opposed to this bill because there is absolutely no justification for it. It is not fair or necessary to saddle the motorists with an additional 5.6c in tax—that is 5c goes into the tax coffers and 0.6c is GST. So it all goes into the tax coffers. It is an absolute outrage. 
I think the Minister told us that this move would result on average in something like $207 million in revenue per year over the next few years. I point out to the Minister that the Government now takes 18.475c for every litre of petrol. That money goes into the consolidated account and it would equate over a 10-year period to something like $7 billion. The national land transport strategy tells us that over a 10-year period the Government would collect from motorists and various other sources something like $18.7 billion including the revenue that comes from this additional tax. The two taxes are segregated into national distributed expenditure and regional distributed expenditure. From memory I think the Government stated that the figures for regional distributed expenditure—this tax effectively—would amount to $2.8 billion and for national distributed expenditure it would be $15.1 billion. On top of that the Government would take an additional $7 billion or possibly a sum closer to $8 billion to go into the consolidated account. 
New Zealand First says that the Government should use that money first. Just about every political party in this House advocates some form of tax concession some sort of leniency towards the taxpayer. The exception would be the Greens. I think they want to tax a little bit more do they not? United Future ACT and certainly National want to ease up on tax and New Zealand First also suggests that the tax take in this country is too high. How do the political parties that support this bill—and I am aiming particularly at United Future—justify saying in one breath that taxes should be cut and a bit given back to the public then saying in the next breath that it is OK to tax motorists more on their petrol and to index everything to inflation? How do they justify that? I cannot. I cannot look motorists in the eye and say that on the one hand I want to tax them more but on the other hand I want to give them back a bit more in some other area when I know that the Government already takes a huge amount of money from the petrol motorist. 
Jill Pettis 
: But it gives it all back. 
PETER BROWN 
: That member will vote for this bill but with due respect she is absolutely clueless. Does she not know that 18.475c per litre of petrol goes into the consolidated account and not back into roading? [ 
Interruption 
] I can assure her that I am correct. I can enlighten her a little bit further. That amounts to in excess of $600 million a year. 
Jill Pettis 
: We spend it. 
PETER BROWN 
: We spend it on anything but roads. The other day the Prime Minister said in her statement to this House that road funding has not kept pace with roads and road demand. She was absolutely correct in that remark. Over many many years all Governments have seen fit to take money from the motorist and spend it in other areas. 
Gordon Copeland 
: What’s New Zealand First’s policy? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a good question and I will tell the member. There is a second part to the equation. It is the way we fund roads. I suggest to the honourable member that at some time or other most buildings houses commercial buildings residential buildings and farms have a mortgage on them. In other words the owner borrows against future income. Most vehicle owners lease their cars or use hire purchase. I am not in a position to say exactly how many but a significant number of people lease cars or pay for them by hire purchase. In other words they borrow against their future income. Yet with roading we operate on a “pay as you go” system. 
We should look at roading in this country in a more businesslike fashion. We know that it has been starved of funding and that it needs an urgent injection of capital. I have just illustrated that the $15.1 billion to be collected by the Government over the next 10 years which is to be dedicated to roading and transport matters plus the other $7 billion I have referred to which goes into Dr Cullen’s pockets should be used to advance roading in this country. What will happen as a result? It is all very well for my colleague Harry Duynhoven to mutter but he knows that the Allen Consulting Group has said that it is worthwhile borrowing for roading. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Will the member answer a simple question? Where is the other $7 billion going to come from under your proposal? 
PETER BROWN 
: I would say to the honourable member that the Government has such a large surplus it does not know what to do with it. I am not suggesting that the 18.5c goes back in one chunk. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The member didn’t answer the question. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member asked me a question and I am answering it. I am not suggesting for one minute that the 18.5c per litre of petrol goes back to roading in one chunk but it should be phased in. It could be phased in and the Government could tell local authorities Transit and the people involved in construction and roading to put up a business plan and fund this roading on advanced income. New Zealand First would support that. 
New Zealand First says that if there were a commitment for all the money that was taken from the motorist to go back to roading there would be no need for borrowing. On a phase-in basis I believe—and my New Zealand First colleagues support me on this—that there is a need for borrowing. However the economic gains as illustrated in the Allen report would be huge. The Government would pay the money back with any reasonable form of interest. The Allen report indicates for example 6 percent interest 8 percent interest and 10 percent interest. The Government could pay loan back the loan and the gains for this country would be huge particularly in regions where roads need to be upgraded. 
When it comes to funding transport roading and those sorts of things we had better start thinking in a 21st century type of manner. We are past the days of “pay as you go” and the Government ought to start thinking that it has no right to sit on the motorist’s dollar to the detriment of the roads. People are dying on roads that should have been upgraded years ago. The member Jill Pettis shakes her head. She does not believe me. 
Jill Pettis 
: Stop being silly. He can’t do anything. 
PETER BROWN 
: I suggest to the honourable member that she look just south of the Bombay Hills to see the problems we are having. That road should have been upgraded years ago. Its upgrade is now planned. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We’re doing it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Hon Harry Duynhoven acknowledges that so I thank him. Umpteen people have died on that road. I know that the intention is to do something but it is a good example of roading problems that should have been addressed years and years ago. 
Roading in this country has been starved of funds. Here we have the opportunity to address the problem in a businesslike manner without adding to the costs of the motorist. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What about tolling? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member raises a good point. I could keep going for another half an hour on tolling. There is no need for tolling. That would come on top of this lot. The member laughs; he thinks it is a joke. Those members clearly support tolling. Those members would say that as it is good enough to rob motorists of $7 billion it is also good enough to put 5c on motorists’ petrol and toll them. 
On behalf of my colleagues in New Zealand First I say that the bill is not necessary it is not fair and there is not one iota of justification for it. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I assume that Peter Brown from New Zealand First flies everywhere because it is obvious he has not driven over any of the roads that are having major work done on them. If one drives from Wellington to New Plymouth through the area where I live and which I represent and through the area my colleague Harry Duynhoven represents one has to factor at least 20 extra minutes into the road journey. I make that journey by road and I know that my colleague Harry Duynhoven does so from time to time. We do not have any other option sometimes. We have to factor in at least a quarter of an hour extra to cope with the hold-ups because of the massive amount of roadworks that are going on in the lower and central North Island region. There is also roading work going on in Auckland. In fact massive expenditure is going on at present on roads right throughout New Zealand and I have to say to Mr Brown: “Get off the plane and drive around New Zealand.”. 
I think I would be surprised—amazed in fact—at how some Opposition members run their household budgets given the bizarre statements they make about how this Government should be spending its income. I know that Mr Key runs his budget very well—he can afford $2000 Georgian clocks to sit on his mantelpiece. My constituents have to live on that sum for more than a third of the year. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh £2000 he said. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: $6000. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Well that is half a year’s income for some of the constituents in my electorate. 
We should be very sensible about this issue because it is important. Let us stop saying we should spend like there is no tomorrow. The fact that New Zealand is in its current economic situation is because of prudent financial management not because we have been spending like there is no tomorrow. I bet Mr Brown has more than $500 in the bank. If that member practises what he preaches why does he not draw it out? Why does he not spend it all? Because that is precisely what that member is suggesting. I think we should stop some of these ridiculous irresponsible statements about spending every cent of income the Government has. We are investing money in roads and I am very pleased to see that and obviously I am very pleased to be seeing it in my region. The distribution of funding for roads is equitable right throughout New Zealand. 
This bill is important because it will help us to achieve more flexible funding for transport projects and it will help us to expand the objectives of Transit and Transfund which are doing an exceptionally good job and are planning well for the future. Some of those Opposition members would I think in a private moment agree and say: “Well yes there are more roadworks being done now than there have been in more recent years”. This bill is forward-looking and it is based on— 
Bill Gudgeon 
: But only piecemeal. When are you going to seriously invest in roading? 
JILL PETTIS 
: There is no piecemeal roading going on in our electorates. Very planned and considered roadworks are going on in our electorates. This is a good bill. It is forward-looking. It is about ensuring safe motoring and we need to acknowledge the reduction in the number of fatalities on the roads that has been brought about by a number of reasons. This bill is worthy of the support of this House. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party certainly opposes the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill which we have before us here. This bill is unnecessary. It is more about smoke and mirrors and politics than any rational planning of what is needed for the very important infrastructure that is the roading network of this country. There is no question of that. 
To begin with the Government made a big hoo-ha about the fact that 35 percent is dedicated to Auckland and then it said that the rest of the country will get its share proportionate to population. In fact Auckland has got 35 percent of the population so why not just say—as the Government would if it were not playing politics—that the whole lot will be done proportionate to population? But oh no this bill is all about spin. This Labour Government cannot get away from the spin—it is just spin spin spin. The simple thing to do would have been—if one supports the bill and we do not—to say that the distribution would be proportionate to population and Auckland would have got its 35 percent. But that would have been too simple for this Government which wants to introduce a bit of deceit and deception it would seem. 
We have had some curious contributions and the one from Mr Brown was a classic from New Zealand First. He said we should borrow for our roads. He is opposed to tolling. Every country in the world is getting into road tolling. Australia and most European countries are using tolling. It is the modern way. The problem with our investment in roading is we have not had pricing mechanisms. When we do not have proper pricing mechanisms for any good we get wastage and distortions and that is exactly why we have not had the extent of planned investment in our roading that we should have had. The best way is to have pricing mechanisms and that means tolling and things like congestion pricing. There is no question that that would be the most sensible movement we could have in our road funding. It will not be the total answer. There will always be— 
Peter Brown 
: Does the member support network tolling? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: There is a place for increased tolling including more network tolling and congestion pricing unquestionably and any report that member might care to read written by local or international experts will draw that to his attention. Unfortunately it would seem that he does not want to accept that point. The worst aspect of this bill however is the fact that fuel tax of 18.7c per litre plus GST is not all dedicated to roading—far from it. There is no case to increase petrol taxes further. 
This bill is an absolute taxation grab by the Government at a time when we have incredible surpluses. We know that the hard yards put in by previous Governments in restructuring the New Zealand economy have enabled this Government to pick the low fruit and in spite of having a $6 billion to $7 billion surplus it has found a sneaky way to grab more revenue by inflation adjustment of excise duty as it has done with alcohol and cigarettes. So the three excise duties—alcohol cigarettes and now motor spirits—are now inflation adjusted. Of course it is win-win situation for the Government and a lose-lose situation for the taxpayer. 
The Government through fiscal creep has already breached the promise it made when it came into Government that only 5 percent of taxpayers would be in the top tax bracket. We know that that promise has been broken by fiscal creep. There are now significantly more people in that $60000-plus bracket who are paying more income tax and now the Government is inflation-proofing itself in respect of excise tax. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I was making the point that the ACT party is committed to increased investment in our roading network. Arguably of all infrastructural needs roading is right up there as the highest priority of all. The whole success of our economy is dependent upon good efficient transport networks. We know that the chaos with gridlock in the Auckland area is costing the New Zealand economy dearly—a total deadweight cost. This Government has sat on its hands for 6 years in office and only now in the final year of its term is it trying to do something about proper funding for roading. 
It is a bit rich for speakers from the Labour side to try to blame our roading woes on the previous National Government although I would say that successive Governments have not made the commitment they needed to make. The point is however that this bill is not the answer. This bill is not about securing sound revenue and commitment for road funding. This bill is a “smoke and mirrors bill”. It is we know all about Government revenue—particularly as we know that currently about half the revenue collected by Government is excise tax on motor spirits that actually goes into the public account and does not go anywhere near roading. In this Bill the Government is saying that it wants to inflation-index excise duty. That is a means by which the Government is inflation-proofing itself for its revenue and of course that is to the disadvantage of the taxpayer. We have no way of knowing how much of that money will go into the roading account. 
The other point that was made—and I think it is worth repeating—is that the proof that all this is about politics rather than any genuine commitment to road funding is the fact that it highlights 35 percent of the increased revenue for Auckland roads and the fact that distribution to the rest of the country is on a proportionate basis according to population. Well it just so happens that Auckland is 35 percent of the population therefore that requirement is totally redundant. We could have had a simple formula whereby all funding would be on a proportionate basis according to population and we would have reached that same formula. But the Labour Government wants to pretend that it is actually seriously addressing the chaos it has allowed to develop in Auckland by sitting on its hands when that is not the case. 
The other aspect is the interaction between this bill and recent amendments to the Land Transport Act where the Labour Government has totally sold out to the Green Party members—arguably we could say it was held hostage by them. It does not make any firm commitment to road funding. It introduces a whole raft of meaningless nebulous concepts like sustainability and all sorts stuff—I see that the Minister for the Environment is in the Chamber; she might like to comment—and of course all cultural aspects now have to have extra layers of consultation. 
We saw that problem on State Highway 1 where a major upgrade was held up because of a taniwha. A taniwha popped up at the critical point. All of a sudden out of nowhere a taniwha emerged. We saw people on national television drawing pictures of it depicting what it would look like and discussing how it could be placated. The one thing we do know is that if people pay money the taniwha goes away. We understand that Transit New Zealand did that and the taniwha went away. That is the sort of provision that the Labour Government has put into the Land Transport Act—layers and layers of consultation and meaningless ill-defined and nebulous concepts that will frustrate any commitment to securing a good roading network for this country. 
The ACT party certainly opposes this bill. We are particularly concerned with the way the executive is bypassing Parliament. One of the principles of our Westminster democracy is that the Parliament has to approve a taxation increase. Yes the Government of the day may well have a majority but it is in Parliament that it has that majority. This bill bypasses that and it gives the executive directly through regulation the power to inflation-proof itself. No business in New Zealand has been inflation-proofed. The taxpayers of New Zealand are certainly not inflation-proof. In fact the Labour Government turned down a member’s bill whose purpose was to inflation-proof taxation. Yet here we are seeing a revenue grab—and that is all this bill can be described as. It is another revenue grab by the rapacious Labour Government. It is pernicious it is bad law and even at this late stage the House should not pass it. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The previous contribution to this debate from the Hon Ken Shirley laid stress on the fact that the Labour Government has been in office for 6 years but has done nothing much about roading. I remind the House that that situation could have been a lot worse if it were not for the fact that in the confidence and supply agreement United Future negotiated with the Labour-led Government after the 2002 elections one of the four things we asked for was that the Government make a commitment to the decongesting of New Zealand’s roads and get on and start to upgrade them. So members can imagine how much worse the situation might have been had we not come into Parliament in 2002. 
Having said that I also say that this bill puts United Future into something of a dilemma. On the one hand we are committed to the upgrading of New Zealand’s land transport system and we acknowledge the need for greater investment. It is obviously needed and it is vastly overdue. I refer to the fact that members of both the National Party and the New Zealand First party criticised the bill and said they would oppose it. However none of them bothered to tell us what they had done for New Zealand roading during the period 1996 to 1999. The reason is that they did very little for roading and we are now all living with the consequences. Congestion in Auckland is costing the country a billion dollars a year and we need to fix it. Therefore the bill to the extent that it is taking a step in that direction will have our support. 
On the other hand however we believe that the overall level of taxation levied on New Zealanders is already too high. From that point of view we have very real reservations about the additional 5c per litre excise impost that will arise from this bill. Accordingly in line with submissions received on the bill from Federated Farmers we believe that the increase should be offset by a reduction in personal income tax rates. United Future has been saying for about 2 years that the present tax thresholds should be adjusted to offset the increase in the cost of living for New Zealand households since 2000. That cost of living increase will be about 13 percent by 1 April this year. Accordingly an adjustment of that sort needs to be made to the thresholds in this year’s Budget. As others have mentioned last year I brought a Supplementary Order Paper to this House asking the Government to do that but it turned it down. If again the Government fails to do so in this year’s Budget then it is clear that it is intent on perpetuating a double standard. When it comes to revenue collected by way of excise duties on tobacco alcohol and now motor spirits the Government insists on inflation-proofing by increasing the rates as a result of the annual increase in the consumer price index. However at the same time it has failed to use the movement in the consumer price index to adjust the tax brackets. It is a clear double standard and it is not good enough. 
The people of New Zealand are crying out for a reduction in income tax. The average family is indebted as never before. All we are doing and all this Government is doing is laying yet more burden on families. This bill will be the seventh occasion since Dr Michael Cullen assumed the finance and revenue portfolios that duties levies or taxes have been adjusted upwards. But we are yet to see adjustment to the income tax rates which is clearly justified and way past due. Quite frankly the United Future caucus has found it difficult to resolve this dilemma. In the end we have decided to support this bill at its second reading whilst at the same time endeavouring to keep the pressure on the Government for tax reductions in this year’s Budget. 
In the end the pressing need for additional expenditure on land transport—the issue we are debating today—has won out. Indeed the Finance and Expenditure Committee received an impassioned plea from Roading New Zealand that the 5c increase not be delayed beyond 1 April 2005. Roading New Zealand made it very clear that the group of contractors who build and maintain New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure—a group that employs around 7000 people and has a combined turnover of more than $1.5 billion per annum—has already geared up to get on with road works. In its view it would be unfortunate to say the least if that momentum was slowed down in any way. For example Roading New Zealand has already invested heavily in road-building machinery and the like and has taken on hundreds of extra staff members some of whom are in quite long-term training programmes so that it can get ahead and build the roads so desperately needed in this country without further delay. 
As a party United Future has worked very hard over the last 2 years to up the tempo in that regard and we are naturally reluctant to see it interrupted at this critical juncture. For example we extracted undertakings from the Government as part of the $1 billion Auckland funding package over the next 10 years to reduce the diversion of motor spirits excise duty to the Crown bank account by about 2c per litre commencing this year so that those funds are made available for the desperate need we have in Auckland for new roading. We look to the Government to follow through and implement those undertakings—something that has not happened yet—but we will also continue to argue strongly that the diversion should be decreased by a further 3c to 5c as a kind of dollar for dollar matching alongside the increase in excise duty proposed in this bill. In other words we are suggesting that if it is good enough for the motorist to put in an extra 5c it is good enough for the Government to make room for that as well and to leave more of the funds that are collected for excise duty from motorists dedicated to roading works. It is rather like the system that the Government used in the tsunami disaster and in last year’s February floods—a dollar for dollar subsidy. That again is something United Future had a hand in. It came forward with that suggestion and it was adopted by Government. So we are looking to the Government to at least match the contribution that is being been made by New Zealand motorists and other road users. 
I also want to signal strongly that United Future is fed up with waiting for the Minister of Transport to issue the long-awaited surface transport costs and charges study which has been promised now for around 18 months. When will that study be completed and made available to members of the public? The Government consistently claims that the diversion of excise duties to the general Crown bank account is justified when one takes into account the costs of health policing etc. that arise directly from the use of New Zealand roads—the accidents that occur on them the policing of them and all those sorts of things. 
The Government promised 18 months ago that we would have a report on a study—one with the lengthy name of Surface Transport Costs and Charges Scoping Study for New Zealand—that would indicate to this House and to the people of New Zealand exactly how that money which was diverted from the roading account into the Crown bank account is used for roading. The Government believes—and has said it is confident it is the case—that it is all used for roading. Well it is time I tell the Minister of Transport tonight that we see that report. He should be in no doubt that our patience and the patience of the Automobile Association Federated Farmers and even the National Council of Women all of which made submissions on the bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee is beginning to wear very thin. We have been waiting for this report now for 18 months and we have not seen it. In response to repeated requests to the Government both here and during question time in the House and around the select committee table we are just told that it is being done and will be issued as soon as possible. How long does it take for a study such as this to be done? 
As well we look forward to seeing some progress being made on roading issues outside Auckland. Here in Wellington the big issue for me and for other local MPs is whether the Transmission Gully Motorway will go ahead. We are hoping that a decision can at long last also be made on that within a couple of months. Part of the 5c a litre will go into that kind of project. 
However I would like to say to the Government tonight: “Please don’t take our support on this issue for granted.” We want to see the tax brackets adjusted for inflation we want to see the 2c reduction in the excise duty to the Crown account gazetted and we want to see the surface transport costs and charges study completed and publicised as soon as possible. I hope that our good faith in that regard is not misplaced. On that basis we signal tonight our support for the second reading of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill and I want to make the point that the bill is necessary because when we came in as Government 5½ years ago we faced an extraordinary deficit in transport infrastructure. Speaking as a member for Wellington Central I think we felt it absolutely and particularly. We had broken-down railways. We had obsolete railway cars or train cars. We were in an absolutely appalling situation. So this 5c per litre indexed to inflation from 1 April 2006 is there for growing the National Land Transport Fund. We want it for road safety administration. Unlike the Opposition I have knocked on doors in my electorate and have had people tell me they are nervous about travelling up the road to the Kapiti coast because of Centennial Highway and the lack of safety on it. They did not tell me they were nervous of being assaulted in their homes. They told me they were nervous about going on Sunday drives. Issues of road safety are very important in this country particularly for those of us who live in Wellington. So I absolutely support continued money going into road safety administration. 
My experience over Christmas as I drove up north before I canoed down the Whanganui River was that I saw only one idiot overtaking on a yellow line. That was a change and an improvement in what I normally face when driving on some of the highways in New Zealand. I think there has been an improvement in road safety because it has been forced on people. 
The second issue is passenger transport. This is the one issue that has been ignored and it is why I thank the Greens. They have done a tremendous amount of work in bringing this to our attention. We are very fortunate in Wellington because I think about 33 percent of our population actually uses public transport to travel to work. But when public transport starts to fail one starts to lose and that has been the problem in Auckland. So we have to build confidence in the whole notion of public transport. This is what this sort of money is about—building confidence in public transport so that we have other alternatives to road. It is about changing attitudes. 
Then we have to build roads; boy do we have to build roads! We have to make the roads safe we have to make them secure and we have to do something about finding other ways out of Wellington. That is all work that has to be done. It cannot be done unless it is funded and that is what this legislation is about. 
I say to the United Future member that New Zealand is lightly taxed. If we talk to people who have worked overseas in other countries and I have family who have worked in other countries at fairly senior levels of administration they always make the point that we are ranked 12th lowest among 30 OECD countries—remember that as we go there. But this is a dedicated tax. It is not a tax disappearing into anywhere; it is a tax for transport. But we do not take United Future’s support for granted. I therefore move accept and support very much the second reading of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to the second reading of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill I shall repeat what the Hon Marian Hobbs has just told this country. She has just told this country that New Zealand is lightly taxed. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes that’s right. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: And the senior Government whip confirms that view. That is outrageous. This Government controls 40 percent of the economy. That is darn near communist stuff. The Labour Government controls 40 percent of the economy. That is how much it spends in terms of GDP in this country—40 percent of GDP at all levels of Government. That is a high level of taxation compared with Australia and the United States. In relation to the countries we have to compete with that is a high level of taxation and Marian Hobbs has just confirmed to New Zealand that this Labour Government has no understanding of taxation—none. 
I am shocked that a Minister in this Labour Government can say that. I can accept that a Government could say that it will not reduce taxation but to argue in this Chamber that New Zealand is lightly taxed is an absolute outrage. There is no way this economy can perform at the moment with the tax burden it is carrying. No developed country in history has grown at the rate this country has to grow at if it is to close the gap in its living standards compared to those of Australia while carrying the tax burden that New Zealand is currently carrying. The Minister Marian Hobbs needs to do a little bit of homework. As a former schoolteacher and principal she should understand what homework is all about. She should do a little bit of homework and read up on the impacts of taxation and the tax burden on the potential for economies to grow. 
What was also revealing about what she said was that she wanted that money for more public transport and for more highway patrols out there to issue more speeding tickets. I shall share with her a survey I have done in my electorate and I have had several thousand responses. I want the Minister to listen to this. The question I asked—admittedly this question is a wee bit loaded—in the survey was whether people believed that the Government was putting too much effort into policing the speed limit and not enough effort into protecting us from criminals. I want Marian Hobbs to listen to the answer. I had over 4000 responses. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please bring the speech around. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I am just wondering about what the Minister said. This is about money that will be gained through this legislation and how it will be spent. Out of 4000 responses—over 90 percent and this includes even Labour Party supporters—well over 80 percent of Labour Party supporters said yes this Government is putting too much effort into policing the speed limit and not enough effort into protecting them from criminals. Marian Hobbs thinks more of this money should go into issuing more speeding tickets. 
I shall come back to the detail of the bill. Part 1 indexes the petrol tax to inflation. What is outrageous about that is that it puts into the hands of the executive a power that should reside in this Parliament. It is this Parliament that sets tax rates. This legislation gives the executive the power through an Order in Council issued at a time chosen by the Government—not by this Parliament. It may be just after the next election. Would that not be convenient to raise the fuel tax by 5c just after the next election! It would not be before the election. We would hate the voters of New Zealand to have a 5c rise in petrol tax before the election. No I do not think Marian Hobbs would do that. The executive will have the power to increase taxes following the passing of this bill. It will do it when it chooses and it will do it for political reasons. 
Jill Pettis 
: Gosh fancy that! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The senior Government whip says: “Gosh fancy that!.” Taxation should not be levied for political reasons. 
Part 2 provides for a 5c per litre increase in the motor spirits duty. What makes me so angry about this increase is that motorists in New Zealand cannot afford it. The average wage earner in New Zealand according to OECD data has had the highest tax increases since this Labour Government has been in office and in fact the second-highest tax increases in the OECD. This Labour Government will up the taxes again on the long-suffering average worker in New Zealand who has to use his or her motorcar to get to work or to do anything. 
Revenue is not what is holding up roading development in this country right now. Transfund had a surplus of over $100 million sitting in the bank for years not being spent. Why? Because of dopey Government legislation that makes it darn near impossible to develop roading in this country. The Resource Management Act has to be fixed up. It has stopped roading developments in this country. The crazy crazy Land Transport Management Act that Labour passed in 2003 is making it harder to get on with public-private partnerships and toll roads that could open up the roading infrastructure in this country. That is what this Government should be focusing on fixing up not on taxing road users still more because the average worker in this country is paying too much tax already. 
Finally I shall deal with the appalling contribution tonight from Gordon Copeland of United Future. Forgive me I do not want to attack the man personally. It is the policy of United Future that I want to attack. United Future said: “Please don’t take our support for granted.” What an appallingly pathetic thing to say to this Parliament and to this Government. What kind of puppet or doormat has United Future become? United Future should take a leaf out of the Greens book. I detest the Greens policies. There is not a single bone in my body that supports anything the Greens stand for. They do not stand for green stuff. They stand for anti-business and anti-motor vehicles. The thing that unites the Greens is their absolute hatred of the multinational corporations that actually do a lot of good in New Zealand and around the world. I respect the Greens with their dopey backward-looking horse-and-cart arguments. At least they had the guts to stand up to the Government and tell it that if it did not do what they wanted on the crazy Land Transport Management Bill of 2003 if it did not do what they wanted on the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill in my electorate they would not support it. Government members buckled at the knee like the bunch of wimps they are and the Greens got their way. The Penlink toll road was stuffed and thousands of motorists in my electorate despise the Greens for that as they sit stuck in traffic every day as a consequence. 
But United Future does not have the gumption to tell the Government that it does not agree with this legislation that it believes New Zealanders are too highly taxed and that it will support the legislation only if it indexes the thresholds on income tax for example. I say to Gordon Copeland in this House—although this is not a personal attack on him—that he should stand up to this wimpish Government. He knows that it is taxing this country too highly. He does not believe the Marian Hobbs’ tripe that we are a lightly taxed country. We are too heavily taxed. Our average wage and salary earners are crippled by tax. Their lives are being deprived by the rapacious tax-gathering of this Government. United Future should stand up to this Government say that enough is enough and that it will support National New Zealand First and the other parties that are against this legislation and stop its passage. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I am rather worried about the member opposite. He spoke last week and spoke very very loudly although he knows there are microphones in this House but now he is shouting in what seems to me to be a very strange way. We are rather worried about his health because he seems to be getting more and more frenetic in his speaking in the House. Even on his own portfolio area which I understand is foreign affairs he is saying the most peculiar things that have very little to do with this country or the countries about which he speaks. 
Tonight I understand that he is trying to comment on the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. 
Jill Pettis 
: You would never know. 
DIANNE YATES 
: No we would never know. He seems to spend much more of his time railing at United Future members and at other people in this House. It seems to have very little to do with the bill itself which is aimed at getting a more secure funding base for land transport in New Zealand. 
I find his speaking rather peculiar. It seems to me that he has some sort of duty in this House whereby he has to fill in for the rest of his party and say rather inane things. It is I suppose one way of filling in time but it does not add much to the debate. 
Obviously this bill is about increasing the rates of excise duty. It is about ensuring that we have better roads in this country and I commend our Government for addressing the problems particularly in relation to the Auckland-Hamilton highway. I am pleased to see that the road is growing and improving and that the four-laning is improving because for years and years there was a bridge to nowhere and a lot of inactivity on the part of the Government to which the previous speaker belonged. 
That speaker just made a lot of hot air and empty noise about nothing much which shows that he is completely out of touch with what is happening in this country. He was railing on about taxes when New Zealand is 12th lowest in the 30 OECD countries in terms of tax revenue and gross domestic product. It seems strange to me that this person should have some kind of responsibility for foreign affairs because he shows very little knowledge of taxes and rates of taxes in other countries whether in Australia the United States or Germany. I found that he was expressing a lot of hot air about nothing in continuing to rail on about the taxes in this country. The previous speaker knows that New Zealand is lightly taxed and that the New Zealand economy is progressing—in spite of him and certainly not because of any policies his party may have. 
In fact his party seems to have no policy. We keep hearing more and more hot air and it does seem to me—and that speaker exemplified this—that when one has nothing to say one says it louder and louder. One tries to overcompensate for the fact that one has nothing to say by speaking louder. I have mentioned before and I keep reminding the previous speaker that members do have microphones. 
It is also obvious that real economic issues are in the too-hard basket for his party. He is not really prepared to come to grips with concrete arguments about the economy but would rather talk about the personalities of other people in this House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What’s this member doing? 
DIANNE YATES 
: I am doing that because I think it is a subject for debate and I need to counter that debate. Therefore I am perfectly able to do so. 
Labour has a policy but the previous speaker made no mention of what he or the National caucus would do about the petrol tax. [ 
Interruption 
] Well he did not say so in his speech and it would be really good if he were to inform the House of what his policies were and then continue on with his speech. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: You’re so embarrassed you just want to get it stopped. 
Jill Pettis 
: No I’m not; I’m saying: talk about the investment in the Waikato. 
DIANNE YATES 
: We have investment in the Waikato and as I say there is huge investment now both in Auckland and Wellington as the previous Mayor of Auckland John Banks would know. For many many years he was going to do wonders on roading and his party was also going to do wonders but we did not see it happen. As I have said I am now aware that there is greater four-laning and greater expenditure. In New Zealand particularly in places like Tauranga where there is now greater access to the port there has been considerable development and infrastructural development. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The toll road. 
DIANNE YATES 
: Well that is quite interesting. The toll road in Tauranga does not seem to be used all that much which is quite fascinating. I would invite the member Mr Shirley to perhaps give another speech and talk about that more fully. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I think he would find it quite interesting. 
Maurice Williamson when he was Minister of Transport was no better on this matter. Talking about Mr Banks and Mr Williamson I hear there is a rumour that Maurice Williamson is being challenged by John Banks which I find really interesting. There is an interesting process happening with members on the other side of the House. 
I remind the speaker too that the National Government raised the petrol tax. So with regard to those comments being made I say that at least my comments do not have to be yelled at people and thrust into this House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: This is irrational. 
DIANNE YATES 
: Is the member rational? I think as my colleague on this side was saying that when we consider the neck muscles of the previous speaker as he is speaking and the volume at which he speaks we can conclude that he is adding very little to the debate. Obviously his matters are not addressing the bill that is before us. 
As we have said the bill provides a more secure base for land transport. It is part of the policy that was announced in December 2003. It is a matter of enacting what we have indicated we will enact; and a matter of ensuring that funding does continue on the very important matter of infrastructure for New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Jill Pettis 
: At least we let our women talk; we don’t sack them. 
DIANNE YATES 
: Yes I take up the point that my colleague has made—so we have greater security being added into that area. 
I also want to thank the Ministers we have had in this regard—to thank Pete Hodgson for the work he has done on the bill and to thank the previous Minister of Transport. We look forward to continued road building and infrastructure development in this country. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 When New Zealanders ask why there is such a massive $7 billion Budget surplus in this Labour Government’s coffers we do not have to go beyond this legislation to find the answer. This is a typical Labour Government: it taxes it taxes and it taxes. It cannot help itself; it thinks of yet more ways of taxing. This bill is another example of pernicious Labour Government taxation. 
There is no need for this bill because currently the Labour Government receives $1825 million in taxes from road users but spends only $1371 million so it still has $400 million - plus up its sleeve in so far as the last financial year—2004—is concerned. We also know that in Transfund’s last year it did not spend all its money and it had $250 million left over. There is no need for this legislation other than as a back-door method for the Labour Government to collect more taxes to spend on some of the special little projects it has around the country for its supporters. 
New Zealand First opposes this legislation. Our policy on this matter is very clear. First the Government should spend the money that it currently collects from the taxpayer for use on the roads. It is collected from the taxpayer for use on the roads; it should be spent on the roads. In looking at the statistics it was interesting to see that in the financial years ending 1996 1997 1998 and 1999 there was an ever-increasing amount of expenditure on the roads on a percentage basis. One remembers that that was New Zealand First policy and that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Treasurer at the time. New Zealand First talks about spending more money on the roads with that money to come from the money collected for spending on the roads and when we are in Government we actually do it as well—as one can see from these figures which are here. 
When Labour came into power in the years 2000 2001 and 2002 the situation once again became gradually worse. There have been so many bad years of Labour and National Governments and I look for example at the year 1990. That was one of the worst-ever years of the previous Labour Government’s time in office. It spent so little on the roads and from there on things just became worse and worse until New Zealand First tried to make some sort of impact. 
 I have to say that in the last couple of years because inevitably something had to be done there has been a bit more money spent on the roads. I suspect that that has been because the issue has been raised in this House around the country and in Auckland. It is also thanks to John Banks. I should give some credit to the former Mayor of Auckland John Banks who made such a fuss and bother. With the high profile he had—and probably still has and will continue to have—he got the message out and I believe cooperated with the Government of the day the Labour Government to make sure that more money was spent on Auckland roads. I had the privilege of going along— 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes funded by the Labour Government. 
DAIL JONES 
: I do not deny it. I say that finally in the last couple of years more money has been spent on roads. But the motorist has been taxed $1.8 billion. That is where all the money that the Government ever spends on the roads comes from but of course it does not spend that amount; it has spent $1.371 million and it has a massive surplus to use in other areas. And it wants another $200 million - odd or whatever the figure is for this particular type of legislation for other purposes of its own. So this bill is not needed at all. 
New Zealand First has also made it clear that it will not support toll roads. The previous National speaker said that we are a very highly taxed nation. He went on and on and said that we should not be taxed any more through this bill and we agree with that. But of course he then supported toll roads. What else is a toll road other than another form of taxation? The National Party has to be a little more consistent about what it says when it comes to taxation. The Government is clear: it wants to tax people black and blue blue and white—and any colour one likes. It will tax people through the ordinary roading tax it will bring in this extra tax and it will tax people through toll roads. Of course that is Labour all the time. But with regard to the National Party I think it should reconsider its view and once again support New Zealand First policy and say that tolls on roads are a form of taxation. If the National Party is sincere about not taxing people more it should not promote tolls on roads. New Zealand First does not support toll roads. There is plenty of money there already for use on roading— 
Jill Pettis 
: What about the Tauranga Harbour Bridge? 
DAIL JONES 
: It should not be tolled. That is New Zealand First policy. How many times do I have to tell that member that it should not be tolled? But she cannot get the message quite obviously. She cannot be told that it should not be tolled! We cannot tell her anything even when she has been told. I am talking about Jill Pettis from the Labour Party on this particular occasion. 
New Zealand First supported the legislation last year for the establishment of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and suchlike. As a member of Parliament who looks after the Helensville electorate and who is located on the North Shore and in west Auckland for constituency purposes I take a close interest in what happens in the west Auckland area. New Zealand First in supporting that legislation last year made it clear that we also supported a good transport service by way of buses and rail. We do not support just roads on their own which is the impression I seem to get from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith; we support a completely integrated roading system. 
I made the point during that debate last year and I repeat it today that I look forward to the second rail line going not just as far as New Lynn as is proposed but even as far as Helensville. I look forward to that line going up to Helensville as part of a totally integrated Auckland set-up. I hope that one day John Key the member of Parliament for Helensville will agree with me and will support me and the people of the Helensville electorate in supporting that second line up to Helensville. It is important for an overall system that we not only have roads but also have a good bus system. 
On the North Shore we do not have a rail line. The Mayor of North Shore George Wood is to be congratulated on the work he is doing on the bus transport system being organised for the North Shore. He made the point in a recent  
New Zealand Herald  
article that “I want to see a balanced but positive approach from the ARC in line with our expectations that the Infrastructure Auckland $1.8 billion nest egg will pay for ferry bus and rail facilities and be available quickly.” I think the point Mr Wood is making there is that we do not want the Auckland Regional Council just to sit on that money and to pay out just the interest on roading rail and ferry development; we want it actually to use some of that capital where it is so badly needed. The concern in Auckland is that the Auckland Regional Council will just sit on that money like a hen sitting on a golden egg and will pay out only a bit of interest now and then. I can assure the Mayor of North Shore that I have read his speech and I can assure him that I will be keeping an eye on the Auckland Regional Council’s development in that way. 
As he also said in that speech: “… better public transport has to come first.” He wanted to make progress towards a target of 35 percent of people travelling on the harbour bridge using public transport by 2011. I make that point from the New Zealand First view to make it clear that we support the upgrade the improvements in the roading system and we also support the need for an integrated bus and rail transport system. Roading should not be considered purely on its own. I look forward to the extension of the north-western motorway in a proper way. When I look at the extension out to the airport through the Hillsborough - Mount Roskill area and going past Carrington and suchlike and the creation of a fourth lane on the north-western motorway I will be making sure as one of the members interested that it is done effectively and efficiently and that the north-western motorway does not suddenly get a whole lot of extra traffic without the necessary extra lane to make it work. 
This legislation is totally unconstitutional it is giving a Minister far too much power and it is totally unnecessary because the money is already there. Not only is the money there but some of it has not been spent. There are surpluses in Land Transport New Zealand’s accounts at the moment. New Zealand First cannot support such a pernicious unconstitutional and unnecessary piece of legislation. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. There are a number of very sound reasons why that is so and I want to share those with the House tonight. 
First of all this Government like no other Government in the history of New Zealand has taxed New Zealanders well beyond the point where they need to be taxed. The Government has a $7.4 billion surplus and do members know that it is spending less money on roads—and has done over the 4 years it has been in Government particularly in the Auckland region—than what was being spent prior to its coming into power? Here we are tonight arguing about a further tax of another 5c a litre on “Joe Hardworker” the motorist out there who is battling away trying to survive despite the Government. 
I say to this Government: “Tax tax tax! There are 24 new taxes. Do you not understand that eventually you will be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back?”. Our best entrepreneurs have taken flight from New Zealand en masse as they have never done before in the history of New Zealand. They are in Australia in the UK and all around the world. In fact tonight on the news I noticed that the British Government has reduced the work visa from 2 years down to 1 because there are so many Kiwis working in the UK; it is now arguing that that is creating a problem. We have to ask why they are there. Is it just because they are doing OE or because they cannot survive here in New Zealand under the tax regime of this Government or cannot see a way forward to prosper? 
I ask Government members over there why they do not actually read some of the reports they have had commissioned. I have in front of me one from the Allen Consulting Group which absolutely states that roading infrastructure in New Zealand at the moment is a major impediment to growth rates in this country. Why do members not also go further into that report and have a look at some of the suggestions put forward by the various workshops groups talking heads and pointy heads that the Government has put together since it has been in power and ask why we cannot do some of the things those people suggest? For example they should allow Land Transport New Zealand and Transit to borrow against the strength of their balance sheets and build some of these roads. Why can they not do that? Government members should stand and tell the House why not. 
So far during this debate I have not heard a reason given. What I have heard is that if we slap another 5c of tax on petrol it will somehow or other help fix the problem. Well we all know that it will not. We all know that a large chunk of the money that is already siphoned off goes into the consolidated account and successive Governments—I am not entirely blaming this Government—have said that they cannot claw it back in one go because it would make too much of an impact on what is used to fund health education and suchlike. I suggest to the Government that it look at where the strengths lie at the moment and implement a policy that will allow those strengths such as the strength of the balance sheet to be leveraged against. 
It was interesting to listen to the member from New Zealand First say that that party would not support tolling. Well that is an interesting concept but right throughout that speech the senior Government whip interjected that the Tauranga bridge was built by means of tolling. That is the biggest argument I have heard tonight that weakens the Government’s position. That member was right—it was—and we could build a helluva lot more roads in New Zealand if we allowed the same thing to be done as was done in Tauranga. I say to the whip who kindly interjected and gave me that line that she is absolutely right. Why does she not talk to her Ministers who are saying that the Government will not have a bar of tolling; that it smells of privatisation corporatisation or something—certainly not socialism—and they will not allow it to happen. Why not? What is so wrong with it? If people want the roads and they are prepared to pay a bit extra in the areas where they want the roads in order to avoid sitting in traffic jams for endless hours why not let them? If they have the wherewithal to do it why not allow them to do it? 
We all know that one of the biggest problems with road development in New Zealand at the moment is not funding; funding is not the problem. The problem is getting a resource consent. We all know because the issue has been debated in this House for 5½ years that substantial amendments were proposed to the Resource Management Act which were initially drafted up by Owen McShane and Simon Upton and the Minister sitting opposite put a red pen through the whole lot. Then we had the bizarre situation where the incoming Labour Government gave funding to people who wanted to put forward vexatious claims against the development of roads. Those who wanted to argue the merits of preserving six hangi stones—thereby holding up a $600000 development on State Highway 3—were given legal aid to do so. 
Jill Pettis 
: Nonsense! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I kid you not. That is exactly what was allowed to happen. I say to the Minister that he should stand and take a call—as should the senior Government whip who is interjecting over there—to say that that is not so and that it did not happen. I am telling the House that that is exactly what happened and the Government knows it. 
The Government has imposed 24 new taxes so far since it came into power. How far does it think it can go? Where is the limit? When will it stop? Is there no end to this sensational concept of being able to grab money from “Joe Hardworker” load him up with more and hope he does not sink? Does it not understand that when it puts up the price of petrol by 5c a litre it is poor old “Joe Hardworker” a blue-colour Labour voter out there who pays the price? How does mum get the kids to school? The senior whip should answer that. Does she not drive the car to take the kids to school? Certainly there will not be a school bus because this Government has done away with most of them. They have to travel by car. 
I say to members opposite that it is the very people who help them and feed them that they are attacking—exactly those people. [ 
Interruption 
] The member who is interjecting should get out and about in her electorate and find out how many people are able to travel to school by bus. I tell her that a large number of them have written to me—because they cannot get a response from that member—saying they are struggling to get their kids to school because the bus is not up to speed. 
There is a further point that I must make tonight: this process is also an abuse of the parliamentary process. This bill indexes the price of petrol to the consumer price index and also indexes it to inflation. That gives the Labour executive the power to put the price of petrol up every year or every 6 months. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or not for political reasons. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Or not for political reasons—not for sound fiscal reasons. The Government can put our petrol price up—without the matter being brought back to this Parliament where it could be properly scrutinised—from now to eternity as a result of this legislation. I say to the member who has been interjecting throughout my speech that she should stand and tell us why that is fair. How is it that this Government can abuse the Westminster system to such an extent that the Government can go ahead with a proposal to increase the tax on petrol without it going through the full parliamentary process? That is power to the executive like we have never seen before. That is typical socialism. That is the worst kind of socialism and it allows people like the member opposite to decide when the Government can put the price of petrol up without even reference to this Parliament. 
I say to the member who is interjecting that what she needs to do is actually go out talk to some of her constituents and ask them whether they believe that a further 5c of tax on their petrol will fix the roads in Wanganui. That is a simple enough question. The member should be able to understand the concept. She should go to the constituents of the Whanganui electorate and ask: “Do you believe that a 5c petrol tax which was originally intended for Auckland and now is being divided up for political reasons across the nation will fix the roading problems in the Whanganui electorate?”. I know what the answer will be and it is certainly not “Yes.” They will tell that member in no uncertain terms and they will tell this Government in no uncertain terms that this tax is yet another stealth tax indexed against inflation and indeed against the consumer price index that it is wrong and that it will not work. This Government should look at some of the reports that it has had commissioned at huge expense and come up with a strategy that will fix New Zealand’s roads rather than imposing another 5c in tax. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The principal Act was passed around 11 years ago and most of its fundamentals remain sound. However over the decade or more that has elapsed since there have been huge changes in information technology which have spectacularly changed the environment in which the Act operates. The 1993 Act was essentially a regime for regulating hard-copy distribution of publications. Child pornography at that time was limited to media such as photographs and videos and distribution was much more restricted than what modern technology now allows. 
 The Internet has become the prime vehicle for the worldwide proliferation of child pornography. Offending can and does take place in electronic form. At alarming rates offenders are able to download share and swap literally thousands of child sex-abuse images through their home computers. As a result there has been a need to change both the style of policing this abhorrent trade and to increase the resources for policing it. That has happened and I have to say that the Censorship Compliance Unit of the Department of Internal Affairs is second to none in the world in tracking down and prosecuting child pornographers. That fact is recognised by Interpol. It is recognised by organisations like End Child Prostitution Child Pornography Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes and by the Stop Demand Foundation. 
The prosecution rate of the compliance unit is close to 100 percent in its success rate. It has shown the ability to distinguish between hard-core child pornographers and curious teenagers inappropriately accessing sites and to respond accordingly in each case. The unit has universal respect amongst campaigners against child pornography and amongst parliamentarians who have taken the trouble as I have to examine its operation. The increase in its resources granted in last year’s Budget was well justified. I have to say that I utterly reject some ignorant Australian journalist writing for  
Time 
 magazine questioning whether this country is a haven for pornographers. I quote from one of the most respected anti-pornography campaigners in this country Denise Ritchie who said that it is simply sensationalist rubbish that is nonsense and Kiwi bashing and there is no truth at all to it. 
There is also the need to send a clear message to child pornographers that their aberrant behaviour is utterly unacceptable and that continued involvement in it will attract harsh penalties. As a result this legislation increases tenfold the maximum prison sentence available for the courts to impose on those involved in producing trading or distributing material ruled as objectionable. This in most cases will involve child pornography but it is not limited to that. Material such as snuff movies and abusive sexual violence in videos and on the Internet is covered under that definition. 
The fact that a publication deals with child pornography will also be a matter under law that the judge must take into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The maximum penalty of 10 years reflects the fact that although traders in child pornography may not themselves be directly involved in abusing children by promoting a market for abuse images they are in fact indirectly responsible for it. 
The bill as introduced and reported back by the Government Administration Committee increases the penalty for possession from the current maximum fine of $2000 up to 2 years’ imprisonment. However it has been brought to my attention that in comparable countries the penalty for possession has been or is in the process of being increased to 5 years. That is the case in Canada and the United Kingdom. There are currently proposals before the Parliaments of Queensland New South Wales and South Australia where it is proposed to increase existing penalties up to 5 years. It makes sense that New Zealand penalties across the board are consistent with like-minded countries. It is therefore my intention to introduce an amendment by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to effect this change during the Committee stage. 
A further Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled. It is of a technical nature and it clarifies aspects of the process for applying for a review of the decision of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Maximum penalties for possessing and trading objectionable material will apply in the cases of large-scale prolonged or systematic offending and also of course having regard to the nature of the material possessed or traded. Less serious offending will likely attract a lower penalty. 
The bill also introduces a new power to obtain search warrants when an offence of knowingly possessing objectionable material is suspected. Currently search warrants are available only in relation to trading in such material or for possessing it for the purposes of supply and this new search power will facilitate the role of the police in cracking down on child pornography. Under the bill the offence of distributing an objectionable publication will encompass all the different ways in which offenders arrange to share exchange and access material on the Internet. It will include distribution such as peer-to-peer sharing as well as commercial transactions. People who provide access to objectionable material either by actively sending material to another person or by allowing their computers to be used as virtual libraries will be caught by the Act’s offence provisions. On the other hand the amendments made by the select committee will make sure that a person is not liable when he or she unintentionally or unknowingly provides access to an objectionable publication. For example an Internet service-provider who provides access to the Internet will not be liable simply because the service is used by others to provide access to objectionable publications. 
I welcome the select committee’s scrutiny and very careful consideration of the meaning of the word “objectionable” in the Act. This provides the standard for prohibition. Placing new limits on fundamental rights and freedoms such as freedom of expression must be careful and deliberate. This bill maintains a clear focus on the censorship of sex horror crime cruelty and violence that is injurious to the public good. However during the committee’s consideration of the bill it became evident that more flexibility to impose age restrictions was necessary to protect children and young persons. Accordingly new section 3B inserted by clause 4A deals with a small group of additional matters where the nature of harm to young persons would be serious and justifies an age restriction. 
The bill also introduces a new provision new section 3A also inserted by clause 4A to enable the censors to age-restrict a publication if it contains offensive language that is harmful to children even if it does not deal with the classifiable material of sex horror crime cruelty or violence. The committee has recommended that the provision be tightened up so that it is not seen as a vehicle for restricting language that is simply insulting or offensive to particular groups or individuals. 
The issue of covert filming was brought to the Government’s attention by the committee’s 2003 inquiry report into the Act. This highlighted the inadequacy of legal sanctions against such behaviour. Again this is an increasing problem as new technology such as cellphones with photographic capabilities is developed. Separate legislation to address covert filming will be introduced into this Parliament within the next 6 months or so. The Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill will create a tough new environment and penalty regime that reflects the abhorrence with which the Government and the public in general view the production distribution and possession of child pornography. 
The final thing I would like to say is that invidious comparisons were made between the performance of police in New Zealand and police in Australia in following up lists of people trading in pornography from I think American customs agents. I have made further inquiries with the New Zealand Police and with the Department of Internal Affairs. The Department of Internal Affairs advised me that in fact the Australians received this material very early last year around February and that it took them 6 months to bring prosecutions. This material has been held by the New Zealand Police only since September. That information was provided to me tonight. I look forward to these measures taking effect on the passage of this bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this bill. This afternoon I thought I would have to come down to the House and give the Hon Phil Goff a right royal bollocking but I am not going to do that. The reason is that the Minister has listened to the pleas of ACT MP Deborah Coddington and of Denise Ritchie from End Child Prostitution Child Pornography Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT New Zealand). He has listened and he has decided that yes our laws about the possession of child pornography should be at least the same as those of our comparable neighbour Australia and of Canada. But that is the least of it. 
As a mother—and I am sure many mothers listening to this would agree—I cannot think of any penalty tough enough for the people who use children in those pornographic and disgusting ways. Frankly sentencing them to be hung drawn and quartered might be a little too soft on them. I see my colleague on the other side Jill Pettis agreeing. There is absolutely no reason at all why anybody in any circumstance should ever be able to trade produce or enjoy—if we could ever think of using such a word in relation to that sort of degradation and abuse of children—such material; yet we think we are doing such a great job in stating that possession is punishable by 5 years’ imprisonment and trading by 10 years’. Frankly we cannot think of anything else to do but to lock them up and throw away the key. 
Unfortunately as the Minister has stated there has been a proliferation of that sort of smut and filth ever since the Internet became something most of us use. Unfortunately the ease with which that material is sent around the world means that we are talking about young teenage boys accessing such filth. I know that that is judgmental but I am never afraid to be judgmental. Frankly on some occasions we just have to say: “That is filth.” because that is the sort of thing that is going on unfortunately. 
I note having read the bill that there are all sorts of offences to do with showing pornography to under-18-year-olds. The Minister has told us tonight how much he thinks of Denise Ritchie who runs ECPAT New Zealand and the Stop Demand Foundation for whom I also have a very high regard. He has told us how much he thinks of her but he was not thinking much of her when she asked this House not to do the things we did with the prostitution reform legislation because of the fears of having younger people driven into and kept in crimes of prostitution. What we have in this bill— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s just an underhand attack on Don Brash for supporting the prostitution bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Minister had a fair go and he should let me have a fair go. The Minister should not seek to attack someone just because she is telling him the truth. 
This bill states that it is an offence to show pornography to children—children mind you—under the age of 18. But we all know that around this country—in Christchurch as we heard from Tim Barnett; in South Auckland where my electorate is; and certainly all around the country—children of 12 14 and 16 years of age are prostituting themselves on the streets. We get all excited about preventing people from showing children pornography; yet nothing is happening now to stop those kids from being abused. For anyone to say that those children know what they are doing—well they might know exactly what they are about to do—is to say only half the story. I say to such people that by goodness those children do not know the consequences. It is an unfortunate irony that we can get all excited about restricting pornography but we are not really brave enough to do something about the people who abuse those children. 
When I looked through this bill I saw that the commentary stated that the select committee will look at “hate speech”. What will be next? “Hate thought”? For goodness’ sake! Do we in this Parliament not have something better to do than to try to regulate “hate speech”? We might as well in fact regulate “hate thought”. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The member’s own party supported that; the members sitting behind her—Shane Ardern and Lindsay Tisch. Why doesn’t she talk to her colleagues? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is about time that that Minister took some responsibility for the fact that it was his negligence that allowed the House to get this bill in this state. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: To help the honourable member I refer my colleagues to Speaker’s ruling 56/1. Interjections are to be rare reasonable and—as a former colleague used to say—if at all possible witty though I have given up on that. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: One could not call the Hon Phil Goff witty—not by a long shot. 
If we are to regulate this “hate speech” the Minister is shouting about there are many other things we could also look at. We could look at the fact that 12 13 and 14-year-olds are wandering around the streets of inner-city Christchurch prostituting themselves—as told to us by Tim Barnett—yet nothing happens. What will be the next move for “hate thought”? 
I would like to say on a positive note for a moment how pleased I am that the Department of Internal Affairs is doing a good job in catching the low lifes who trade in and use the sorts of images dealt with by the bill. However as I did on the first reading of the bill I would like to sound a word of warning about possession. 
I am concerned about all the spam emails and the secret things hidden in emails. We in this Parliament get an awful lot of them. Fortunately we have very sophisticated technology that is supposed to stop them coming into Parliament but a lot of people would not have that technology at home. It worries me that people might have illegal things on their hard drive and not even know they are there. Unfortunately someone who does not know they are there could end up being prosecuted. We know from the Australian experience of the arrests that have occurred there that this sort of crime does not just affect a particular group or even a particular gender; it is prolific and goes right through our society among people in any occupation and people who lack an occupation. It is not something of which we should ever say: “It’s just a particular group.” It is not. We have seen that in New Zealand only recently. That is a far more important issue than something like “hate speech” or even “hate thought” which is sure to be the next thing. 
I note that the Minister talked about covert filming. Of course we will have to be very careful in relation to covert filming; otherwise the news media will not have anything particularly exciting to show. 
Dianne Yates 
: Why are people in swimming pool dressing rooms doing it? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: As Dianne Yates has pointed out we certainly do not want to see people being filmed as they get changed to go into the swimming pool. She is quite right—especially not most of us here who would not look too good. 
Dianne Yates 
: Especially not me. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: She says: especially not herself! But I agree with her; I fully support her. That issue is certainly something we want to look at. 
But at the same time let us look at the really big stuff that we know is already happening in New Zealand. Again I mention child prostitution yet we sit here turn a blind eye and say that it is all right because we have said they can use condoms—or something silly like that. At the end of the day none of it will be made better by the current Government. Although the Government likes to talk tough unfortunately  
Time  
magazine has said that this country could in fact become a safe haven for paedophiles. 
Jill Pettis 
: It had George Bush as man of the year! I cancelled my subscription. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am very concerned that the chief Labour Party whip has just insulted the President of the United States here in the Parliament of New Zealand—considering that the United States is our second-largest trading partner. That is the sort of anti-business rhetoric I would expect from that particular party and that particular member who is now—[ 
Interruption 
] She is is she not? I am sure that traders and farmers in this country are listening to this and asking what the Government is doing in trying to upset our second major trading partner. In fact all it is doing is trying to avoid looking at the issue. The Government hates it when it is told the truth. 
I would like to close by saying that I support the changes the Minister says he will make. We have not actually seen them of course; he only says he will make them. He said so today only after Denise Ritchie got on the phone to people in this House and told us what the changes to the bill should be after Deborah Coddington came to this House and told us what should be done and after  
Time 
 magazine pointed out that this Minister and this Government have made our country a particularly soft option for paedophiles. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Although the previous speaker said she was supporting the bill she certainly did not let facts get in the road of a good argument. I will point out some of the things that happened at the select committee. I want to thank two select committees—the Government Administration Committee before the election and after the election. The first select committee’s inquiry came up with a report on the Films Videos and Publications Act and there was also work done by the Ministry of Justice but the second committee did an excellent job of looking at the legislation. The first Government Administration Committee did a very large inquiry and came up with an excellent report. That report was presented to the Government and the Minister of Justice has responded with this bill. We note that the committee was generally unanimous. It was a very good committee. The two Government Administration Committees that have worked on this legislation worked very well together in a spirit of consensus. 
Stephen Franks 
: I wasn’t on the committee. It was a pathetic report. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I hear the member who was not on the committee interjecting. He cannot afford to comment on the processes that the committee went through. The committee as I said worked very well and was unanimous about objectionable material that included child sex-abuse images. The committee also went to visit the Chief Censor of Film and Literature and looked at the work that is done in his office. It also visited the Department of Internal Affairs and looked at how the problems of monitoring an alarming problem—the trade of child pornography through the Internet—are dealt with by the department. The bill aims to address that trade in some measure. 
The committee also looked as has been mentioned at the issues of hate speech and covert filming because they were brought up by submitters. The submitters asked us to look at these issues. We did not consider that they came within the scope of this bill but once again the committee was unanimous that we needed to look at these issues in greater detail. This was not because of events that have happened since we reported back to the House. I hope the member for Piako Lindsay Tisch will take a call because he had evidence of hate speech that was directed against Roman Catholic people in his electorate. Many of the submitters gave examples of hate speech that they felt should have been dealt with by this bill but which did not fall within its ambit. 
That is why the committee unanimously agreed that we should continue to look at the issue of hate speech and get a balance between the freedoms that are guaranteed already in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the possibility that New Zealand differs from some other countries in our ability to vilify sectors within the community. 
The present legislation deals with certain freedoms in relation to ethnicity nationality and race but it does not deal in some aspects with religion and other situations where certain people in our community could be prevented from having and acting within the same democratic rights as others. Although we all uphold freedom of speech we also need to get a balance with freedom from discrimination. That is what the terms of reference of the hate speech inquiry have suggested. I am surprised that the previous speaker has not looked more fully at the report and the terms of reference of that inquiry because if she did so she would understand in greater detail what it was about and the sincerity of the committee in looking into these issues—[ 
Interruption 
] That is condemning other people of one’s own ilk as well. 
The committee also received submissions on covert filming as has been mentioned. We thank the Minister of Justice for committing that issue to legislation and for his commitment to further legislation on that matter. 
The committee had to deal with some very difficult issues—the issues around nude images of children. We did not want to condemn nappy advertising on television; yet on the other hand it was pointed out to us that many images are overtly sexual. We believe that the legislation as it is now has struck a good balance in enabling issues that are injurious to the public good and the sexual exploitation of children to be dealt with. I point out that some of these are very very difficult issues to deal with and that there is often a fine line between what is sexually provocative and what some people might consider to be innocent depictions of children. The committee looked very very carefully at those issues. 
The other issue was the matter of penalties. The committee advocated that the penalties be increased. We have looked at certain anomalies and the Minister has indicated that he will be presenting a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that we are consistent with both Australia and Canada in terms of the penalty for possession. As has been mentioned right through the whole process—both the inquiry and the bill—we have had submissions from people such as Denise Ritchie of ECPAT New Zealand and other people who are concerned with the welfare of children. They have made extensive submissions to ensure that we are dealing not only with the child sex-abuse images but that we protect the children who are used to produce these images. We think that it is right and fair that the penalties should be increased. 
A number of other issues came about with regard to the labelling of publications as has been mentioned. There are issues about age restrictions. That has also been mentioned by the Minister and has been supported by the Opposition. Once again I thank those members who are on the committee—Shane Ardern Steve Chadwick David Cunliffe and Lindsay Tisch—and those who were on the previous select committee which at various times included Richard Worth Pansy Wong and others involved who contributed both to the inquiry and to the bill. 
As I said the committee worked very carefully and very cooperatively to come up with what we believed would be improvements to the Films Videos and Publications Act—improvements that prevent the exploitation of children. This committee was certainly unanimous that in no way did we want exploitation of children and that we absolutely and positively did want restrictions on the trade of child pornography that is on the Internet. So I thank again the committee members for their cooperation and for the way in which we all worked together so well. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to make it quite clear from the outset that New Zealand First does support this bill. It is certainly a significant step in the right direction. It is unlikely that I will take my full call because to some considerable degree the Minister of Justice has stolen the thunder of the Opposition. I hope the Minister appreciates that we are honest enough to say that. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not prepared to stand here like Mr Worth and just talk for the sake of using up my 10 minutes. 
I know I talk for my colleagues when I say that we are very delighted that the Minister has taken on board the information that has been conveyed to us by Denise Ritchie and that he will toughen up on the penalty regime. That is a large part of our criticism of this bill. It is one significant criticism that we have—that the bill as it has come back from the Government Administration Committee is not tough enough in terms of penalties. Perhaps for the enlightenment of Mr Worth I would like to ask why the two National Party members on that committee did not pick up that the UK and Canada are tougher than we will be under the provisions of this bill nor that Australia will be toughening up its legislation. Maybe they— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether the invitation that has been offered to me to offer an explanation is an indication of the member yielding but if it is I am very happy to take advantage of that invitation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order and should not have been raised. 
PETER BROWN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that New Zealand First members usually sit here quite quietly and let people have their 10-minute say in whatever way they want. If Mr Worth wants to heckle behind me— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. I had dealt with that spurious point of order. 
PETER BROWN 
: Such interruption throws a person out of gear but I will get back to it. I question why the two National Party MPs did not see fit to examine at the committee what the legislation in the UK in Canada and in Australia contains in terms of penalties. Maybe they would like to focus their minds on that rather than sitting there harping on as if they know everything. One concern that I have in particular—I know that it is shared by many of my colleagues—is a missed opportunity with this bill and that is the opportunity to tighten up on censorship across the board. 
Stephen Franks 
: It has not been missed. They are doing it. 
PETER BROWN 
: They are doing it? 
Stephen Franks 
: You have to read it carefully. 
PETER BROWN 
: One would have to read it very carefully to get that impression. I am interested in the member’s comments and I will have to listen to him when he takes his call. New Zealand First was not on the select committee. By reading this bill fairly carefully I get the impression that some of the films that are currently coming into this country are actually disgusting. I refer to films like  
Baise-moi; 
 I have never seen such a disgusting film in all my life and I do not want to ever see another like it. I have read many of the censors’ reports on other films. I will not name them. They degrade women in particular; they accommodate violence; and there are graphic sexual scenes. There is one film which I shall not name that apparently shows the rape of a young woman for 9½ minutes. I am curious to know—maybe Mr Franks will tell us when he takes his call—whether he thinks this tightening up will address those sorts of problems because it is my understanding that it will not but I hope I am wrong. 
I share some of the concerns stated by the National Party member before me in terms of hate speech. I just wonder whether this is taking life a little bit too far. Not everybody has nice thoughts about everybody all of the time and sometimes these things come out and they become quite spiteful. I find it a bit unusual that we are looking at hate speech in a way that might limit the freedom of a person to have a frank and honest view on an issue or the actions of a particular group of people. If the select committee is to instigate a committee of inquiry into this it should tread very very carefully. I am interested to know how far that inquiry has progressed. 
The commentary in referring to the scope of censorship law states: “After careful consideration we do not consider the scope of what may be classified as objectionable under the Act should be widened relative to the original intent of Parliament.” with no thought or recommendation there of the committee having any sort of investigation into the actual films and videos that the censor allows to come into this country. A huge number are readily available and there is no inquiry into whether they are worthwhile or what benefits they have. 
I point out that people who get involved in child pornography and those sorts of devious actions start somewhere else. It starts with adult pornography. I am aware of a frequently heard saying: basically human beings are what they eat; if they fill their stomachs with garbage food then their bodies suffer. I suggest that people are what they read and what they watch. If they fill their minds with weird and wonderful activities with pornography then it is no wonder that we turn out far too many deviants and perverts in our society. 
Having said that I would like to end on a positive note. New Zealand First will support this bill this far. We hope the Minister will be true to his word—he usually is—and produce a Supplementary Order Paper that tightens up the penalty regime in which case New Zealand First will support the bill through to its final reading. We look forward to seeing the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper in which he tightens up the penalties and put us in line with Britain Canada and some of those Australian states that are currently tightening up their penalty regimes. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 ACT will support the increase in penalties in this bill for the obvious reason that we think most penalties in New Zealand have become too short too small and too trivial by half or more. But I am not sure whether we can support this bill. The reason for that is that the bill is I think quite a sinister piece of deception in one respect. I believe that this bill achieves the objective that the Government Administration Committee tried to achieve with its appalling report a couple of years ago. It was of such a poor grade intellectually that the Minister of Justice could not proceed—he could not be seen to implement it. But the bill achieves that objective covertly and I say that because this bill I think sets out to reverse the effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Living Word Distributors video case. 
The bill’s commentary states that the bill does not really do that but just clarifies the situation. It states that the bill preserves the gateway role or the gateway notion of the censor’s role. In fact when we see what it is doing purportedly to protect children we find that two new sections are inserted that completely bypass the gateway provision. A publication may be age restricted if it is likely to be injurious to the public good. The definition of what the legislation can ban or ban through an age restriction includes material that describes physical conduct of a degrading dehumanising or demeaning nature that may encourage people to treat themselves or others as degraded dehumanised or demeaned. Well that is a description of what the chief censor said the Living Word Distributors video did. The Court of Appeal did not agree with that or it felt that free speech entitled Christians or any other group that had a strong view about a matter to import a video that had some boring-looking talking heads in that case describing homosexuality as disgusting. 
This bill reverses that decision and it does so by wrapping up in a whole lot of other words some words that the Chief Censor can then use to go back on something like the Living Word Distributors video decision and ignore the gateway. We see in new section 3D inserted by clause 4A that the new powers are not limited by the sections that the Court of Appeal used to throw out the censor’s decision. I think that is important. I am fascinated to see that the Government has been so blatant as to put in new clause 4B which provides that the censor can even go backwards and retrospectively apply the new powers. In the course of the Committee stage I would like to hear a categorical assurance that that is not the intention and to consider amendments designed to make sure that it cannot happen. As a start the clause that bypasses the protective tests for free speech that the Court of Appeal was able to use should be removed. 
There is another reason why I do not feel that ACT should be party to this bill which is that it is just cynical. It is law being used for propaganda—law as theatre law as slogans and law as camouflage. I think that Judith Collins got on to it but she said that she would suppress her reservations and vote for the bill because it made threats against paedophiles or people who showed an interest in child pornography. She needs to look again because it does not matter whether the penalty is $5000 or $10000 or 2 years or 5 years in prison. What really dictates the penalty is the climate that the Government creates around an offence. Let us look at the case of Te Kaha to see an instance of how irrelevant a maximum penalty is. There was the possibility of a $250000 fine of confiscation of the gear and from memory I think of 4 years in jail although I may be wrong about that. What did Te Kaha get? For a cold-blooded commercially motivated offence of taking 100 kilos of shucked paua in a scheme that is happening all over the country—and it is a major problem—Te Kaha was sentenced to go out to corrupt a few more kids. He was given community work. The Government will make sure that his community work is counselling kids. 
What use is all this legal drivel when we have a Government that actually thinks it is OK for kids to be out there as prostitutes and will not allow the police to ask their age a Government that does not care that the Aussie police are about to make a swoop on a paedophile network that will then warn all the New Zealand members and a Government that we have to suspect must have not wanted to see that swoop made? I suspect there will be some high-profile people on that list. I think this Government has probably deliberately fluffed it because it did not want the embarrassment of some of its ilk ending up as victims of that swoop. This kind of bill that the Government wants to see rushed through the House on a wave of emotion is dangerous. It is dangerous because it is so easily misused. The honourable member Dianne Yates gave us a good idea of what this bill is really about when she immediately turned in her speech to describe the hate speech objectives. The Government wants to be able to ban free speech that is offensive to it and its mates. 
We already have an Act. I have the Act here and the gateway provision is pretty well framed. It does not allow for example an innocent family that happens to have pictures of its kids playing in a swimming pool to be caught because it has some very sensible tests that require there to be an overall context a volume an objective and a promoting effect. That section which protects our innocent family Dianne Yates’ proposals will now avoid. Section 3 of the Act is to be avoided under the new provisions of this legislation. Section 3 protects innocent people from being caught up in the net that we all want to see cast over those who are truly offenders: those who use pornographic material abuse children to generate that material and trade in that material which of course we all want to see stopped. But the existing law covers that so Minister Goff has introduced the vague idea that the technology has got ahead of us. We have instead seen a set of provisions that could one day be used to simply suppress political opinion the Government does not like on the grounds set out in this bill that it may be harmful. 
It is interesting that the age restrictions can be promoted and unless I have missed this in the Act the Government could set an age restriction that no one under 60 is allowed to read something. I am not sure whether that is the case but it appears to me that would be open to the Government. The Government may say that that would be ridiculous but who would ever have thought that a group of earnest Christians who were eager to persuade their children that they should not become homosexual would one day become the victims of a film censor? Who would have thought that a party like United Future which purports to stand for those people would end up wanting to vote for a bill that allows the censor to do just that? I think it is hilarious the things that United Future has voted for. Of course it has just voted to help the Government to make sure it keeps on looting the excise tax. It is minor that United Future now says that it will vote in favour of something that gives the censor the power to attack its own supporters. 
If one looks at the definition of offensive language one can see that it is language that is offensive to the public in general. Most new ideas at some stage have been offensive to the public in general. Most reformers have been vilified at some stage. Most reformers have had newspaper editorials tell them that they are raising a proper purpose but that the way they are doing it is offensive and that they should not be allowed to carry on. The whole purpose of free speech is not to protect language that no one finds offensive; the whole purpose of free speech is precisely to make sure that people can offend. There is no other kind of language that people bother to try to suppress. That is why this bill is dangerous I suspect. This is a cunning and deliberate scheme to tie together increased penalties at the same time as pushing through the potentially dangerous stuff. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support this bill and the positive changes to enable us to deal more effectively with child pornography. However the Greens are sickened by today’s bidding war between ACT and Labour to see who can have the longest sentences. It is bad enough when Labour moves to the right in order to try to take National’s ground but it is even worse when it tries to take ACT’s ground. Under the bill at present the maximum penalty for possession of objectionable material moves from a fine to 2 years in prison. Surely that is enough; it is absurd to move it to 5 years. At 1.30 this afternoon Deborah Coddington issued a press release calling for 5 years. Four hours later Mr Goff fell into line. Surely our prime target is the actual pornographers: the people who force children into sexual activity and make money out of distributing images of that activity. They will be hard hit by this bill with a maximum of 10 years in jail. But why bump up the penalties for simple possession of objectionable material to 5 years? 
One of the problems with this bill in areas that relate to the possession of child pornography is that it extends the definition to images of “young persons who are nude or partially nude” where the images are “reasonably capable of being regarded as sexual in nature”. That definition as the Law Society pointed out in its submission is very loose. The Society of Authors stated: “Under this bill it is conceivable that many major works of art particularly those from the high Renaissance could be seen as objectionable because they depict naked infants often cherubic in a way that the censor might deem to be sexual.” Recently there has been a debate about the images in Germaine Greer’s book  
The Boy 
 with Ms Greer asking why women should not enjoy looking at images of boys as beautiful images rather than pornographic images. It is very hard for the community to come to a general consensus on where to draw the line between what may be beautiful or artistic and what may be pornographic. The issues are very controversial. 
This bill makes drawing that line even more difficult because it is not just talking about nude images but also “partially” nude ones. In discussing that problem the Law Society said that that could mean we would have to ban many of the music videos on TV that are currently running on three music channels. They are often videos of under-18-year-olds with bare midriffs dancing around and projecting some degree of sexuality. It would be much better to use the more restricted definition of child pornography in the optional protocol of the convention on the rights of the child as the Society of Authors suggested in its submission. That defines child pornography as representations of children engaged in “real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.” 
 We want to get at the real child pornographers and any heavy penalties should go on them. Instead as many submitters to the Government Administration Committee complained the new 10-year sentence is not confined to child pornographers but potentially applies to anyone sending out “objectionable” material across the whole field of censorship in the Act which is worded as “sex horror crime cruelty and violence.” Let us look at some of the silliness and inconsistency that that broad application of the 10-year maximum sentence across all offensive materials could produce. For example last April the censors gave an objectionable rating to an imported magazine called  
Cannabis Culture 
 on the basis of its “treatment of matters of crime namely the cultivation and use of cannabis.” Freely distributing a magazine on the cultivation of cannabis particularly to those 18 years and under could under this new law being proposed today land one in jail for 10 years. Yet the maximum penalty for actually cultivating cannabis is 8 years. So somebody forwarding an email on the cultivation of cannabis to a few friends has the potential of being given a longer prison sentence than someone with a big marijuana plantation. 
I mentioned the person emailing material on cannabis as an introduction to the broader problem of censoring Internet communications. That does not mean that we should not punish those who use the Internet to trade in child pornography; of course we should. But if we are looking generally at objectionable material as this bill is with “objectionable” being defined rather loosely then email and Internet policing poses some problems and the wrong people could get nailed. One problem particularly when dealing with possession rather than trading offences is that computer users often do not know what they are downloading or what is in attachments. In this bill for the more serious convictions for possession the prosecution has to prove the possessor had knowledge of the material. But in several places in the legislation there is what is called a strict liability regime or an absolute liability regime for possession where people cannot use as a defence that they did not know what was in the email or the attachment. If they did find out what the material was once they opened it up and then deleted it they still may get done because forensic tests can check out what was on their system prior to deletion. The absolute liability regime for possession might have been OK pre the Internet when dealing with picture books and videos because it is hard to buy a picture book without knowing pretty much what is in it. 
The new Internet problem was dealt with by the select committee in some respect in that the Internet Service Providers Association submitted that Internet service providers obviously cannot check everything that goes through their computers. So Internet service providers and telecommunication operators were let off the hook by the select committee. However we still have the problem of individual computer users potentially being done for images they did not know about be it for pornography or for going beyond that to various other inflammatory or objectionable written material that may be in people’s incoming emails attachments or stuff they download. It could be inflammatory objectionable material that the computer user may have had no real chance to check out fully or assess. We could get considerable inconsistencies here where the judgments as to whether to prosecute for Internet communications could be exercised by Department of Internal Affairs staff or by the police maybe with less and less reference to the Office of Film and Literature Classification. There is under the law an ability for defendants to refer things to that office but in practice that will happen rarely with defendants being scared of what is happening and often being involved in plea-bargaining directly with the police. We should be a bit frightened about what the police judgments may be following their attempt to prosecute Aucklander Bruce Hubbard for an email that referred to the American Government “napalming babies” in Iraq. That offended the American Embassy which received the email and Mr Hubbard was prosecuted although the prosecution was later dropped after a public outcry. 
The Internet and now cellphones are such open ways of communication with billions of messages and images zooming to and fro that it would be silly for the censorship authorities to be chasing everywhere and filtering everything. There will be a lot of objectionable material circulating and we do not want to imitate Governments such as that of China with its draconian Internet controls. The only real control is to become a more ethically responsible society and of course to go after the very worst offenders such as the serious child pornography traders. We do not want to have a huge censorship section in the Department of Internal Affairs or the police. I do think it is useful for the Office of Film and Literature Classification to have the ability to put an age restriction on offensive language and material although there have to be the cautions that Stephen Franks referred to. But we also want to take a bit of work off the office and put into effect some of the submissions by the Alice in Videoland shop and the film festival organisers that there could be ways of cross-rating material from other authorities rather than going through time-consuming systems. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the second reading of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill. First of all I will give a brief summary of how the bill has ended up on the Order Paper today. The report of the Government Administration Committee was presented to the House back on 30 August 2004 but the Government seemed to be more interested in rushing the civil union legislation through the House in urgency before Christmas than in dealing with this bill which is very important. Hopefully this bill sends a message to those who engage in that sort of awful and despicable behaviour and it increases some of the penalties for that behaviour. But that still begs the question as to why it had to sit on the Order Paper for 4 months before it was brought back to the House for its second reading. 
There were a number of press releases over the holidays if anyone was monitoring them and a number of those came from my colleague Marc Alexander who has been our representative on the select committee. He raised the issue with the Government members and urged them to bring the bill on to the Order Paper so that it could be dealt with. Denise Ritchie also made a number of statements about how appalling it was that we were not dealing with this legislation. So it is really no surprise that it has suddenly appeared for us to debate in the House today. 
My colleague Marc Alexander has a particular interest in this bill because part of it comes from the first member’s bill he introduced to the House as a new member which was intended to deal with the appalling situation whereby it was possible for images of children undressing in changing sheds at the beach swimming pools and so on to be distributed by sick people to even sicker people on the Internet. He sought out of very good motives to address that issue and it is pleasing to see that the intent of his bill has been brought into this Government legislation. 
The bill amends the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act to address the impact of the Internet and similar technology on the nature and scale of offending related to the production and distribution of objectionable materials. Images containing nude or partially nude children or young persons that are reasonably capable of being regarded as sexual in nature are a particular focus of this bill. The bill uses the term “child sex abuse images” rather than “child pornography”. 
Stephen Franks has raised some concerns about whether this bill could lead to some impinging on the rights of freedom of speech. As he said in his speech those matters ought to be debated during the Committee stage of this bill because we certainly do not want that to be the case. This bill is designed to deal with some very serious issues in our society and it ought not to be hijacked by anybody who seeks to simply muzzle critics of behaviour that they find offensive. 
However the fact that we are debating this bill really begs the question of what kind of world we are living in today. It reminds me of a saying that I have used for a number of years in discussing the importance or relevance of laws in society: “The more corrupt the State the more numerous the laws.” Here we are again having to look at passing legislation in this House. I think last year we passed 100 laws which was a record I believe. 
 Do we imagine the inventor of cellphones ever conceived that people would take those cellphones that have the ability to take pictures slip into changing sheds around the country and take pictures of innocent children as they were undressing so that those pictures could be distributed on the Internet? It is certainly a very sick society that we find ourselves in in the 21st century. 
Human history reveals that human beings have always been capable of some pretty sick behaviour but it seems today that the lines that have been referred to in some other speeches are getting blurred. The movie  
Baise-Moi 
 which I have not seen but which was referred to by Mr Brown in his speech is one of those examples. We raise children in a double-standard world that says that something is wrong if a person is under 18 or under 16 but once that person has had another birthday suddenly overnight what was previously wrong becomes right for that person. 
I believe that we kid ourselves. As Mr Keith Locke said the lines are definitely blurred and difficult to distinguish. I think the problem is that we place so much stock on being adults in this world and on how adults are supposed to be able to handle anything but if a child is brought into the situation he or she would probably pretty quickly identify for us that something is not art; it is actually pornography. Yet we look at it and kid ourselves that we should be able to handle it. 
In fact the Lord Jesus himself said that if we want to enter the kingdom of Heaven we should become like a child yet much of our society seeks to become adult and to handle all kinds of obscenity that we ought to know will not be good for us or for our children to see. In a civilised society we have the emergence of child pornography and it has spread across the world. We do have to try to pass laws in order to send a message about its abhorrence and to try to stop its spread. 
I join others in commending Denise Ritchie and others like her from the Stop Demand Foundation and End Child Prostitution Child Pornography Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes for the work they do opposing and fighting child pornography. What a horror it is for a child to be caught as a sex slave. What an awful awful lifestyle! I have walked in some of those places in Asia and have seen some of the images of children being kept in cages for exploitation by foreign visitors and it is an unspeakable horror. 
I commend the Minister for responding to Denise Ritchie’s appeals for an increase in sentencing. However I had to agree with Judith Collins when she asked why he did not also listen to the woman whom he had such regard for in his speech today when she and many others warned about what would happen to our society if the prostitution law reform legislation was passed or what would happen to young people when there was no clear distinction in that law between being under age and over age and when we were not even prepared to allow the police to ask for proof of identity so they could do their job of protecting young people more effectively. That is a very good case of what is happening in our society as the lines are becoming blurred. 
How is it OK for people to engage in selling their bodies for sex when they are 18 but if they are under 18 suddenly it is wrong and abhorrent? Since that law was passed why has there been advertising for prostitution every night on television in New Zealand—from 1 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock on C4—when the law itself states that it is to be banned and is not to occur? Yet any member who chooses to turn on his or her television and look at C4 will find that from 1 o’clock to 5 there is uninterrupted continuous advertising for prostitution. 
Also advertisements are appearing in the paper for students to try prostitution as a means of paying for their student loans. The advertisements say: “It is not so bad. Come along and we will help you. It’s not too bad at all.” Sir Barry Curtis the Mayor of Manukau has a local bill that he wishes to see introduced into this Parliament to ban street soliciting in Manukau because he has video camera evidence of 12 13 14 and 16-year-olds on the street at Hunters Corner as a result. 
I commend this bill to the House because it is sending the right message that that kind of behaviour is not acceptable and that we do need stiffer penalties for those who engage in it. In fact it is hard to imagine what penalties would be really sufficient for the damage done to young lives exploited and used in that way. United Future is pleased to support the second reading of the bill but I do make the point that we kid ourselves when we think we can simply draw a line on ages or on certain behaviour when we have contributed by some of the laws that we have passed in this House in the last 2 years to the demise of our civilisation. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this very important bill. I just remind those in the House who were not members of the Government Administration Committee that this bill came about following an inquiry and the fact that technological changes have advanced over 11 years. We wanted legislation that would protect our innocent children and we looked at the penalties for those who produce trade and distribute pornography. The penalties in this bill reflect the very protections that came out of the inquiry—so that process had to be done—and then this bill was made much clearer in terms of the direction in which we had to look. We had to look at what was deemed objectionable material—and that has been considerably strengthened in this legislation—and at the penalties for production trading and possession. I am thrilled that the penalties for possession have been increased to bring them into line with the UK and Canada. 
The  
Time 
 magazine article that intimated that New Zealand was a haven for pornographers and pushers of pornography has it completely wrong. The committee went to the Department of Internal Affairs and saw the robustness and rigour with which that very small tight and expert group of professionals trace pornography sites around the world and trace those who download pornography. I congratulate the Department of Internal Affairs on the work it does and I am sure that they will be able to put a more robust case when they capture those who trade in that invidious trade. 
I conclude quickly by saying that I heard the member Judith Collins talk about the hate speech inquiry. To a person all of us on the committee who heard the submitters supported the hate speech inquiry. It was a cruel shock when others came to the House screaming about the inquiry and what an erosion of civil liberties it was but we on that committee said to a tee that we would support the hate speech inquiry. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I start tonight by saying that the National Party will support the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the officials here tonight who advised the Government Administration Committee throughout what was on balance quite a difficult process. That is what it is—an on balance difficult process. I listened with great interest to those who are much more learned in law than myself—including Mr Franks and a number of others—in terms of the concerns they raised. They have been sensible in the way they have raised those concerns but I say to them that at the end of the day one has to make a judgment call and have some faith in the people we employ in our bureaucracy like our Chief Censor of Film and Literature. Maybe the censor will get it wrong and maybe he will not. At the end of the day Parliament will ultimately be the judge of that and that is how the process should be. 
I also congratulate the Minister on accepting the advice of Denise Ritchie. I shall answer some of the questions as to why the committee itself did not come to that conclusion. The bottom line is that we looked at an enormous amount of information. We did not ask whether we were harmonising with like-minded countries on this particular penalty and with the benefit of hindsight perhaps we should have. But having said that Denise Ritchie and her group Stop Demand brought that to the attention of the Minister. The Minister has accepted the recommendations they brought forward and I congratulate him on that. 
As an aside it is an interesting thing in politics when one sees a Minister like Phil Goff so responsive to public demand like that to think of what may have happened if the famous Phil Goff barbecue had been successful and he was the Prime Minister today. “Move over Tony Blair.” I would say. What a better country New Zealand might have been had that famous barbecue meeting come to fruition for Phil Goff. Having said that we have what we have and it is not Phil Goff—so be it. The electorate will fix that up at the next election. 
I say to the other members of the committee that I too was fascinated by what we found out when we went to the Department of Internal Affairs. I was absolutely astounded. Being a poor humble country boy I genuinely never realised that such activity took place. I knew that there was a bit of pervert activity around the edges but as to the actual volume of it its sophistication and the level to which people will go to trade in that—well what can we describe it as? I can think of no word that is parliamentary. It is something that I find absolutely abhorrent as would any father mother parent guardian or person who has had any involvement with children at all and who was a normal sane person. That is where we must draw the line because those who trade in this matter clearly are not normal sane people. We cannot be PC about that. They are—what could we describe them as—less than human. They are insane sick or have something wrong with them to trade in and want to view what the majority of society finds to be absolutely abhorrent material. None the less they do. The material exists it is produced and we need laws in this country to make sure that it is properly policed. 
I listened with great interest to the contribution made by Keith Locke of the Green Party who said that we need to be careful that we do not capture art. If there is any confusion between art and pornography then we have allowed our laws to become too liberal. It is as simple as that. It is black and white to me. There is absolutely no confusion between what could be described as something artistic—[ 
Interruption 
] I see that the member over there is shaking her head a bit. It is not for me. It is absolutely clear; I am absolutely black and white on this. People may call me conservative old-fashioned or whatever they like but I do not care. The bottom line is that it is absolutely black and white to me. There is a definite difference between pornographic material and art and that is the end of the subject. Providing that the chief censor carries those values forward I do not think we have any problem at all. 
The issue of the gateway approach as in the existing legislation and the amendments to it was raised by a number of speakers. I say to them that the gateway structure as it stands takes account of the categories of sex horror crime and hate. During the discussion in the committee it was decided that hate would probably be the most difficult category to manage and to draw a black and white line on—as I have—in terms of pornography. That is the reason the committee decided to separate that category out and call an inquiry into hate speech. 
To those members who may be a bit nervous about where we are heading with that I say that they should hold their horses make their submissions to the select committee and be involved in the process. Clearly we do not want to curtail people’s idea of what freedom of speech is or rein in the media or for that matter politicians over what they may or may not say. We pride ourselves on being an open democratic society that holds open democratic elections every 3 years. At the end of the day people need to be able to say what they think regardless of how objectionable others may find that in a political sense. 
That obviously will be an interesting process. Committee members will listen to and read with great interest all the submissions that come to that inquiry. I also say to a number of members that there has been discussion about what is happening in society in terms of where we are heading as a country and about the general decline I guess of what could have been originally described as Victorian or Christian values. Child prostitution is an issue on which this Government should pause for a moment take a look and ask: “Did we get the balance right?” because I would argue that it has not. I suggest—in fact I will predict—that sometime within the next 5 years that issue will be revisited in this Parliament regardless of who the Government is because the police will ultimately come back to the Government with overwhelming evidence that they are being constrained by the current law the way it stands. 
I also point out that trading this material has become much more prevalent because of the massive growth in technology. The ability now for a person to buy a small cellphone that can fit in a pocket to take covert photographs of people in various stages of undress and then to trade that around the world via the Internet or to exploit young children or young people by using that medium is something that I do not think anybody would have contemplated even as recently as 1993. The way in which that ability has advanced and the way in which everybody has absolutely engaged in the use of that technology now could never have been predicted as recently as 1993. Again I say well done to the Minister for recognising that growth and the need to do something about it. 
At the end of the day the wider public the democratic society we live in will decide what is right and what is wrong. Parliament will make the best attempt it can to strike the right balance and through its elected Ministers choose a censor who reflects the view of society and bases his or her decisions on the weight of evidence that flows both ways. Ultimately changes to this kind of legislation will be an ongoing regular thing. As was the case in 1993 we cannot forecast the next wave of technology or forecast what will be the ability of people to trade in images in the future. I say to those people who are concerned about the fact this is happening that they should just have a look at what is going on in the Department of Internal Affairs and what is going on internationally and in the jurisdictions of other Western Christian-based nations similar to our own. Then they will come to the conclusion that something must be done on a regular basis. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 First I want to echo the views of both my colleagues Judith Collins and Shane Ardern and to acknowledge the work of the Department of Internal Affairs. As indicated by Shane Ardern Steve Chadwick and other speakers we have seen the work the department is doing in monitoring and tracking. It is using its facilities to enforce the law and provide information for other jurisdictions around the world. I think that that is a significant advance especially in the area of child pornography which has become a major issue for not only New Zealand but other countries. So I firstly acknowledge the work of the Department of Internal Affairs which has a member in the Chamber tonight and of its officials. 
I also acknowledge the Customs Service which is doing extremely good work at the coalface at the borders in being able to pick up this sort of material. I acknowledge the police who are involved and also the work of the Chief Censor of Film and Literature. I have been to the censor’s office. The Government Administration Committee chairperson Dianne Yates led the committee to look at the Department of Internal Affairs and the censor’s office. I would not like to be working in that environment. The explicit sex scenes we saw are simply not for the faint-hearted; to my mind they were quite disgusting and degrading. I certainly admire and acknowledge the work of those people who are keeping New Zealand safe and protecting New Zealanders young people in particular. I acknowledge their contribution. 
 We have had an interesting insight into this bill over a number of months and prior to that we had the inquiry. The amendments that we are making to the 1993 legislation are significant because they do make changes and certainly clarify the position on a number of issues that have been vague and that the censor has had difficulty with. It has been mentioned that the 1993 Act took account of the situation at the time and of the material available then which was mainly hard-copy publications. We have certainly moved on in that respect and now we have the Internet and what it can provide in terms of child pornography. That has become the No. 1 issue not only here but also internationally. 
We do acknowledge the right to freedom of speech and that is one of the reasons why the hate-speech provision is not in this bill. It was not an easy decision to make but that issue needs to be separate. We want to ensure that the right to freedom of speech is maintained but on the other hand we also believe it is necessary to accept appropriate boundaries in the context of criminal law and public policy. 
Pornography has grown substantially over the years and it is an area that is of major concern for us. It is a social issue for New Zealanders. It is interesting that if we look at what is happening in the United States we see it has put the pornography issue into the too-hard basket. Over the years the United States has acknowledged that it would be difficult to police legislation and difficult to come up with laws that actually reflected what society was looking for. We see that difficulty in the changes in what is now available on free-to-air TV programmes. The content and language are examples of the difficulty in reaching a consensus on what is acceptable and what is objectionable. What may be objectionable to me in my watching of television programmes or videos or in my reading of something may be acceptable to my neighbour. So there is conflict about what is acceptable in one sense and what is objectionable in another. 
But there is no doubt that society is very concerned about what people are seeing. At the end of the day addressing that is really going to be up to the values that parents instil in their children and their ability to instil in children the values that they believe are important. It does not matter what laws we make because there will always be those who will manage to get around them especially with the technology now available. Shane Ardern mentioned the messages using cellphones and there are chat rooms and Internet messaging services. That is what society faces today and that is the challenge that the police raised in their submission to the select committee. They said that pornography was a major concern and that it would be difficult to remedy that. 
However in saying that this bill takes some major steps. I want to highlight them because they are major steps forward in the fight against pornography in particular. The bill extends the scope of “trading or commercial” offences in the Act to include non-commercial distribution. It further extends the “trading or commercial” offences in the Act to include importing and exporting objectionable material for the purposes of supply or distribution and aligns that with relevant provisions of the Customs and Excise Act of 1996. It increases the maximum penalties for making trading and distributing objectionable material which includes child pornography to 10 years’ imprisonment. It creates a new offence punishable by 2 years’ imprisonment. The Minister intends to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper that will change that to 5 years in order to bring the period into line with that in other jurisdictions and we will be supporting that amendment. But the bill does create a new offence for a person to possess an objectionable publication knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it is objectionable. 
 The legislation will require the courts when sentencing someone for an offence involving an objectionable publication to take into account as an aggravating factor the extent to which the publication is objectionable because it contains child pornography. It gives District Court judges the power to issue search warrants in connection with the suspected commission of a new “possession with knowledge” offence. It removes any doubt that nude or partially nude images of children that can reasonably be considered to be sexual in nature are publications that deal with “matters such as sex” and it specifies that a publication that would otherwise be classified as unrestricted may be given an age restriction if the publication contains offensive language exposure to which would be harmful to persons under that age. 
We believe that the bill is a move in the right direction. The current Act has been in force since 1993 and is now out of date. We also acknowledge our commitment and obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. When we move on to the Committee stage of this bill whenever that may be there are specific areas of concern that I will be wanting to highlight. They relate particularly to the Court of Appeal decision in the case of  
Living Word Distributors Limited 
 v  
Human Rights Action Group 
 because the word “objectionable” and the term “matters such as” which are found in section 3(1) of the Act are as we will see later on really of concern to the censor. The censor in producing the publication I have in my hand and taking into account the Court of Appeal decision would actually have to reassess a number of the publications and criteria that were accepted in the course of that Court of Appeal decision regarding the term “matters such as”. That phrase is wide and there needs to be a much narrower context when dealing with sex horror crime cruelty and violence that are actually included in a publication or video. Of course in the case I have outlined the Court of Appeal deemed it not to be action and that is why an issue now arises that the censor has to deal with. So there is much to debate during the Committee stage of this bill. 
National supports the bill as we have done right through its earlier stages. Some will say that the bill does not go far enough and it is acknowledged that some people will want a much tougher stand than this bill provides for but in our view it is a step in the right direction. It sends a very clear message that child pornography and objectionable material is not to be tolerated in society today. National will be supporting this bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.