Volume 627 Week 94 - Wednesday 27 July 2005 
Volume 627 Week 94 - Wednesday 27 July 2005 
[Volume:627;Page:22029] 
Wednesday 27 July 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Auckland Mosques—Attack 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I intend to seek leave shortly to move a motion condemning the attacks on several mosques in Auckland like the motion we passed when the Jewish graves were desecrated. But I would first like to point out that I brought this motion to the Business Committee yesterday so the party whips have been informed—because I know that the House does not like such things to be sprung on it. I seek leave to move without debate members’ notice of motion No. 2 which reads: “That this House condemn the attacks on several mosques in Auckland on 10 July extend its sympathy and support to the Islamic community in New Zealand and declare that expressions of religious hatred have no place in this country.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The Business Committee agreeing to the moving of the motion is not the same as the House agreeing. The point New Zealand First wishes to make as a point of order is that if we are to condemn attacks on mosques what about burial places churches synagogues and other places around this country that have been similarly attacked if we are to have some balance and fairness? My point again is that it is one thing for the Business Committee to agree but other members of this House may have a different view and a more neutral and fair one. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am responding in part to Mr Peters. I was at the Business Committee meeting and I think it is fair to say that the Business Committee did not agree to this motion being moved. At least two parties indicated that they would disagree with the motion being moved—not the Labour Party I may say or the Progressive Party. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I first point out that there is a precedent. I mentioned in my introduction that we had a specific motion directed at the Jewish community over the desecration of their graves. It is true that there was objection at the Business Committee yesterday but I was phoned subsequent to the Business Committee meeting by a representative of the party that had objected the most who said that the party would not be objecting to this motion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I have noted those matters that have been raised in the context of the point of order. I shall put the matter again and then members will either agree or not agree but they will not debate the matter. Is there any objection to the motion being moved? There is no objection. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think we are all shocked at the vandalising of several Auckland mosques on 10 July and the— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member needs to move the motion. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member in full flow but this issue arose yesterday. Yesterday the Prime Minister sought leave to move a motion without debate and after that motion had been moved 40 minutes of speeches followed. Today we have just granted Mr Locke leave to move a motion without debate and he is about to make a speech. I think there needs to be some clarification. If we are going to have motions accompanied by speeches then they are with debate it seems to me. We cannot have a motion moved without debate that then invites everyone to make a speech about it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the member makes a very good point. We have fallen into a bit of a habit over recent weeks of seeking leave to move a motion without debate and then every party speaking to it which to some extent makes a mockery of the term “without debate”. It does seem to me that perhaps it would be helpful at this point if we did revert to a stricter interpretation and if members are really seeking leave for a motion to be moved with party leaders making brief comments then it is appropriate to seek leave in that form rather than seeking leave without debate. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Speaking to the point of order I did contact that Clerk’s Office yesterday to clarify this matter. As Dr Cullen has indicated there is a precedent of moving motions without debate. The interpretation seems to be that it is not a full 2-hour debate with all kinds of speakers but allowance is given for a representative from each party to contribute. The Clerk’s Office gave me that explanation. If I should use a slightly different wording in my seeking of leave I am quite happy to accommodate that but that was the interpretation I was given because of the precedents in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The sort of motion that was moved yesterday I think falls into quite a different category because the motion itself as I understand it was circulated prior to the House sitting and agreement was sought from all parties for the Prime Minister to move the motion on the basis that it would then be spoken to by party leaders in the main or representatives and that Parliament would then want to support such a motion with some unanimity. Now Mr Locke brought his proposals to the Business Committee and they were not progressed in that manner. What he has sought is leave to move his motion without debate. He should simply be required to stand on his feet read his motion and sit down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions and I certainly agree that there is a contradiction in moving a motion without debate and then debating it. However I think in this particular instance because the understanding has been that that is the convention that has arisen we should proceed and see this as the last time upon which there will be an opportunity to do so. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Quiet please. I have not finished my ruling. We should do that in the interests of fairness because the member was led to believe that in fact that was the convention and the practice when he took the trouble to raise the matter and it was not raised at that point in the Business Committee. But I do think that in future if leave is sought it is to be either without debate—meaning no debate—or with debate. That will be the ruling for the future. [ 
Interruption 
] No—that is my ruling. I want no further discussion on it. I just ask members to please make their contributions brief. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I rise to suggest that the motion should be put again. This is members’ day and there are some important bills set down. I listened very carefully to what Mr Keith Locke said and he said he wanted to move the motion without debate. On that basis the ACT party agreed. We did not deny leave because we thought it would take 2 minutes. We now see that it will potentially take half an hour or 40 minutes and cause us some trouble further down the track. What I respectfully ask you to do—now that it has been clarified that when a member moves a motion without debate it actually means that there will be a debate—is to ask Mr Locke to seek leave again with everyone understanding not just Mr Keith Locke understanding that when leave is sought without debate it means with debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have much the same point. The reason why we did not object to Mr Locke moving his motion is that the term of this Parliament is running very short. Otherwise he would have had the opportunity to put his motion on the Order Paper in the way that most members do. This is not a motion that has come from the Government where there is an expression of a particular view that is held by the overall Parliament of New Zealand; it is Mr Locke’s own motion. I think Mr Hide is quite right. Had we known there was going to be considerable time taken over this the result of the leave request would have been different. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: New Zealand First agrees with Mr Hide on this matter with the exception of his closing conclusion. I think that anyone out there who heard the suggestion that a motion be moved without debate for debate will wonder what we are getting up to here. So perhaps he should move a motion for debate and see what the House thinks of that. Then it will look marginally sensible. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think we are in some difficulty in that the leave has already been sought and granted and— 
Hon Members 
: Without debate. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No the leave to actually move the motion has been sought and granted. We have moved beyond that point and we cannot un-grant that leave at this stage. If that were the case we would be in considerable trouble on any number of occasions in this House. There is no basis for putting the leave again. That has been done in the past when leave has been denied and then some clarification has ensued and the leave is put again. But one cannot keep revisiting leave once it has been granted. 
I suggest to the House that first of all it is in our own hands how long the debate takes and I certainly intend to be extraordinarily brief in response to this motion on behalf of the Labour Party. I think the ruling you gave Madam Speaker is actually about as close to the wisdom of Solomon as one can get in these circumstances. What you said is that the member was led to believe that he would be able to speak and therefore you should respect that indication he has received from the Clerk’s Office but from this time on people will have to seek leave in the appropriate form if there is to be any debate and revert to the more rational position that if leave is sought without debate then there is no debate—the motion is simply moved and put to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: May I suggest that a solution around this might be for the member to seek leave to have the debate. I agree with the member; leave has already been granted twice for motions without debate. Then members have an opportunity in the light of what we have said to keep it a constrained debate if they wish or to object. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes I will accede to your wishes. I seek leave to debate the motion; I hope the debate will be very brief. I move  
That this House condemn the attacks on several mosques in Auckland on 10 July extend its sympathy and support to the Islamic community in New Zealand and declare that expressions of religious hatred have no place in this country. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be debated. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tertiary Course Enrolments—Government Funding 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How much funding has the Government provided over the last 3 years for student enrolments in Te Wananga o Aotearoa’s Mahi Ora and Kiwi Ora courses and The Open Polytechnic’s LifeWorks course? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The 2005 figures are not yet available. I am advised that the cumulative figure for the previous 3 years for Kiwi Ora is $45.74 million for Mahi Ora it is $94.68 million and for LifeWorks it is $37.33 million. I am further advised that these courses are good that they do have value and that they do reach a lot of people. That advice was from Bill English. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that over the last 3 years excluding 2005 the Government has spent $176 million on these three courses that they are low-level courses equivalent to level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and that he has had advice that the measure of student retention in those courses has turned out to be wrong and that in fact a large proportion of students is unlikely to have completed these courses and is that a good use of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not think it is a good use of taxpayers’ money and that is why the changes which were announced last Monday did happen but I must say that they happened with some opposition. One person has advised me: “What he needs to do now is to stop trying to run the wananga apply the same kinds of criteria as he is meant to apply to all the other tertiary education institutions and let them get on with the job.” That advice on the wananga was from Bill English. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What further reports has he received on the wananga? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen a further report which says: “I’m right on side with anyone who can help people connect to education get on the step get on the escalator and go up as far as the opportunity allows them and their capabilities allow them to go and the wananga has helped draw a lot of people to that start.” That comment was from Bill English speaking to Willie Jackson on Radio Waatea but then again that is one of the things he says when he is speaking to brown people as opposed to what he says in the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that the wananga funding first commenced in 1993 under the National Party Government of Jim Bolger and according to Nick Smith National members are proud of it and is that just another example of the two tired old parties screwing up yet again? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that it did start then and there was a significant change in 1999 when the funding was uncapped. I do accept that it has taken this Government too long to stop it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did this Minister agree in 2003 to the enrolment of 12000 full-time students in these courses and in 2004 agree to 15500 full-time enrolments—larger than the total enrolments of either Victoria University or Waikato University—when he had doubts about the value of the courses and had advice that the statistics used to justify them were cooked? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Minister has never decided how many people go into these courses. That would be absolutely inappropriate. The idea that a Minister should decide how many enrolments go into a particular tertiary course is one that is novel and I would be interested in the Minister and the member discussing that with the universities. What I did tend to do was to take the advice consistent from Bill English that the courses are good they do have value and they reach a lot of people but of course I was listening to a radio station that mainly brown people listen to not to his approach in this House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is he satisfied with the integrity of the enrolment for the 27000 students just referred to with that total cost for those three courses of $176 million of taxpayers’ money particularly in view of the fact that the terms of reference for the Auditor-General specifically excluded examination of enrolment integrity; if not what will he do about it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No and there are investigations that I am sure will result in repayments continuing. 
Student Loans—Possible Changes 
2.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to the student loan scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a proposal to scrap interest charges on student loans for all 436000 people living in New Zealand who have a student loan and to provide an amnesty on penalties for nearly 10000 student loan borrowers overseas who have an overdue repayment obligation. This will encourage overseas Kiwis to come home. It will save those with an average-sized loan balance around $7000 and those with higher loans much much more—up to $80000 in some cases. I am told there is considerable interest in this proposal. The website of the organisation had 133000 hits yesterday and this morning it had 78000. The place to go is www.labour.org. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What further benefits are there in abolishing interest on student loans for those who stay in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This proposal will benefit all New Zealanders who have a loan and their families too. It is particularly good for stay-at-home parents who do not earn any income. Interest will no longer accumulate on their loans while they are not in a position to pay them back. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It doesn’t now. Tell the truth. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is clear that the former Minister of Education does not understand that those inflation adjustments went on and the amount went up. The member for Nelson despite being a member in Cabinet for at least 4 or 5 years did not understand even that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should taxi-drivers and construction workers pay all the interest on the loans of students who can expect high incomes because of the qualifications they have invested in? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Unlike members opposite this Government thinks the children of taxi-drivers and construction workers should be allowed to get a tertiary education. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: When will the Government given that it has said it will abolish interest charges on 1 April 2006 ensure that half of all full-time students become eligible for an allowance—will it be shortly after the election or shortly after hell freezes over? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There has been an undertaking to do that during the next term of this Government and in the term after that we will do something else. 
Rodney Hide 
: How come the Government this year had no money for tax cuts yet within days of the National Party making its election bribe to students Labour found an extra $300 million in operating expenses to cover the wiping of the interest charge and an extra $800 million a year in capital to cover the extra borrowing that will occur as a result of this policy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is a very small proportion of the $5.7 billion that ACT has promised in tax cuts. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That does not in any way address the question I put—that Trevor Mallard and his mates were going around saying they— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. Maybe the Minister would like to give a fuller answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. It is not for a Minister to intercede on a point of order and say to the Speaker that he will answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have accepted the member’s point of order. I was looking at the Minister to ask him to please address the question a little more fully than he did before. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The source of the funding is the same source as the member is using for part of his $5.7 billion tax-cuts promise—that is the $1.9 billion that was clearly shown in this year’s Budget as out-year extra expenditure. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister recall in March disparaging as unaffordable my proposal for a reduction in the interest rate to 3.7 percent and pointing out at that time that even the existing rate of 7 percent was barely sufficient to cover the costs; if he does recall his disparaging of that then can he please advise the House and the country what has changed in the meantime so that he can now afford to abolish the interest rate altogether? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We have of course since that time been through a Budget round and we have the ability to understand the strong state of the economy. It is also fair to say that the member stimulated a train of thought that has proved to be quite useful. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the length of time the Minister has supposedly had to investigate that proposal will he give an undertaking to the House and to the public now that he will issue detailed costings of his proposal setting out the fully calculated long-term cost including allowance for the significance increase in student debt that will result? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The answer to that is I will discuss that with my colleagues. But I also say that that is rich coming from the party that promised to provide its full tax-cuts policy 3 days after the election announcement. Where is it? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Notwithstanding the fact that the last part of that answer was clearly out of order and discredited the Minister more than it did anybody else the first part was a complete circuit around the answer. Does the Minister seriously expect the House to believe that the Government can offer a $300 million package yesterday and not know the out-year costs? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question—I presume that the point of order was about his not answering the question. It may not have been a satisfactory answer but the question was addressed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that the operating expense of some $300 million for this policy is only about one-quarter of what the Opposition has already announced in proposed tax cuts before it gets to the main menu of moving personal rates and is less than half the cost of removing parole? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am advised that that is the case. If one adds the $3 billion to $5 billion cost of a $30 to $50 tax cut for the average worker one sees that it is small change. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a very interesting response from the Minister. Would he be prepared to table the advice he claims he has had? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debating point. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Why does the Government not simply adopt the Green proposal of introducing year-for-year student debt write-off given how many other excellent Green ideas the Government has adopted? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are two points. The first is the difference between $300 million and $7 billion—the latter being the cost of the Green policy. The second point is that the Green policy would much more heavily favour people on higher incomes compared with this approach. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note the Minister Chris Carter is not in the House and I seek leave for the question to be deferred till tomorrow when the Minister will be present. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—Staff Function 
3.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: Did the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service have a function for staff on Friday 17 June at the Stamford Plaza Hotel; if so what did the event involve? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Building Issues 
: Yes the claimed purpose was to improve staff communication with Pacific Island staff members and with Pacific Island people they interact with during their working-day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What was the cost for having the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service office in Auckland closed for 4 hours; for having staff from Wellington fly to Auckland; paying for the dancing Pacific Island girls who were contracted to provide services; for the kava drinking; for food and for the hotel venue; and how would that expenditure help those who have leaky rotting homes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think I have the right one here. The 17 June function cost $6679. Looking at the programme it is not clear how it would have contributed to the resolution of leaky homes. The Minister has already written to the chief executive seeking an explanation for this event. 
Moana Mackey 
: Were staff from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service flown at the taxpayer’s expense specifically to attend themed social functions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Claims made in the House yesterday that the staff were flown and accommodated to attend themed functions are simply not true. Staff travel and accommodation were so they could participate in normal management meetings and at the end of the working-day be able to attend social functions. Perhaps the member who made the claim might care to apologise as he had to grovel in front of Basil Morrison and Gwen Bull for his behaviour at the local government conference. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The last comment was gratuitous and did not address the question. Please withdraw it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister deny that staff air fares were not part of the cost of the function when at the time the function was organised staff from Auckland were told that the meeting was just a front so they could all have a party; and why has the excuse changed now the matter is in the public arena? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that those functions followed on from other seminars and exercises that were engaged in by staff. Incidentally in terms of the theme elements of I think it was “Cowboys and Indians” and various other strange activities staff hired their own costumes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does it say about the culture of extravagance within the public service that $6679 can be spent on a daytime party for staff of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service and that a spokesperson for the service has said that that was completely within Government guidelines; does the Minister now accept that those guidelines which have been set by this Government simply involve gross extravagance at taxpayers’ expense? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not accept the latter any more than that when National Party members go off to a party conference in some resort area a party caucus meeting is necessarily a culture of extravagance. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it roughly correct that the complained-of expenditure is $12000 over four separate events which compares rather favourably with the $52000 of expenditure on a TVNZ night-time shindig on one occasion; and that that begs the question of why the media in this country are engaged in a protection racket are not referring to their fellows and are just hammering the bureaucracy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister for Building Issues bears no responsibility for TVNZ but I think it is well established that TVNZ sometimes engages in more expenditure than the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service does. In terms of the $12000 although I personally think that the seminar that was carried out on Pacific Island affairs did not meet the needs outlined to translate that into some kind of tax cut would involve a very tiny fraction of 1c in 1 year for each taxpayer. 
Diabetes—Prevention and Education 
4.  
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: At what point will she put in place a fully funded public health strategy focusing on diabetes prevention and education? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 When Labour came into Government it launched the New Zealand Health Strategy with diabetes as a key priority. Last year the ministry launched the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action strategy and then the implementation plan with diabetes as one of its main targets. Healthy Eating - Healthy Action aims to improve nutrition increase physical activity and reduce obesity and thus reduce the incidence of diabetes. In the past year Healthy Eating - Healthy Action implementation has received $12 million of Ministry of Health funding in addition to district health board initiatives such as Let’s Beat Diabetes for which the Counties Manukau District Health Board has allocated $10 million over 5 years. 
Tariana Turia 
: How does the Minister intend to respond to the report from Associate Professor Robert Scragg entitled “Preventing diabetes—time is running out” or does she also suffer from the same degree of apathy and indifference to the diabetes epidemic that Professor Scragg describes as occurring amongst influential circles in the Ministry of Health and district health boards? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I absolutely refute those ridiculous claims. This Government has made diabetes one of its main priority areas in all areas of health focus. We are spending millions of dollars and we will gain some momentum when that member helps to advocate for Healthy Eating - Healthy Action and for better eating habits throughout this country. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What priority does the Government place on diabetes prevention and education? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Work is currently being done with both Diabetes New Zealand and the National Heart Foundation on a coordinated approach but we are not waiting for that. Initiatives are in place as I said before such as the free “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme for all New Zealanders and the Counties Manukau District Health Board’s Let’s Beat Diabetes campaign. Although we accept that diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions so too is the meningococcal B epidemic. How does that member reconcile her position of calling for diabetes prevention but not supporting preventive vaccinations for meningococcal B when both diseases are devastating for Maori health? 
Tariana Turia 
: How has the Minister responded to the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ economic report  
Type 2 Diabetes: Managing for Better Health Outcomes 
 and in particular its projections that the total cost of diabetes can be reduced over 20 years if existing services are increased as soon as possible? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: If the member would listen she would know that that is exactly what we are doing. We are spending millions of dollars to increase services to promote healthy eating and healthy action. We too accept the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that says that with that expenditure we will reduce the cost of diabetes over time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the various charts from the Ministry of Health with regard to meningococcal disease to point out categorically that the Minister’s claim of there being an epidemic is absurd and not true. 
Document not tabled. 
Health Services—Free Provision for Under-sixes 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What commitment does she have to providing free health services for under-6-year-olds given that parents identified this in a recent Plunket study as the policy measure most likely to be of assistance to families and parents? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 This Government’s approach has been to work with private practitioners to reduce the costs of primary health care for all New Zealanders. In particular we have ensured that the subsidies for children under 6 and in more recent times the primary health organisation capitation rate have been reviewed and increased regularly. The Consumers Institute surveyed general practices in February this year with a 75 percent response rate and found that 79 percent of respondents provided services free to children under 6. The average charge throughout the country was $1.60. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that New Zealand First’s policy initiative of free doctors’ visits for children under 6 was designed to keep pace with rising costs and inflation and when will she take leadership on this issue and ensure that doctors receive an adequate subsidy to enable them to provide free health care for children under 6 which is in many cases much more than $1.25? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: In 1997 when that member was in Government and introduced that policy doctors were paid $32.50 for each visit. In July 2002 we increased that to $35 and we are now paying $37.40 for each visit to the doctor for any child under 6. We maintain we have kept pace with inflation. We have increased the fees to doctors and we would expect them to charge nothing for those under 6. 
Lesley Soper 
: Could the Minister advise whether she has seen any other recommendations in the Plunket study? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just note that that microphone is not working either so I ask that to be attended to. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Plunket survey which I understand has been delivered to all MPs today and from which the member asked his original question recommended a number of things: extending paid parental leave from 13 weeks per year introducing a universal tax credit system for families accessing affordable quality day care and using methods of guiding children to behave well. We are undertaking a number of initiatives in those areas. I also understand that today’s report to Plunket showed that 71 percent of parents said that smacking when children do things wrong was the least effective way to guide them to behave well. I would therefore encourage New Zealand First and that member to support Sue Bradford’s member’s bill being referred to a select committee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What on earth was the last part of that answer about? He was asked about the full subsidisation of doctors’ visits for children under 6 which should be free and now he is talking about anti-smacking laws. I do not know whether he is a soothsayer or whatever else he may be but we have not had the vote on that bill yet. So perhaps he could be brought back to the point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why has the Minister failed to deliver on the Government’s pledge which stated: “Labour will maintain access to free doctors’ visits for children under 6 years of age.” when today I telephoned four medical centres around the country and found that prices for such visits varied from $3 in south Auckland to $15 in Auckland and $10 in Christchurch and when in a primary health organisation practice in Miramar the Minister’s own electorate I was quoted the cost of a visit for a child under 6 as being $18—but if cash is paid on the day it is only $15? Why has the Minister failed and broken her pledge? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As I stated we are dealing with general practitioners who are private operators in the health system. We have increased by hundreds of millions of dollars the money for primary health care in this country. Dr Hutchison would do well to speak to some of his colleagues who are receiving quite an additional amount of money for each visit to the general practitioner for each child under 6. We hope that general practitioners will see well to charge nothing for those children under 6. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister accept that when we brought in free doctors’ visits for children under 6 in 1987 it was agreed with the medical fraternity that it would be a fair cost and therefore it would be free; and will she and her colleague namely Mr O’Connor himself spend their last few weeks as Ministers in keeping at least one promise that they so boldly made? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We seem to be in some discussion with practitioners as to what is a fair cost and a fair charge. We continue to work on that and trust that they will accept our policy and our general direction of providing access for all children under 6 to have free-of-charge general practitioner visits. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a fees chart dated 1 July 2005 which states that for children under 6 the fees are $15—and they are $18 in Miramar. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Unemployment Benefit—Debt Repayment 
6.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: As the highest debt owed by a recipient of the unemployment benefit at the end of May was $201058.21 and this debt is being repaid at $10 a week does he accept that at this rate the debt will be paid off in around 386 years in the year 2391? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 No. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister believe it is satisfactory that under the Labour Government there is also a sickness beneficiary who defrauded the taxpayer of $159000 a domestic purposes beneficiary who defrauded the taxpayer of $183000 and an invalids beneficiary who defrauded the taxpayer of $222000; and with each fraudster repaying his or her debt at only a few dollars a week is the Minister happy that the signal his Government is sending out is that crime does pay and that welfare beneficiaries need not be concerned about engaging in wholesale welfare fraud? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The signal that this Government sends out is that it has a zero tolerance approach to fraud by staff or by clients. In answer to the member’s question I say that in the first case she raised all but $1000 of that debt was gained through fraud when the client was a domestic purposes beneficiary in 1988. Following an investigation that client was prosecuted and went to prison. The current level of debt repayment is $20 a week which is based upon the person’s ability to pay. How long that person will take to pay the debt will depend of course on future earnings because repayment is always based on that. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can the Minister enlighten the primary questioner and the House as to what policies this Government has in place to address benefit fraud and debt? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: All cases of deliberate fraud are prosecuted. It is a disappointing fact that despite best efforts some people do manage to defraud the system. To ensure that all debts are recovered weekly repayments are calculated as appropriate to each client’s present financial circumstances at a level at which the client can afford to repay without incurring family hardship. Case managers work individually with clients to continually review the repayments as the clients’ circumstances change. The focus on moving people into sustainable employment ensures that if they are in employment and earning a higher wage they pay back faster. This approach has meant that the proportion of beneficiary debtors repaying their debts has increased significantly with 96 percent of debtors on a benefit now repaying their debts. That did not happen under the Government that the ACT party supported. 
Judith Collins 
: Why does the Minister continue to refuse to acknowledge the real abuse of the welfare system and what a serious problem it is by letting these sorts of fraudulent debts rack up and by ignoring his own ministry’s indication that the recent growth in sickness and invalids benefits is coming in fact from transfers from within the benefit system indicating even more fraud? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I repeat that this Government has taken a very strong approach to fraud. We now have a significant increase from the level under the previous Government in the number of debtors who are repaying their debt. The statement that people are transferring to the sickness benefit and invalids benefit is utterly stupid and wrong. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen on alternative approaches to debt recovery? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a report that claims to have “a penalty system that ensures benefit crime … is treated with the seriousness it deserves”. Despite that claim in a media release however there is no mention whatsoever of this penalty system in ACT’s social welfare policy. In other words ACT offers lots of complaints but as usual no solutions. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: When the Government was considering its “soft on welfare fraud” policy did it give any consideration to the fact that ordinary taxpayers who have never been on welfare now feel like suckers taxed to the hilt to let fraudsters steal enough for a house when if ordinary taxpayers are a day late in paying their GST or child support they get hit hard with penal rates; or does the Minister’s Government not care? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would say to taxpayers that under this Government we now have 96 percent of these debtors paying back money. That was not the case when the Government that that member supported was in power. I also say to taxpayers that under this Government we have returned $3.3 billion of welfare spending to Treasury so that it can be spent elsewhere on their needs. 
Question time interrupted. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt question time but I may have to leave before we have finished given the way the time is going. Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday and to further discussions particularly with the Hon Richard Prebble I seek leave for the Hon Richard Prebble to make a valedictory statement at 5 p.m. tomorrow and for other members to make valedictory statements immediately after question time on Tuesday 2 August apart from Helen Duncan who is to make a valedictory statement later that sitting day at a time agreed with the Speaker. All valedictory statements are to be up to 15 minutes in duration. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a matter of clarification. Obviously a significant amount of time will be consumed in this process. I want to know whether it includes other members of the ACT party and the Green Party members or just Mr Prebble. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It will include the I think eight members of the House who have indicated that they are retiring. By long tradition those who involuntarily retire at elections never get to make a valedictory statement. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 On that point of clarification I missed one of my valedictories. Can I have two? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. It will be followed. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Crimes Act—Repeal of Section 59 
7.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Will the Government support referring my bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 to a select committee today? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: 
Yes the Government will support sending this bill to a select committee. Whether section 59 should be repealed or amended is still an open question that can only benefit from wide public debate at a select committee. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister confirm that full repeal of section 59 has the support of large numbers of organisations that advocate for the best interests of children such as Barnardos New Zealand as well as both the Children’s Commissioner and the Chief Families Commissioner? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. I understand there are strong views on either side of the debate and that is why the Government supports the bill going to a select committee—so that these very issues can be debated. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Is the Government by supporting this bill taking away parents’ choices about how they discipline their children? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No. The Government does not support a ban on smacking. The Government is supporting an informed and public debate between two extremes. New Zealanders express genuine distress whenever a child has been assaulted. At the same time New Zealand parents do not want to be held criminally liable for smacking their children in the sweets queue at the supermarket. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister of Justice agree that if section 59 is repealed and smacking is therefore deemed to be abuse what parents should primarily fear is not criminal prosecution but their children being removed by Child Youth and Family Services and the ridiculous situation resulting whereby the vast majority of New Zealand families could be subject to an investigation by Child Youth and Family Services; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I cannot comment on the assertion that is made here about Child Youth and Family Services but I do have some sympathy for frontline Child Youth and Family Services staff. They are condemned when they intervene and just as strongly condemned when they do not. What they and their Minister can be congratulated on is the significant reduction in the number of cases waiting to be addressed. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware that similar steps in other countries—to repeal laws that are their equivalent of our section 59—have not led to police arresting parents for lightly smacking their children or physically restraining them when they are in dangerous situations? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I understand that while some countries such as Sweden and Germany have moved to end any physical disciplining of children others such as England and Wales and the state of New South Wales have amended legislation to define more closely and clarify what forms of discipline are reasonable and acceptable. 
Murray Smith 
: Why is the Government supporting this bill which will further disempower good New Zealand parents when its other social engineering legislation this term has already done enough to lose it the election? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I do not accept the assertion that we are disempowering parents. Whether repealing or amending section 59 is the best alternative is the issue that needs examination at a select committee. This debate is a serious one. The community is divided. As parliamentarians we should give the chance for this issue to be debated seriously. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister know that in Sweden the 1979 smacking ban contributed to a 489 percent increase in physical child-abuse cases classified as criminal assaults from 1981 to 1994 with the perpetration of criminal assaults against 7 to 14-year-olds increasing most rapidly in terms of those age groups raised after the smacking law was passed? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No I have not read that research but I think that is just the sort of case that should be argued in front of a select committee. I believe that that member would not agree with physical assault or brutality on children nor would he agree with the criminalisation of parents who smack their kids. We need to sort this out and clarify it. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister seen the recent Littlies Lobby research which came out last night that shows that 97 percent of the over 1300 parents of preschoolers it had surveyed did not believe physical discipline was highly effective; and given this clear signal from today’s parents will she support full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would remind members that when members are asking a question the convention is that members hear the question in silence. I ask the Hon Marian Hobbs to respond. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I heard about this research on radio this morning but I am not sure that one could conclude that 97 percent of parents support the repeal of section 59. The research does by inference support the work of this Government in investing in SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Government agree that repeal of section 59 must go hand in hand with improved education and support for parents and would-be parents; if so can the Minister guarantee that funding for groups that provide such education and support is secure under her Government? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I absolutely agree that legislation or changes in law must go hand in hand with education. Education about positive parenting and effective non-physical discipline of children that sets clear boundaries and teaches kids the difference between right and wrong is a priority for this Government. That is why we have invested $10.8 million over 3 years in the SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents positive parenting programme. 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—Caregivers 
8.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Is she satisfied that her and the Child Youth and Family Services’ response to concerns raised about the suitability of caregivers is consistent with her statement of 23 June 2005 that “we are now moving into a phase of what I would describe as performance excellence”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes I am satisfied that when concerns about the suitability of caregivers are raised prior to children being placed or during their placement with a caregiver that response is consistent with my statement. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What does she think of her own “performance excellence” given it took her over 5 days to reply after I phoned and faxed her office for an urgent response because there was video evidence of child sexual abuse carried out by a Child Youth and Family Services - appointed caregiver even though the local vicar the parents and I had written to Child Youth and Family Services months earlier warning of the caregiver’s unsuitability? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: When the member who raised that question first contacted my office he was advised given his concerns were being expressed 3 months after the children had been removed from the placement with that caregiver that that matter would be subject to an investigation and I had confirmed that already with my secretary. When he became abusive on the second phone call to my secretary I rang him personally. He was in caucus at the time. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take personal offence at the Minister suggesting that I was abusive on the phone. I think I am generally known as a relatively mild and rational person. I can assure this House that when I phoned her secretary for the second time I maintained absolute calm and decency because I was so concerned about this case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not unparliamentary per se to use the word “abusive” but I would ask the Minister to reconsider whether it was appropriate in the context of her answer in this case. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: When I rang Dr Hutchison back on the Tuesday I was advised that he was in caucus. I confirmed with his secretary that I understood his concerns the children had been removed 3 months prior to his call the previous week and that I would contact him again to have a discussion with him which I subsequently did. Dr Hutchison was well aware of the fact that the children had been removed 3 months prior. 
In regard to the second point that Dr Hutchison raised in his letter to Child Youth and Family Services in November of the previous year concerns were not raised about the safety of the children. Concerns were raised about the accommodation situation of the children’s parents and whether the children would eventually be able to return to live with them. Those were not issues dealing with the safety of the children but nevertheless the safety of the children was investigated and confirmed. 
Dave Hereora 
: Can the Minister outline Child Youth and Family Services’ performance achievements? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not have time to outline them all but I can highlight the fact that Child Youth and Family Services has reduced the number of unallocated cases by 78 percent since May of last year despite an 80 percent increase in notifications. Children are being seen more quickly and determinations of abuse or neglect obviously made more quickly as well. The number of social workers has gone up by 26 percent under this Government. Many of those social workers are being registered and nearly all of them would be threatened by an incoming National Government. 
Paul Adams 
: Can the Minister confirm whether her department has done anything to action the promise of her colleague the Hon Steve Maharey that it would move to ensure that grandparents raising their grandchildren are not short-changed by getting $30 less a week than Child Youth and Family Services foster caregivers get; if not is this just another example of where this Government is happy to ignore the needs of the natural family? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Tragically that is not a quote that I am familiar with despite having frequent engagements with grandparents raising grandchildren and Minister Maharey. I doubt that that quote is accurate but I can confirm that significant progress has been made by both the Ministry of Social Development and Child Youth and Family Services towards better supporting grandparents who are in that situation. I am delighted with the progress for grandparents who certainly deserve that increased support. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the taxpayer paying through Child Youth and Family Services for one family to care for four Chinese babies—babies of Chinese students formerly in this country who have disappeared back to China leaving this debt with the New Zealand State for the rest of their juvenile lives? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I presume that if that is the situation then the answer to the question asking why the Department of Child Youth and Family Services is caring for them would be that if the babies were left on their own they would die. 
Judith Collins 
: What does it take for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and this Minister to take seriously warnings of sexual depravity in the caregiver if the warnings of parents a local vicar and a member of Parliament are ignored or dismissed as we have just seen today and how can she justify the fact that it took police action—it was the police who took the children out—before the Department of Child Youth and Family Services woke up to the fact that it had put three vulnerable children into a home where they were likely to be sexually exploited? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I indicated in the answer to the primary question no such allegations have been made by Dr Hutchison in writing by the children’s family who confirmed their support of the placement of their children with that caregiver or by any other member of the family. At the end of this question I will seek leave to table the letter from Dr Hutchison with the family’s names removed so that every member of our society can see that Dr Hutchison and Mrs Collins have grossly misrepresented his advocacy which was non-existent. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What responsibility does the Minister regard herself or her colleagues as having to the New Zealand taxpayer when she thinks it is a laughing matter for four Chinese students to leave their babies here and shoot off back to China leaving the charges to the New Zealand taxpayer for the next 21 years; why is that a laughing matter? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I was certainly not laughing and I did not notice any member of this House laughing. I do not agree with the member’s assertion that it was a laughing matter. I was not amused by it. The point I made was that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has a State responsibility to be the parent for children when their birth parents are absent and in this case tragically they were. 
Judith Collins 
: Who first decided that something had to be done to remove the three children from the sexual pervert; was it the police or was it the Department of Child Youth and Family Services doing its job? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: On 17 March which was the first and only time that staff from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services had notification of sexual abuse of the one child who was living with the caregiver they removed that child immediately. The first and only time such a notification had been made was on 17 March this year. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think the Minister has addressed the question which asked who brought this abuse to attention; was it the Department of Child Youth and Family Services or was it the police? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The first and only time that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services was alerted to an allegation of sexual abuse was on 17 March of this year by the police. Dr Hutchison has never made that allegation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of the Minister’s department’s responsibility to bring these practices to the attention of the Minister of Finance the Prime Minister and herself how many rip-offs of the New Zealand taxpayer have to happen before she and her colleagues realise just how serious this issue is where all manner of costs are being imported into this country and imposed on New Zealand taxpayers whilst 1329 New Zealanders died on hospital waiting lists because we never had enough money to pay for their operations; when will she stop thinking it is a laughing matter and do something about it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Can I first repeat that at no stage of the question this afternoon have I found the assertions made by the member a laughing matter but now that the member has brought to my attention the fact that some people are coming to New Zealand from overseas having babies and leaving them here to be cared for at the State’s cost I will certainly have that matter investigated. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two letters. The first is dated 29 November 2004 which shows that my constituents are deeply concerned about various issues regarding their four children. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter which has been sufficiently identified by the member. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second letter dated 24 June and marked “urgent” to the Hon Ruth Dyson states: “I believe this situation requires an immediate full and urgent inquiry.” 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to the substance of the Minister’s answer to my question. We have four babies being placed with foster parents through the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and the Minister says she does not know about it. I do not believe that that could have happened without it being brought to the attention of the department and the Minister. Perhaps the Minister at least could clarify that in respect of her answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but that is not a point of order. 
Paul Adams 
: I seek leave to table the question of Judy Turner to the Hon Steve Maharey on 10 May which confirms the statement I referred to in my supplementary question as to what Steve Maharey said. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I seek leave to table Dr Hutchison’s letter to the Department of Child Youth and Family Services of 29 November 2004 with all the family names deleted. 
Document not tabled. 
Nuclear-free New Zealand—Status 
9.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Does the Government intend to make any changes to New Zealand’s nuclear-free status? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: No. The Labour-Progressive Government is proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Has he seen any reports of proposals to change New Zealand’s nuclear-free status? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Look on the Order Paper. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes apart from the matter on the Order Paper I have seen reports on six such proposals. One indicated that the ban on nuclear ships could be gone by lunchtime. The second indicated that the ban should go only following approval of any change from the United States and Australia. The third said that no decision could be made from Opposition. The fourth proposal is to repeal the ban following a referendum. The fifth proposal was to repeal after a campaign in favour of change. The sixth and so far the last report suggests that some or all of the previous proposals are still there but no commitment is made to any of them right now. No wonder the national council of the National Party was so concerned about Dr Brash’s tendency to flip-flop. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is the basis of the Government’s support for New Zealand’s anti-nuclear status? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has consistently maintained a position in favour of New Zealand’s antinuclear status for some 20 years now. It is one of the distinguishing features of New Zealand’s foreign policy and is part of our general opposition to the spread of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear warfare. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the visits of any foreign warship requires the consent of the New Zealand Government; if so can he explain the purpose of the legislative ban on nuclear propulsion when the Government can accede to or deny any visit of any ship particularly in light of the Edward Somers report to Cabinet of 1992 which after a year’s study concluded that there is no environmental risk or public safety reason or justification for continuing the ban on nuclear propulsion. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The legislation does not give the Government the capacity to override the ban on nuclear propulsion. It requires the Minister responsible the Prime Minister to certify to the best of her ability that in fact no nuclear weapons are on board. In the case of the United States of course it has already stated that all its surface ships no longer normally carry nuclear weapons and therefore presumably any United States surface ships that are non - nuclear powered will be able to enter New Zealand ports on request. 
Civil Union Act—Marriage Act 
10.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her response to the question in  
Express  
Magazine last year whether she would consider amending the Marriage Act 1955 once the Civil Union Bill had passed to allow for same-sex marriage that “I think you need to see how the civil union settles in … see how it goes see how the times are moving and keep in mind international developments. We tend to be as progressive as any country on these issues.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. The member should note that the Prime Minister did not say she would consider amending the Marriage Act. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does this intention to keep the way open for same-sex marriage explain why she and the Labour Government were unwilling to give support to my Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill which would make it clear that marriage in New Zealand can be between only one man and one woman in the same way that the Liberal National and Labor parties in the Australian Parliament did last year; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. First of all I notice that the member is so keen on the bill that he has withdrawn it from the Order Paper for today which is the last opportunity before the election for consideration of it. The second point is that the bill is pointless because the law is clear. The courts have already ruled that marriage can be between only a man and a woman. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is she familiar with the advice from the Ministry of Justice regarding my bill which states: “Although it has been clear that the common law understanding of marriage is between a man and a woman this could be overturned because of some overseas decisions and the recognition of same-sex marriage in some countries.”; if so does she appreciate the concern of the majority of New Zealanders—confirmed in a DigiPoll this week—that my bill be passed to make our law clear; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that if the member was so keen to have the bill passed this week it is somewhat unusual that he withdrew it from the Order Paper for today. Perhaps that is not to be regarded in this context as some kind of breach of promise! In New Zealand we have already had the case of  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 on which the court has ruled extremely clearly indeed. I would also suggest that the passage of the Civil Union Act itself would suggest to a New Zealand court that in fact the Marriage Act does relate to a relationship between a man and a woman only. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the Prime Minister give an absolute assurance to the people of New Zealand and this House that if any case is lodged in the courts to challenge the common law position of marriage being between only one man and one woman she—if she is the Prime Minister at the time—along with her Government will move immediately as it did with the foreshore and seabed legislation to amend the Marriage Act along the lines of my proposed bill; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is more than hypothetical because certainly the advice the Prime Minister has is that the courts are quite clear on this particular matter and are not going to change their minds on this particular matter. I might say on the foreshore and seabed matter that we did actually wait for the court decision before legislating. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want just to save confusion. Given Mr Baldock’s new-found enthusiasm for his bill that he withdrew and that would have been voted on and sent to a select committee had he not withdrawn it could you Madam Speaker please advise him that he could seek leave of the House to put his bill back on the Order Paper so that members can vote on it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is not a point of order. 
Transport Funding—Increase Since Change of Government 
11.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: By how much has transport funding increased since the change in Government in 1999? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Total spending is up to a record $1.7 billion this year which is more than 80 percent higher than when we took office. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What progress has been made on major Auckland projects compared with the 1999-2000 year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One way to measure a Government’s determination to get things done is to look at major projects. All Governments are capable of putting in another passing lane or straightening a bend but the big projects which are defined as costing more than $30 million tell quite a different story. When we came to office the value of big projects in Auckland that were under way or recently completed totalled $130 million. Today using exactly the same criterion the big projects under way or recently completed total $1300 million which is a tenfold increase. That shows very clearly just which Government was responsible for Auckland’s gridlock and just which Government is addressing it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Does the Minister feel that comparing absolute dollars today with figures from last century is about as sensible as saying: “Mine’s bigger than yours was then but yours was bigger than ours was the time before that and yours was bigger than ours the time before that.” and why do we not get back to comparing what Nordmeyer and Nash spent between 1957 and 1960 which was only £85 million? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is true that the more than 80 percent increase I gave the House is the nominal figure. If the member wants the real figure it is a mere more than 65 percent. But it does not matter at all which way one looks at it; we are now addressing a land transport infrastructure deficit that was created during the time that the member who asked the question was Minister and the underlying reason was that he was a member of a Government that had its mind on tax cuts—as it has now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister tell the House why the Transit board which includes the president of the New Zealand Labour Party has overruled the Transit executive management recommendation that the Tauranga Harbour Bridge be designated a State highway as it fully met all the criteria to be funded from the land transport programme if the whole programme behind this from the Government’s point of view is not a giant confidence trick? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The only advice I have received from the Transit board or management is that it believes that there are two choices for the harbour link in Tauranga. One is to build it now with tolling and one is to build it later without. Later according to Transit means starting more than 10 years from now and tolling would mean if it were to occur the bridge being opened in 2009. That is the advice from Transit. What is more when the public of Tauranga were asked what they thought was a good idea 72 percent thought it was a good or a very good idea to toll and 22 percent thought it was a bad or a very bad idea to toll. So 72:22 is a pretty clear result although 2 percent did not know. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister name one example of a place in this country that has two State highways on each side of a bridge where the bridge is not a State highway and stop the obfuscation that says to the Western Bay: “You can have a bridge only if it’s tolled.” and why does he not support the fact that the president of the Labour Party and that jacked-up board designed to get past their own advice so they would not have to pay for it right now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is true that if we did not have a toll on the bridge we could build a bridge none the less but we could not build it today. That is the choice. What is more the issue of State highways is entirely irrelevant because the first toll road which was approved by this Government only a few months ago happens to be State Highway 1 from Orewa through to Puhoi. The construction of that road through some very difficult tiger country is now under way whereas without tolling it would not be. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How much has spending on passenger transport increased since the Greens and Labour began cooperating on transport issues? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please. I am sure members all want to hear the answer to this question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Spending on rail is up nearly 150 percent. Spending on bus and ferry services is up nearly 250 percent. The walking and cycling percentage increases do not exist because under National there was no spending. If one adds capital expenditure on double tracking busways etc. total expenditure this year is set to top a quarter of a billion dollars. I acknowledge the consistent support of the Green Party in passenger transport’s come-back. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you are not responsible for answers but I wonder whether the Minister might clarify it. I certainly took it from that answer that Labour’s next tax move will be to tax cyclists and pedestrians. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but if the member wishes to raise a supplementary question that is fine. But I think that his colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson has the call. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Do some of those amazing Auckland projects the Minister has referred to include State Highway 20 Mount Roskill extension which Transit stated would start “this year” on its website back in 2000 which Transit stated on its website in 2001 would start “later this year” which a glossy brochure dated 31 October 2001 stated would start “in May next year” and take 3 years and be opened by May 2005 which Transit has stated three times since then—including in a brochure that went to every household in Auckland—would start this year and which as all members of this House will know has not yet started? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: They just cannot take the good news can they? About 15 projects are going on in Auckland and huge numbers of—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You cannot hear either. 
Rodney Hide 
: This is going to be good. I think we should all try to listen to it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could members please keep the level of interjections down a bit. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: They just cannot take the good news can they? Auckland’s major project expenditure is up tenfold from the day we took office. The number of projects under way is now way higher than it ever was. The number of projects that are coming in ahead of time is now higher than it was. The number of projects new to the 10-year planning coming on is higher than it was. But what do Opposition members do? They pick on the one roading project that went backwards because there was a problem with another piece of legislation concerning a volcanic cone. That is the one thing they can do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why should the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga who have paid for the old bridge Route P and all the rest with the tolls have to put up with this confidence trick from his appointed body of changing the designation of the bridge not to be a State highway when his Government allows the pouring into this country of 155000 imported cars every year most of which go to Auckland and 40000 to 50000 immigrants every year who go mainly to Auckland; why should we in Tauranga pay for that and when will he agree to the New Zealand First proposition that the new bridge should be paid for straight out of State highway funds and now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The choice we presented to the good people of Tauranga was: “Would you like your bridge now with tolls or would you like it later without?” because that is how it is ranked. The good people of Tauranga voted by a margin of 72:22 to have it now and to have it tolled. They said to the Government: “What’s more we need more land transport infrastructure than that.” The Government has begun a process to see whether we should assist and in due course we will give an answer to that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the survey done of the good citizens of Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty which demonstrates that at no time were they asked the question: “Do you want the Government to pay for your new bridge?”. 
Document not tabled. 
Human Rights Act—Maori Protocol 
12.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Why does his department require women to go to the back of the room and not speak at welcoming and farewell ceremonies just because they are women and how does he reconcile this discrimination against women with the Human Rights Act 1993? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Corrections) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Corrections 
: The department has no such requirement. 
Stephen Franks 
: How does the Minister justify his answer to a probation officer Ellen Armstrong who complained about the same discrimination in March 2002 discreetly going through the proper channels but with absolutely no result; and why then did the Minister on 7 March this year tell me in writing that Josie Bullock’s similar complaint was being considered together with a complaint against her from the Maori staff network when 6 months later she was told in writing that her complaint could not be assessed because the department has no policy or protocol on powhiri and poroporoaki and now she has been suspended for publicly claiming her right as a woman to equal treatment from the Government? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Firstly employment matters are the responsibility of the chief executive of the department not the Minister. However I am also advised that the issue with Ms Bullock has nothing to do with her views on poroporoaki or powhiri but with her conduct. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware of reports of a real case of discrimination whereby female inmates are having access to their children removed as a form of punishment and was it the influence of the “United Fundamentalist Party” that led to a policy of visiting the sins of the parents on the children? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for any other party but may address the rest of the question. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Yes I am aware of that matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Notwithstanding the Minister’s denials today of any problems within the Department of Corrections in these matters have any of the recommended reviews been carried out in respect of Department of Corrections Maori-based rehabilitation programmes and is the case of Josie Bullock an example of that department’s determination to place more emphasis on Maori custom than on reducing offending or on other human rights? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I say once again the issue with regard to Ms Bullock has nothing to do with her views on powhiri or poroporoaki. It is to do with her conduct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which shows the very clear story of Helen Clark being told by one Titewhai Harawira not to speak on the marae and to sit down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The second document is from the next year when Titewhai took Helen Clark on to the marae and what sort of demonstration of consistency is that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Heather Roy 
: What evidence does the Minister have that efforts by the Department of Corrections to reduce sexist aggression and bullying by male offenders are not undermined by Maori cultural ceremonies which emphasise the warrior dominance of males? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I am not sure where that question is going but there are no instances where Maori culture has been used to undermine anyone at any institution. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Minister seriously telling the House that despite having notice of this question he is not aware that Ellen Armstrong complained about discrimination in 2002 in Maori ceremonies and her being required to go to the back—and now we have a second case—or is it this Government’s view that it is satisfactory for a Minister to get up in the House and say: “Yes I’m aware of it.” and do nothing; does this Government actually stand against discrimination against women and if so what is he as Minister going to do about this disgraceful situation? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Attendance at these ceremonies is voluntary and usually the speaking order is predetermined and the seating arrangements are done accordingly. Ms Bullock sat in a seat that was reserved for a speaker. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Department of Corrections informing Josie Bullock that because the department does not have a policy or protocol on powhiri there is nothing to assess her complaint against. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a communication from the department advising staff to turn up to their training in powhiri which states the males will sit in the front row and the females in the back seats. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table an email message from Ellen Armstrong to the office solicitor of the Department of Corrections in 2002 asking whether the workplace practice requiring females to sit behind their male colleagues was part of a discriminatory employment practice or policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table a message from Ellen Armstrong to me setting out the steps that she had taken to challenge that practice. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm whether Western gender role distinctions reconcile with Maori cultural gender distinctions in relation to protocols for powhiri and whakatau? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: In a marae situation there really are distinctions between who has certain roles. In an institution of that kind as stated earlier on there is no such policy but training in protocols in relation to tikanga Maori is available. 
General Debate 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The other person in the running for the position of Prime Minister of this land is a person with a very very unusual preparation for the bid. He wants the highest office in the land but he has not yet in his long life won an election—not once. He has never won an election. About a quarter of a century ago he managed to lose a blue ribbon seat whilst standing for National in Auckland. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who to? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: To Social Credit! Then 3 years later he did it again. He lost to the “funny money” party twice in 3 years in a blue ribbon seat in Auckland. That is an unbelievable electoral record. He was appointed to the top of the National Party list—that is how he got into Parliament. The only election he has won since he has been in Parliament was one in which there were 29 votes including his own— 
Darren Hughes 
: How many? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There were 29 votes which were cast behind closed doors. He won by mistake when the margin against him was considered too wide and a number of his colleagues changed their votes without telling one another. That is the totality of his electoral history and it ain’t going to get any better 53 days from now. 
It is not just his electoral history that creates some sort of world record—it is also his political views which are radical indeed. This is the man who said of nuclear legislation that if it were up to him it would be gone by lunchtime. This is the man who said that frankly he did not care who owns schools. This is the man who said about Iraq that he would have done what President Bush did. Those are startling and scary things to say. They are not mainstream viewpoints. Most New Zealanders want to keep their nuclear legislation. Most thought that this Government’s decision not to go to Iraq was the right one. Most New Zealanders want a State education system; they do care who owns schools. Those are unusual swirly eyed views; they are radical things to say. They are off the wall unsettling and very strange. They are scary stuff. 
We put those words on billboards on Friday and over the weekend we put the billboards in prominent places. Do members know what Dr Brash said? He said that that was a personal attack when all we did was use his words and put them on billboards. Did we misquote him? No. Did we quote him out of context? No. Might it be that Dr Brash somehow did not say those things? No. We simply took his words and put them on billboards and he said that it was a personal attack. If members want to know what a personal attack looks like they should go to the authorised biography of the man. There they will find the stories of the holey pyjamas. There they will find the stories about the corned beef and the peas. That is what a personal attack is. He scored an own goal in his authorised biography. 
The guy is easily rattled because he has always been the boss. He is easily rattled because he has never had a job interview. He is easily rattled because he has always been in control. He has always had his views agreed to and he is offended that these days his views are being challenged and even quoted. 
This is not a personal attack. It is a series of quotes that Dr Brash made before his Aussie minders got to him and started to shut him down. That is why his language has changed over recent months. That is why he now has more positions on nuclear ships than he received votes when he became the leader of National. That is where Dr Brash the flip-flopper came from. On every topic imaginable Dr Brash has as many different propositions as one can imagine—one for every day of the week one for every audience one for every poll rating and one for every mood. 
In fact today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
gave an interesting insight because it quoted more National Party board minutes from last December. It said: “The issue of perceived flip-flops has to be dealt with professionally and efficiently…”. The National Party council could smell the trouble back then in December. It knew that it was in difficulties. The minutes go on: “The portrayal of National and its leader as being indecisive has to be reversed…”. Those are the minutes from the bowels of the National Party. It knew that it was in trouble. Of course the important thing is that those flip-flops occurred because that guy was telling the truth then and is now not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is no wonder that after that speech the Labour back benches are empty. The ninth-ranked Cabinet Minister came to the House and opened his speech by saying that the only person in the running to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand at this election is Don Brash. He is right—absolutely right. That is a concession. All those Labour back-benchers have scurried back to their offices and are on the phone to Michael Cullen to say that they think they should go on the list of those who will give a valedictory speech. That is what is going on at the moment. 
They cannot be happy that the Prime Minister has gone out and said that this election will be about trust integrity and experience. Let us look at those three things. Voters trusted Labour with treaty issues and Labour divided the public. They trusted Labour with education and Labour ditched the system. They trusted Labour with health and they got longer waiting lists. They trusted Labour with welfare and they got a bigger bill. It is not a surprise then that voters are perplexed scratching their heads and asking why they should trust that woman. 
Then voters start remembering “corngate” “paintergate” the Yelash allegations the allegations against the Auckland surgeon and the speeding incident in Canterbury—the 140-kilometre-an-hour dash across the Canterbury Plains with the Prime Minister apparently having no memory of what happened. She is not being called into court. We wonder why that is because we know that at the last minute as the Prime Minister stepped into the Koru lounge she told the policeman who was responsible for her safety that it had been a courageous trip. 
Hon Member 
: What was that? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: She said it had been a courageous trip. The woman who sat in the back of the car who had no idea how fast it was going told the policeman that it had been a courageous trip. That was Helen Clark the Prime Minister. There we have two examples of why Labour is in trouble—people cannot trust Labour members and they have no integrity. 
Then we come to experience. I want to say only one or two words to show how valuable experience is in the Labour Party. I say two words only: George Hawkins. That is what experience can do for us. I have another two words: Trevor Mallard. Members should have a look at the education system; it is completely botched. Here are another two words: Pete Hodgson. The taxpayer now has a $1 billion bill through sheer incompetence and the misleading of the country over climate change issues. That is what we have with that party. There can be no trust Labour has no integrity and has experience that we just do not want. 
I move now to the issue of Maori Language Week. This is Maori Language Week. The National Party has made it very clear that it wants to support te reo Maori and promote tikanga etc. but we will not tolerate some of the patronising programmes put in place by this Government. I want New Zealanders to know and to be comforted by the fact that today Inland Revenue Department offices throughout the country are doing some special things for Maori Language Week. On Monday all staff were given name badges with their names translated into Maori however that might happen. All the Johns became Hone and all the Stevens became Tipene etc. Then today the Inland Revenue Department stopped work for 2 hours— 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s good. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Hide says that is good. I sort of agree with him on that. However the Inland Revenue Department stopped work for 2 hours so that staff could all participate in and observe an acting out of Maori myths and legends. Then on Friday just to cap off the week and put a bit of a lid on the patronising way in which the department has dealt with this important subject it will have a hangi. But most of the Inland Revenue Department offices are in the concrete jungles of this country and there is no way to put a hangi in the ground. So it will bring in the big boilers and will basically have a European-style hangi. 
That is the sort of thing this Government engages in all the time. A race relations Minister was going to deal with some of the nonsense around this stuff. There are a few more words that one can use there: no trust no experience and no integrity. 
Darren Hughes 
: Ka kite ano. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Goodbye Darren hello Mr Guy. 
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 After that tirade I stand with a bit of trepidation to speak. Last Wednesday the Minister for Social Development and Employment dropped a bombshell on the horizon. His press release announced that a social report paints a positive picture of New Zealand life. We have had experience before of how much this Government values the truth. The Government has yet again chosen to paint its positive picture of a situation that otherwise provides some fairly sobering reading. Steve Maharey said that the report shows a largely positive picture: “New Zealanders are living longer healthier lives. We are better educated safer and earn more than in the past.” That may be the picture they are trying to paint but the truth is that the masterpiece is beginning to crack. 
Why are there more people in prison than ever before? Why are people—mainly Maori and Pacific peoples—dying of a diabetes epidemic? It is because the Government refuses to invest the appropriate resources as recommended by PricewaterhouseCoopers. We heard the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor claim to have improved resources for diabetes education and promotion but the reality is that it is simply not enough. The Government continues to tinker around the edges as people continue to die and become disabled in horrendous numbers. 
How does the positive picture of this nation account for the fact that we are experiencing greater numbers of people in poverty in situations of deprivation and social stress such as those caused by poor housing overcrowding and low incomes? Why will young Maori boys and girls born today still die at a greater rate than others? It is precisely because of that disparity that we are proposing shifting the age of entitlement for superannuation for Maori to be reduced from 65 to 60 years in order to fit with current Maori life expectancy. 
How is it that the masterpiece this Government asks us to admire appears to have overlooked the ugly face of racism? One of the most concerning findings in the social report is that 78 percent of respondents thought Asian people were subject to a great deal of or some discrimination. Seventy-two percent of respondents thought that recent migrants were the target of such discrimination and 70 percent thought that refugees were the target. Is it a coincidence that just 3 days after this finding appeared on the public radar a rally was organised in defence of tolerance at the Aotea Square by the Council of Christians and Muslims? 
The problem is that this social report is not about people of colour; it is about the fact that those who benefit most from the systems in place treat the rest of us as “the other”. The nation has had enough of pictures being painted that are dishonest and that hide the truth of the reality in front of us. It is a very well-known fact that the health of mature and civilised nations is measured by the health status of its most vulnerable groups—indigenous people children people living with disabilities and other marginalised groups. This is the picture we must come to grips with before we go to the polls: a picture of poverty. 
The Minister cannot put his hand over his heart and suggest that the report is a positive picture when the current level of poverty amongst children is at 21 percent. It is almost 50 percent higher than it was before the reforms of 1988 when the level was 14 percent. We should not forget that as at the 2001 census 23 percent of all children under 18 identified as Maori 11 percent as Pacific Islanders and 7 percent as Asian. So the positive picture being painted by the Government does not include the reality of life for many children of colour. The Maori Party has particular concern about the fact that the proportion of children in sole parent families below the poverty threshold rose from 18 percent in 1988 to 66 percent in 2002. This group more than any know that recent Government decisions will disproportionately disadvantage it. 
We have been concerned about the likely impact of the “Working Against Families” initiative on whanau that live well below the poverty line. About 300000 children will miss out on the child tax credit. The Government’s package keeps the child tax credit in place only until 2006. Furthermore the “Working Against Families” package removes the child-related component of between $17 and $21 in core benefits. This equates to 175000 children being deprived of the child-related component of core benefits. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As we head out of this House and into the final phase of the 2005 election campaign voters face some pretty stark choices. Will we see the return of a National-led Government with all the dangers that that implies? Some of us certainly have memories of the early 1990s which are not very far away. Or will we see a Green-Labour Government that can progress a whole range of workable and progressive solutions to environmental and social problems? 
National talks a lot about tax cuts as its big promise but I would like to warn people particularly low to middle income earners of the menace of rapid inflation and potentially huge job losses especially in the State sector that National’s cuts may well bring. The Green Party on the other hand is firmly committed to the sound and universal provision of health education superannuation and welfare that is backed by a progressive tax system to pay for it. We do not want to see the kinds of job losses that we saw in the 1980s and 1990s. There is a big enough gap between rich and poor in this country already as the previous speaker pointed out. Tax cuts that massively favour high-income people will only entrench this gap and the desperation of those at the bottom will continue even further. At the same time National’s blunt instrument of corporate tax cuts will principally benefit foreign corporations not most Kiwi businesses. 
When it comes to students and tertiary policy—another key issue in this election—again the Green Party would like to warn students graduates and their parents about the pocketful of meagre promises that National is offering. Tax rebates on student loans might sound good at first blush. In fact National’s tertiary scheme is of considerable benefit to graduates in high-paid jobs here and overseas but of no use to graduates at home who are bringing up children or who are out of the workforce for other reasons. Again the well-off will do better; women the unemployed and Maori will miss out. 
However the Green Party applauds Labour’s tertiary education policy which it released yesterday. It is great to see Labour acknowledging the desperate situation that faces such a high proportion of our population who are now living with a massive debt burden and I commend Labour for scrapping interest on student loans. However scrapping interest on its own will not prevent some graduates from facing a lifetime of debt. Students and graduates should note that the Green position on this goes a lot further than Labour’s. We are committed to a year’s debt write-off for each year that a graduate—in paid work unpaid work or bringing up children—stays in New Zealand. We also want to work towards a universal student allowance for all tertiary students not just some of them. Fees need to be capped and lowered too. 
On another front voters face some very clear choices as well. A National - New Zealand First Government presents an acute and imminent threat to workers and unions in this country. National and New Zealand First threaten all the gains that have been made over the last 5½ years and that raises the spectre of the demise of the Employment Relations Act and the reintroduction of a type of Employment Contracts Act industrial relations environment. 
 National does not support 4 weeks’ holiday for all workers and voted against hard-won improvements to health and safety in the workplace. It will again at least partially privatise accident compensation. Worst of all National is keen not only to return to the conditions of the Employment Contracts Act days but even worse to introduce a 90-day rule that will basically mean employers can hire and fire at will in the first 3 months of a worker’s employment. Workers and unions need to be very aware that only a Green-Labour Government will continue to protect the gains made since 2000 to support ongoing improvements to wages and conditions such as continuing to put up the minimum wage extending paid parental leave and other family-friendly measures and supporting the right of workers to organise and bargain collectively. 
Another group of people who are also under desperate threat from a National - New Zealand First Government are the unemployed and beneficiaries. Both of those conservative parties have promised an immediate return to forced work for the dole for at least some unemployed people as well as compulsory work-testing for domestic purposes benefit recipients whose children have started school. Work-for-the-dole schemes introduced in the 1990s manifestly failed in their goal of getting people into real jobs. Instead unemployed people found themselves in second-class jobs working for the dole plus $20 a week despised by the regular workers and staff they worked alongside and unable to dedicate themselves properly to seeking regular jobs. Full-time full-wage jobs are the answer; not a return to the 1990s or the 1930s. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 National will say anything to get elected. Nowhere is that more clear than in the area of trade negotiations. On the one hand National is telling business audiences that New Zealand has a bipartisan trade policy. That is because the business community likes Labour’s trade policy. It is energetic and innovative and in 6 years we have completed free-trade or closer economic partnership - type treaties with four other nations: Singapore Chile Brunei and Thailand—the latter a particularly significant development for manufacturers and services exporters as well as for our traditional primary product producers because of high Thai tariff levels. And we have started several more such treaties with China Malaysia and the 10 ASEAN nations as a whole and contributed to the successful launch of the Doha multilateral round. 
In 9 years National started one free-trade agreement negotiation and completed none—not one. But is National really bipartisan now or does it just have a bifurcated tongue? National’s trade spokesperson Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD as his friends call him immediately scorned the China negotiation which was the first between China and a developed country anywhere in the world when this Government first announced it. He scorned it. He clearly subscribes to the black hat / white hat school of international relations: either nations are good—that is they participate when invited to do so in the invasion of countries that are evil; or countries that are not good must be evil so doing business with them should be avoided. 
The Nats continued to withhold their support for a China - New Zealand free-trade agreement negotiation until it became crystal-clear even to them that the overwhelming majority of the New Zealand business community is very enthusiastic in its support of this Labour Government initiative. Then National got into line or purported to do so. What is clear is that although National will say anything to try to get elected it would never have launched a negotiation with China and it could not be relied upon to conclude the negotiation if it were to become the Government. But of course we could rely on National to commit our troops our young military service people to war against the “black hats” in order to get negotiating coin for a trade negotiation. 
The reaction of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD when the Prime Minister announced that New Zealand would not participate in the invasion of Iraq unless requested to do so by the United Nations was to say: “Well we can kiss an FTA with the United States goodbye then.” That is what he said. National has confirmed that attitude by Dr Brash’s assurance to a visiting United States congressional delegation that if National becomes the Government the nuclear ships policy will be gone “by lunchtime” even. So much for bipartisan policy! I can tell the House that Labour will never commit young New Zealanders to war simply to gain negotiating coin for a trade Minister—never. We will never do that. We respect our young people; we do not go to war for that sort of reason. What is more Dr Brash of course by that one thoughtless promise ensured that the United States will not negotiate with New Zealand until the people of New Zealand have once again returned a Labour Government to the Treasury benches. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 Well that member summarises the problems of the Labour Government. He is in the process of turning a majority of 7000 or 8000 in his own seat into a loss on election night. And how has he managed to do that I wonder? He has managed to do it because he has run out of energy he has run out of ideas and he gets tired and scratchy dealing with people who criticise the arrogance that he and his Government have. That is why he is going to lose the safe seat of Aoraki on election night and Labour knows it. That member wishes he had retired as quite a few members of the Labour Cabinet are wishing they had retired. The announcements of yesterday— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I’ll send you this postcard—no interest on student loans. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will talk about student loans. I went up to Victoria University at lunchtime today and talked to a large number of students about student loans. The Labour Government ought to be worried about what a good hearing I got. I put it to those students pretty straight. I told them that interest-free loans are cheese in the mousetrap. Of course they will have a go at the cheese but they need to understand the trap. The trap is greater debt than they would otherwise have and higher— 
Jill Pettis 
: Greater? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it is greater debt. [ 
Interruption 
] This is Labour. Labour does not understand that people do respond to basic incentives. If the loan is free if there is no interest more people will borrow and the ones who can will borrow more. So the total sum of student loans will go through the roof. But I can tell members the question that really got the students exercised. I asked them whether they could tell me why the taxi-driver who took me up the hill— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: This is the Treasury man speaking. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Now listen to this because the students listened. I asked them whether they could tell me why Kevin the taxi-driver who took me up the hill should pay all the interest on their student loans. They could not tell me why he should pay all the interest on their student loans. Kevin the taxi-driver thinks there is a case for doing something to help students with their burden of debt. That is why we have done something—tax deductibility of the interest. But Trevor the taxi-driver— 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s called in! I’ve got the call here. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The quality of the interjections has been very low but they have been consistent since I stood up. Interjections are meant to be rare and to the point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes you are absolutely right and I was just about to intervene. There will be no repetition of that please from the senior whip. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Trevor the taxi-driver is already paying a fair bit. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Kevin! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes Kevin. Well there is one called Trevor as well. He is already—[ 
Interruption 
] 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You just made a ruling and the Government took no notice of it. So I ask that you now rule that the rest of my speech be heard in silence. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not need any assistance. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No he just ruled. The member should stop questioning the Speaker. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I am not questioning the Speaker. I am referring to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I know what happened and they were not interjections at all. There was laughter and mirth and I cannot stop that. But the member has requested that his speech be heard in silence and I think we can do that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Nothing has changed. Labour will tax the middle-income New Zealander as much as it can get away with so that it can recycle the money to pick off some sector groups. So Kevin the taxi-driver is paying a subsidy for the fees. He is paying all the student allowance that any student gets. Now Labour says to that voter—who is probably a Labour voter—that he now has to pay all the interest on the loan as well. Not only that—he has to pay a lot more to the highest-income graduates because having interest-free student loans means that the medical students get the most. The people with the biggest loans and the biggest qualifications with the highest incomes get by far the largest benefit. So interest-free student loans are a transfer from the taxi-drivers the construction workers and the members of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union to the most qualified graduates in New Zealand. 
Labour has lost all its moral claim to be redistributing to lower-income people. The civil service is angry with this policy because it was never asked about it and it knows how stupid the policy is. Labour has decided to keep taxing as high and as hard as it can and to recycle our money so that it goes to particular sector groups that it has tried to pick off. There will be another one. The next group will probably be general practitioners for whom Labour will announce higher health subsidies. Well we know what has happened to the $400 million it has already put in. Most of it has ended up in the pockets of general practitioners. They are not exactly the oppressed the marginalised and the poor but that is where we are heading. Average hard-working mainstream New Zealanders pay more and more tax so that Labour can recycle the money to its own sector groups. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 What do we say about a Government that after 6 years has a Minister come into this House and refer to people who commit benefit fraud as “clients”? That Minister called them clients. They are not clients; they are criminals. Let us get back to what people who commit crimes against their fellow New Zealanders really are. They are not clients; they are criminals. 
So what do we say about a Government that after 6 years has gone down that track? I say that it has lost the plot. The Government is hell-bent on grabbing as much of any higher income as possible in taxes to the point where those on higher incomes will be an endangered species all of its own. What do we say about that? 
The Government says that people on higher incomes are being greedy and do not need the money. But it is not for the Government to decide how much people are worth; that is for the market to decide. This Government has taken over $60 billion more in revenue than it needed to over the last 6 years but it does not consider itself to be greedy—not at all. The Government will look at itself in the mirror and see itself as being fiscally responsible. But it has not been; it has been the greediest Government of all. 
The strange thing about it is that this Government then turns round and says it does not have money for this or that. It certainly does not have enough money for law and order. It certainly does not have enough money to treat criminals as criminals but rather wants to refer to them as clients and look after them—in fact it helps them along by passing legislation such as the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act which applies the full force of the law in allowing people to cover up their criminal offending. People can lie with the State’s backing and this Government has given that its blessing. 
The Government is telling people that if they want to achieve if they want to succeed if they want to be on higher incomes they have two choices: either they can grin and bear it and pay the contributions expected of them by this Government—contributions that are far in excess of what they should be paying—or they can leave the country. And 600 are leaving every week because they can find better overseas. 
That is sad because those people are the engine for the future economy of New Zealand but this Government does not value them. In fact it sees them only as slaves to its socialist machinery and tries to reclaim as much money from the slavery of their work as possible in order to fund its social engineering practices—its rearrangement of income based not on people’s contributions but on vote-gathering exercises. 
Suddenly the Government has found $300 million that it had not earmarked before. In fact we heard in this House today that the Government did not have that money before. But suddenly when it found itself behind in the polls it found the money for a $300 million shameless bribe to the students of this country condemning them through an inducement to higher loans the cost of which will be paid out and borne by hard-working taxpayers. 
Income tax is considered by this Government to be equally a bribe. It is not; it is returning to people what they have created in the first place. How is that a bribe? It is a return of the money that this Government has thieved from them. 
Let us look at some of the other legislation that this Government has or has not advanced. We did not see 92 percent of the population wanting anti-smoking legislation or civil unions. We did not see 92 percent wanting prostitution reform or even the bringing in of the Supreme Court. But in a country that suffers from 4600 assaults 13000 cases of child abuse 95000 burglaries and 70000 sexual assaults a year 92 percent said that they wanted something done on law and order. 
Yet this Government has turned van Gogh’s ear to them; it has been utterly and totally silent. It has done nothing. The much-vaunted 2002 sentencing legislation resulted in an average increase in incarceration time of only 6 months. So much for tougher sentencing—and most of that increase was at the high end with people like Bell and so on. 
So what this Government is actually doing is effectively thumbing its nose at the population and saying that despite what people demand and want the Government knows better and will do something else better. Come to think of it when it comes to the reintegrative services the Government is so keen on pushing why has the PILLARS evaluation still not come out? 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The student debt problem about which voters—parents students and graduates—care so deeply is largely a result of Labour Party policy. It was Labour that came into office in 1999 saying to students: “We’ll give you free money and we’ll tax you hard when you graduate.” And what happened? Well students are not stupid—they are the brightest young people in New Zealand—so they borrowed more and students who would not have borrowed borrowed. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s not true. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is true and Jill Pettis can read it in the official report to this Government by the administrators of the student loan scheme. They said that the number of students borrowing went up by 10 percent and the average amount they borrowed was an extra 23 percent. They went on to say in that report that that was a consequence of the free money policy of the Labour Party and now what has happened is that a few years down the track students are graduating with more debt than they would ever have had otherwise. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Jill Pettis can say that that is not true. She can deny the facts. She can also stand up in this House I guess and say that students are so stupid that they do not respond to incentives. But she will be totally at variance with what is happening in New Zealand if she does. 
This just shows how desperate Labour is. Its first response by Trevor Mallard was to launch an attack on Don Brash talking about Washington—completely made up. Then the National Party came along with an election bribe saying to graduates that it would make their interest tax-deductible. That is what it said. What National should have done was to do what the ACT policy is—to get the tax down for graduates so they can pay off their loans not make it cheaper to maintain loans. 
What was Labour’s response? The very Government that earlier said there is no money for tax cuts—none whatsoever—and that any tax cut will mean more borrowing within days came up with a $300 million bribe to graduates and told them they will not pay any interest. If one is starting out as a student why would one not borrow the maximum amount of money for as long as possible and why would a student voluntarily pay off any debt upon graduation? It is free money. 
Let us think about what that bribe will cost. Yes there will be $300 million in interest according to the Government. But more students will be borrowing. They will be borrowing more and when they graduate they will have no incentive to pay off their loans other than at the minimum rate. The estimate of the extra cost of that capital is $1.8 billion a year. There will be $300 million in lost interest and an extra $1.8 billion going on to the sum of student debt. Bill English is quite right when he says that student debt will go through the roof. Rather than cutting down the debt this Government is putting it up. 
So what is the solution? This is what should be done. We should take the surplus this Government has and return it to New Zealanders. The Government should return the surplus to New Zealanders. If that were done the top rate of tax would come down to 25c and that middle rate of 21c would come down to 15c. On average $40 a week would be put into every working person’s pocket and graduates could pay off their debt twice as fast. 
Here is the good news. If the Government did that it would not be just graduates who borrowed money who would benefit; it would be every New Zealander. Students would be left with an incentive not to load up on debt graduates would have an incentive to pay off debt and every New Zealander would benefit from a tax cut. 
A real tax cut that brought down the top and middle rates of tax would mean more investment into New Zealand more entrepreneurship more business more jobs more wealth and higher pay. We know that. Why? Because Treasury itself said that ACT’s tax policy would add 1 to 1.5 percent to growth in New Zealand. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I will not respond to that speech because it is not right to speak ill of the dead. But I would like to speak about the flip-flopping National Party leader who is very rarely seen by members of the Government. This is the man who said on television the other day that he is a very good manager of people. That he said was one of his strengths as the Reserve Bank governor and of course his comment brings to mind the names Katherine Rich Lynda Scott and Georgina te Heuheu. He is a great manager of people that former Reserve Bank governor! 
He said he was mainstream because he had been the Reserve Bank governor. Some members of Parliament can remember going up to the Reserve Bank. I am not aware of many mainstream New Zealanders who have their own chef and get everything brought to them on a silver tray in a wood-panelled room. But that must be mainstream when one is Dr Brash. He says he will be the Prime Minister. He wants to be the Prime Minister. That jovial little fellow called Duncan Garner asked him a question: “There’s a war that’s broken out in Iraq. Can you tell us what you will do when you’re the Prime Minister?”. “No I can’t. It’s not the issue today.” said Dr Brash. “I’m here to talk about something different.” Does that not give us a great deal of confidence in the man who wants to be the Prime Minister! He is the man who says National has five different positions on that policy alone—on whether we go to Iraq! It is like the  
Karma Sutra 
—there are more positions on Iraq and on nuclear policy than there are in the  
Karma Sutra 
 when it comes to Dr Brash. He is unbelievable. 
It is just extraordinary how many times he flips and flops. Do members remember that he was going to do away with the benefit for women who had more children? We do not hear much about that any more but we have seen the departure of Katherine Rich and the introduction of that very warm human being Judith Collins. Well managed that one! That is someone who has a great personality. It is interesting that if we went out and asked the public who the front-bench members of the National Party are Bill English would probably be the only one they could name. It is a pity he got booed and heckled at Victoria University when he talked about the taxi-driver who drove him up there called Kevin or—who was it? 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Trevor. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Trevor or Kevin—he could not remember the name of the taxi-driver about whom he was so concerned that he wanted to give him a tax cut. Kevin or Trevor or whoever it was might have family members who have a student loan and do not want to have to pay double what they would have to pay back if National were the Government on the promise of a tax cut that nobody is allowed to see yet. We can see it in 4 weeks’ time. We are allowed only 4 weeks to look at the small print—because it is a con. National cannot give a tax cut and give students no interest on student loans. We cannot have more families saying: “You can go and study because we’re eligible for a student allowance.” 
This Government says it is great policy. It is wonderful that National and ACT have studied it so intensely and have come up with their Treasury-speak that says: “People will go and borrow all this money because it’s there.” Oh come on! They will use it to pay their fees so they can study and get a good job. Then they will pay the country back by staying here and working—the nurses the doctors the lawyers the plumbers; all of those people who at the moment have to run away offshore to get their student loans paid. Is it not galling for the National Party and ACT that we have such a wonderful policy which is there because we have run an economy that actually can afford to pay for it! Yes taxpayers say we will spend more money on education and health if it is well spent. Well it could not be better spent. 
We also have a National Party leader who said he does not care who owns the schools. National does not care who owns the State houses because it will sell them too. National members want to sell our schools to pay for tax cuts. They are going to sell State houses like they did last time to pay for tax cuts. They will not build them up like this Government has done and will continue to do. That is how National funded tax cuts last time. National sold 13000 State houses threw people out on the street and charged market rents to those who were left. That is how National will fund tax cuts. That is what we can expect if Dr Brash the “mainstream New Zealander” with the chef the silver tray and the pyjamas his mother gave him—I must not get personal. Oh no we do not want to get personal. We must not have photos of the Prime Minister on the hoardings. Oh no—that is personal. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is not just the houses around New Zealand that are rotting; it is also the Government. We found out today that the agency that was set up by this Government to help those destitute families with rotting unhealthy homes has been having expensive Pacific Island awareness days. Today the Department of Building and Housing has confirmed that it spent $6679 so that 17 staff of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service would be more aware of issues facing Pacific Island peoples. Have members ever heard of such rot and such nonsense! 
I just heard Mark Gosche say that this Government was all about spending public money wisely. Can any member of the Government tell me why the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service should fly nine staff from Wellington to Auckland accommodate them at the Crowne Plaza Hotel and then spend $392 a head on lunch kava drinking and hula dancing? Can members believe it? Three thousand families out there are in rotting homes unhealthy from the mould and staff of the agency set up to fix the problem are drinking kava and hula dancing! 
 Ladies and gentlemen we only laugh because otherwise we would cry. I suspect that many thousands of owners of leaky homes are crying. In fact people have committed suicide and marriages have broken up. This is not a laughing issue and this Government has provided no explanation and no apology as to why that department has with public money been having aeroplane theme parties Wild West Cowboys and Indians theme parties and Sound of Music theme parties as well as having two Pacific Island awareness days. The Government says in respect of the Sound of Music theme party: “Don’t worry the Government didn’t pay their airfares to come down from Auckland for this party. They came down for a morning tea to farewell a staff member.” Well that provides us with great comfort does it not? That department is prepared to fly staff all over the country to party while owners of leaky homes suffer. 
Janet Mackey 
: Not true. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Who said “Not true.”? Ms Mackey said it. Well I have to tell her that a press release from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service confirms that all of this is true. Maybe Janet Mackey the member for East Coast will explain to owners of leaky homes in her electorate why kava drinking and hula dancing are occurring during work time amongst staff of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. 
This scandal goes to the heart of everything that is wrong about this Government. It is so politically correct that the public service thinks it is quite appropriate to spend $392 a head for a lunch at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. That is the culture of extravagance that this Government has had. No wonder it is opposed to tax cuts. It wants New Zealanders’ hard-earned taxpayers’ money so that public servants can have Cowboys and Indians theme parties and Sound of Music theme parties and so that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service staff can drink kava and hula dance. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Aw! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: New Zealanders I tell Mr Cosgrove have had enough. The Government is rotten. It will go. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 That member and his party are developing a very very strong reputation for two things. The first is for being weak. That is what that member is like and that is what his party is like. The second strong reputation they are developing is for saying things that are not true inside the House outside the House at party political meetings and at joint candidates meetings. At any opportunity they can they say things that are not true. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice the member has accused us of saying things that are not true. I seek leave to table a statement from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service that confirms that everything I said was absolutely true. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say that frivolous interjections— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is not frivolous. She has accused me of saying untruths. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member could have waited until the speech is finished. I am going to ask the Hon Ruth Dyson to start again. 
Shane Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have ruled— 
Shane Ardern 
: Members are not allowed under the Standing Orders to accuse somebody of lying in the Parliament and that is what the member was accused of. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please be seated. If the member had listened to the debate he would know that the member was not accused of that inside this House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to get clarification. The document from the Department of Building and Housing confirms everything I have said. Is it able to be tabled in the House? The member has suggested that somehow I was speaking an untruth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will put that question. The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Let me give members an example of when that member demonstrated his weakness and his total inability to be consistent with the policy position. This is a man who wants to be a Minister in the next Government. I say to the member: “No way Mr Smith no way at all!”. On one of the key areas in the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill Nick Smith said: “When an SOE proposes a huge development the Government rewrite the rules to suit.” That was a direct attack on that bill and on this Government. But then in the very next breath when Transpower was the issue rather than the Waitaki he said: “The situation is so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation this year so that lines can be installed.” Mr Smith cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that Transpower should have special legislation and that the Waitaki should not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already warned the member about frivolous interjections raised as points of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The member cannot come to the House and just say things that are totally untrue. I challenge her to provide any evidence that I have ever said that special legislation should be passed for power lines. I have talked about direct referral to the Environment Court but I ask the member to be truthful. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am asking the member on my left to look at Standing Orders 106(1) and (2) and Speaker’s ruling 35/3 regarding misrepresentation. If the member believes he has been misrepresented then there is a proper course and time in which the misrepresentation can be clarified. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member is clearly rattled clearly rattled. At the end of my speech I will seek leave to table the National Party press release of 6 July 2004 from which I have just quoted where Nick Smith in direct contradiction to his previous attack on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill said: “The situation is now so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation this year so these lines can be installed.” That was a National Party press release of 6 July 2004. I will table that and then Mr Smith will owe me yet another apology. 
Nick Smith is not the only member of the National Party caucus who is excellent at changing his or her mind whenever it suits. Whenever the pressure gets a little too much they just topple over. Don Brash on Iraq has to be the best. Don Brash on Iraq is just fantastic. On 1 October 2003 Dr Brash said on Iraq: “I think I would have done what President Bush said.” When he was asked directly just 2 weeks ago whether he would send troops to Iraq he said: “That’s not the issue today.” That was a very unusual answer. When the question was: “Will you send troops to Iraq?” he said: “That’s not the issue today.” But then the reporter said: “Well actually it is. Because that’s the question I’m asking you.” Dr Brash said: “Well I’m sorry that’s not correct.” The next day he said: “My personal inclination at that time was in fact to support involvement in Iraq and I said so 2 years back.” Three days later he said: “Under almost no circumstances I’m saying.” Under almost no circumstances! What is his position on Iraq? It is not a hypothetical question. It is not “not the issue of the day”. It is a very important issue in terms of policy in terms of integrity and in terms of credibility and on those three points—policy integrity and credibility—Don Brash has got zilch. 
He is exactly the same on National’s nuclear policy—something that has been at the heart of New Zealand’s pride for over 20 years. That member of Parliament Don Brash wants to take it away from us. In January 2004 he said: “If the National Party was in Government today we would get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today—by lunchtime even.” That is a fantastic quote. In the middle of the year he said: “The likelihood is if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable and that of course would be after we became the Government we’d seek a referendum for any change in the law.” That is a very interesting position—waiting to hear what the Americans say. Then he said: “I don’t know at this point what the solution will be that would be agreeable to New Zealanders and acceptable to Canberra and Washington and what I’m saying in my statement today is that we can’t resolve this question from Opposition.” 
 So that was another little slip-sliding-away flip-flop—and on something as basic as the nuclear-free policy which was legislated for in this Parliament over 20 years ago. Don Brash cannot take a position because he is in Opposition! Well that is a new one. That is a fantastic one. It will go down a treat at the election meetings up and down the country. I cannot wait. He then said just a couple of weeks after that: “I can’t answer the question about what would trigger a decision for a referendum.” So now he cannot even work out what would make him have a referendum. The New Zealand Press Association said that Dr Brash said a referendum was still the most likely way of determining support for changing the nuclear-free status. But he also said that if his party campaigned on scrapping the ban and won the election it would consider that a mandate for change as well. So now he is slipping even further away. He is saying that there might not be a referendum that National might just run that issue in the election campaign and that it will then take that as the mandate. So the referendum has “gone by lunchtime”. That party cannot be trusted. It has no policy no integrity and no credibility. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 This afternoon has been typical of what we are going to see God forbid for the next 7 or 8 weeks—however long it takes to get to the date when New Zealanders can exercise their rights. We will see the same old parties National and Labour attacking each other over their track records. And what track records they are! New Zealand First on the other hand will make it clear to voters not to forget the past. When voters make their choice it will be in their own interests to look at the track records of those two parties. 
We have listened to the speeches of National members going on about the treaty and about Maori issues—Gerry Brownlee delivered his speech and shot through—yet they have clearly forgotten that it was the National Party that gave Sir Douglas Graham his knighthood for all the work he did on settling treaty issues and for incorporating into every piece of legislation the mythical “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. There is the reality. 
New Zealand First has attacked those issues consistently for 5 years but who put the issues in? National put them in. Law and order—we will get to that but National is attacking Labour up-hill and down-dale as it should over the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. But who brought that agreement to this House? National brought it to this House. National brought it into being. 
Who is attacking everyone all over the country about civil unions? National is leading the charge and United Future is also in there. But we should not worry about United Future. Everything that its members say on the election trail will be dismissed by one simple statement: the United Future party made it all possible by giving supply and confidence to this Government and never ever once holding it to account by pulling the vote or even threatening to do so. United Future is dead in the water in this election on that sort of issue. 
But who promoted civil unions? I remember National’s much-vaunted leader Jenny Shipley going to the Hero Parade in Auckland and telling the whole of New Zealand how it should be tolerant and inclusive. Then on the other hand she stood up and criticised and challenged this Government for enacting the legislation that National itself was quietly promoting at the time. We cannot have it both ways. 
National is going to attack the Government on Agent Orange. I am a returned serviceman and so is Bill Gudgeon of New Zealand First and many New Zealand First members. We know where the Agent Orange issue started and where it was stopped dead. It was the Shipley inquiry the Reeves report from a National Government and the McLeod report from a National Government that gave us the appalling situation we are dealing with now. 
And Labour? It asks us to trust it to consider its integrity. We have not forgotten “paintergate” I say to Ms Clark nor has the rest of the country. When one autographs a painting and says one did it as the artist gets caught out and then stands by and says: “I didn’t know that my staff had bought the painting and burnt it.” the rest of the country does not believe it. 
She sat in the back of a car on a cannonball run from Waimate to Christchurch and then sat in this House and ignored the fact that the newspaper stated that five people were currently facing criminal charges. She did nothing to get them off the hook by saying: “It’s my fault. I’m the Prime Minister. I didn’t stop them.” 
Instead she sat in this House and said: “I had my head down working and I didn’t know what was going on or what speed we were doing.” We in New Zealand First know that that car was travelling so fast behind the lead car that it was repainted because the stones that were flying up were striking the windscreen with such force it had to be replaced. But Ms Clark did not know anything about that. She was working in the back of the car with her head down. Her knuckles were not gripping the holdalls on the vehicle as it rocketed down those gravel roads. She was not sitting there as most New Zealanders would have been if they had had the privilege of sitting in the back seat of a car that was part of a Diplomatic Protection Squad convoy with a trained driver blasting its way through the countryside. Most New Zealanders would have gritted their teeth held on and thought: “Oh Jesus I hope these guys do it right.” But not her! She was engrossed in her work signing documents. That is the sort of integrity that will be challenged on the hustings believe you me. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the National Party press release that Nick Smith denied ever making dated 6 July 2004 in which he states: “The situation is now so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation so that these lines can be installed for Transpower.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am quite concerned that the member has been given leave to table a document. She says it is a press release from myself— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The National Party. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No she said it was from Nick Smith. She specifically said my name. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am listening to one point of order at the moment. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to make it very clear that I issued no press release on that day. I have checked with my office. Now the member has conveniently said that she does not have to table it for 24 hours. I think the House has been misled. We granted leave in good faith on the basis that what she said in the leave application was true and honest. So I seek clarification from the member as to whether what she said in her leave application was correct. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I will speak to Dr Smith’s point of order and then I have a point of order to raise. I would like to quote directly from the document. I have 24 hours in which to table it but I am happy to table it now. It is called “Consent Hassles Risk Delaying Transmission Wires—Press Release by New Zealand National Party at 3:51 PM 06 Jul 2004” and states: “ ‘We cannot let resource consent delays block a long-term solution to the power supply problem at the top of the South Island’ says Nelson MP and National Environment spokesperson Nick Smith.” Three paragraphs down it states: “The situation is now so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation this year so these lines can be installed.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has asked for leave to table the document and the leave has been granted by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the earlier interchange Ken Shirley accused me of lying. I take gross offence at that and ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I heard that myself and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. To say that a member is lying is absolutely out of order. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said: “She’s not lying is she?”. I was asking a question. From what we have heard—and hopefully it is true—she was not lying. But I interjected to say: “She’s not lying is she?”. I did not make an accusation. I put the question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please be seated. To me that still stretches the imagination. We have both been in this place a long time and we know how the game is played. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 If the member took offence then I certainly withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. I have dealt with the issue. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During Dr Smith’s dissertation he alleged that my colleague Ruth Dyson had misled the House. He used those words. I think we will find them in  
Hansard 
. It has now been proved that she did not. He may be suffering from “Blumsky-itis” and cannot remember but I think he should withdraw and apologise. He did say that Ms Dyson had misled the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please be seated. I am sorry but the member has exacerbated the situation by making a personal reflection against Dr Smith. I think the score is one all and there the matter ends. 
Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill 
First Reading 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill be now read a first time. 
 When I first came to Parliament 12 years ago the first speech I ever gave in this House was on the sale of the Government computing organisation or department. In those days we had to give 10-minute speeches and I found that first speech particularly difficult for a number of reasons. Firstly I did not know that the Government had a computing organisation. Secondly I was utterly indifferent as to whether it sold it or raffled it given my lack of knowledge about it. Thirdly in those days we were not allowed to have any notes before us in Parliament when we spoke to legislation. So my first 10-minute speech was a very difficult and nerve-racking time. 
It is almost singularly appropriate that my final speech in this House as I leave Parliament should be on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill because once again my speech is on a bill that is not a simple one on which to speak for 10 minutes. However it is also appropriate that the bill is a local bill from the one part of my electorate that has been in my electorate for the entire 12 years I have been in Parliament. So it is with great pleasure that I recommend this extremely non-controversial legislation to the entire Parliament. 
The bill is designed to validate the uses of a park in Gisborne called the Alfred Cox Park. The uses of the park currently are contrary not only to the Reserves Act but also to the terms of the deed of trust under which the park was gifted to the Borough of Gisborne in 1944. This particular reserve cannot be used for buildings that are used for commercial or private use. Unfortunately the Gisborne District Council has its information centre on the land. As we know the information centre is now run by Tourism Eastland which is a private organisation and is outside the local authority—and I know that that concerns Mr Williamson hugely! But we now need to ensure that we do not have to move the building or remove the function of the organisation from the building as a result of the private nature of the business carried on there. 
In 1992 the visitor information centre was erected on the land. Prior to 1990 part of the land was also used as the site of a flea market. That flea market is now a biweekly event. It is well attended. People in Gisborne look forward to it and farmers bring their produce to the market but it is run privately. Although most members in this House including myself have a natural aversion to the endorsement of retrospective legislation the Gisborne community in this instance is faced with no other option. The information centre is too substantial and too solid a building to be considered for relocation besides which Alfred Cox Park is a central location and the stop-off point for many of the tourism operators who come in and out of Gisborne and for the tour company buses. There is no alternative site on which Gisborne can carry out these activities. Therefore it is my recommendation to the House that parties support this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
:  
First of all I thank my whips for having allocated me this wonderful slot and also this incredibly important local bill. The reason I like the slot so much is that as we head towards 5 o’clock I get the chance to communicate with my adoring drive-time audience in Auckland and when I come back to the House later in the evening to speak on a couple of other bills at around 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. that same drive-time audience will still be in their cars and able to pick up on the second half of my speech. 
However I do not think that members should let a bill that is as trivial as Janet Mackey tries to portray this one to be to go through the House without some scrutiny. I think questions need to be asked. The first one of course is the retrospectivity of it. I do not feel comfortable about that. Janet Mackey made it quite clear that we will be validating some illegal practices that have been going on for some time. How comfortable are members of this House with that? How comfortable would they feel about coming in here one day with a bill about people who have been doing P and saying: “This will make what they have been doing all right.”? We would feel absolute abhorrence at that. Yet in Gisborne—and I feel well qualified to talk on this subject because I have been to Gisborne recently just for a day—this Alfred Cox Park is being used for doing illegal things and there are two of them. That is the other thing that got me about this bill. It is trying to fix up not one illegality but two. 
I thought that this was something where the Internet can play its part. That was the first thing that came to my mind; most people would not have thought of that. I went on to the Internet got the search engines cranked up and found some stuff that I think the House will find important as background material for this legislation. 
The site states: “Alfred Cox Park was included in a parcel of land donated to the Gisborne Borough Council in 1944 by its namesake”—I presume that means by Alfred Cox rather than by the Gisborne Borough Council—“and member of the 30000 Club Alfred Cox.” Janet Mackey is the local member. She must be able to tell us what that is. What is the 30000 Club Alfred Cox? We are being railroaded with legislation where the member who is taking the bill through does not know some of the substance. 
“It is worth a ramble of its own.” the Internet site states “If it’s autumn when you go look out for the bountiful olive trees. The fleamarket held at the park every each Saturday morning should not be missed.” What does that mean? Janet Mackey said it was held biweekly. Does that mean twice a week or does it mean every 2 weeks? It says here that it is held every each Saturday morning. Maybe that is just the way people in Gisborne speak. It says it should not be missed. I hope that the select committee when considering this bill will trundle off to Gisborne on one of the every each Saturdays when it is on to look at it. 
“Not only are all types of produce available but the colourful atmosphere truly reflects the district’s cosmopolitan population.” This is getting really rich. This is where one sees a public relations officer in a small town like Gisborne trying to persuade the district’s cosmopolitan population. I would say that people from south Auckland Otahuhu or Papatoetoe where you come from Mr Assistant Speaker could quite fairly claim that their part of New Zealand is very cosmopolitan. But I do not think it is a fair label to be putting on the Alfred Cox Park. 
The site states that Alfred Cox Park is off Grey Street so it is not sounding a very colourful place to start with. Behind the visitor information centre office there is a mini-golf course a BMX track and a Canadian totem pole—maybe I was wrong about some of the cosmopolitan stuff—and early every Saturday morning there is the local flea market. So here is contradictory evidence already about how often the flea market occurs and I do not think the House can afford to be misled by that. 
There was something written by a lady called Lisa Mills. I thought it was a great article. I know Janet Mackey will know Lisa Mills from the  
Gisborne Herald 
. Janet Mackey said this bill was non-controversial. Here is the opening sentence in the  
Gisborne Herald 
: “Controversy over whether the operation of the fleamarket at Alfred Cox Park is legal may soon be at an end.” So clearly controversy was involved. 
When Janet Mackey hears the end of this article—when House hears the end of this article—we will know that there is more than one view about how this problem should have been solved. It is quite the opposite of what was portrayed as being a lay down misère easy solution. 
“The issue was raised by Kathy Sheldrake”—again I see the member for East Coast nodding her head; she knows who Kathy is—“at yesterday’s Gisborne District Council’s community development committee when she asked for an update on the situation. In May the committee was told a legal challenge had stymied a bid”—we were not told about this—“to legalise the fleamarket’s operation at the park.” So it sounded like it was all sweetness and light and everyone was behind it but clearly people in Gisborne whom we have not heard about were taking a legal challenge to stymie what one would only call bulldozer-type legislation that was driving over the top of people’s rights. The legislation was taking things that had been going on illegally in that park for years—and I am sure that a lot of illegal things go on in the park—and suddenly making them legal. 
Why do we not add to the list? Can we just not amend it and put a few other illegalities in there? I am sure that a couple of members from the Greens will want to put a few things that go on in the park on to the list of activities that will now be validated by this legislation. 
Phil Heatley 
: Cycle tracks. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That was not what I was thinking of. The member has such a clean mind that it is disgusting. 
The article continued: “The council had promoted a ‘local bill’ to be presented to Parliament in April 2003”—what has Ms Mackey been doing? We are now in July 2005 which is over 2 years later before we have seen the bill get here—“after it was discovered that the Gisborne Visitor Information Centre and the fleamarket were operating in contravention of the Reserves Act. Their operation was also seen to be contrary to the deed of trust set up when the land was gifted.” Well that is the first question that we should all be asking. What do we think Alfred Cox would think of that? 
Shane Ardern 
: Not much. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: He may not. He may have said that he did not want people riding roughshod over his wishes and that he would gift the land but if people were to run private enterprise and making-money types of things they could do them elsewhere. 
Mr Cox may have been a sort of hard-line lefty from the Alliance end of the political spectrum who did not like private sector enterprise capitalists or anything or he may have been a good free-market right-winger who would have said he did not care and that there could be 12 flea markets in his park—I do not know. We have not been told that by the member for East Coast. There has not been a mutter not a murmur and not a word about what Alfred Cox said in the gift deed back in 1944. [ 
Interruption 
] The war was still going. 
Again the  
Gisborne Herald 
—and I am sorry to be losing a number of my devout audience because of the importance of this speech—has stated quite clearly: “The local bill was seen as a way of rectifying the situation ‘righting the wrong’ by way of legislation. However Tourism Eastland did not agree.” Janet Mackey was talking about how Tourism Eastland was happy with this. Tourism Eastland did not agree with that. 
“At yesterday’s meeting Ron Atkinson said Grey Power”—I do not know how Grey Power comes into it; I love local newspaper stories that run along about some piece of land and about whether the legislation works when suddenly there is a mention of Grey Power—“had been looking at the matter for some time and had been given a copy of the private member’s bill. But nothing had ever happened in Wellington he said.” Now that is typical of Janet Mackey. If one wants to know about the Labour Party members in this House they had been given a copy of the bill back in April 2003 and “nothing had ever happened to it in Wellington” Ron Atkinson said. 
The article continues: “Chief executive Bob Elliott said there was some dispute over whether or not it was needed.” Again Ms Mackey should give an answer to the House. She should stop chatting to Ken Shirley about his stuff and answer that one. Mr Atkinson—whoever he is—asked the council whether it was even necessary to pass this bill. 
Hon Member 
: They come around to get a better view. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: They have come to get a better view—that is great; my crowd is still here. 
I would hope for the sake of Janet Mackey and others that we are not wasting valuable time in this House reading out things that are not of that much value when it turns out that a chief executive does not think there is a need for this legislation. 
I am happy to say that with regard to the National Party I do not know quite why we came to the conclusion that we came to. But I understand from Mr Ardern that we are going to support the bill. However I still think that Janet Mackey needs to come up with some of those answers in her right of reply. What would Alfred Cox actually think about this park and the fact that we now are validating the illegal activities that go on there? 
The article then states: “Surely legal advice would have said if we needed it. Corporate affairs manager Douglas Brit”— 
Janet Mackey 
: Douglas Burt. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes the member is dead right. I have the wrong person. I apologise. 
All I can say is that I think Tourism Eastland had some concerns. The member has not told us why those concerns are not valid. I am happy to vote for this bill but I am telling members that I will lose sleep for some time over it. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. The contribution from the previous member lacks all regard for the Gisborne District Council and obviously its mayor and councillors who have brought this matter to their local member Janet Mackey to bring to the House in the form of this bill. I might add that as the local member Janet Mackey has taken the responsibility as the local member should of bringing this before the House. 
The bill outlines the fact that there is great support from the public for leaving in place the information centre that is in question rather than relocating it because of matters that have confined under the Reserves Act the use of this piece of land which was donated by Alfred Cox to the good people of the Gisborne area. This is the kind of thing whereby politicians should listen to what local people desire aspire and wish to have in their communities and it seems to be desirous that this particular information centre in this particular matter is left where it is. It seems sensible and it seems something that is wanted by the people of this area and who are we in this House to deny that? 
It is likely that the Local Government and Environment Committee upon the success of this first reading may be sent the bill for its consideration. I would like to highlight one of the stark contrasts between a Labour-led Government and a National-led Government. In fact the member who resumed his seat before I was kindly given the call was a former Minister of Local Government. I have to say that his tenure was brief. There were about four or five Ministers of Local Government in his time in that particular term and that showed just how much—or how little—regard that that particular National Government ever had for local government. In fact great contempt comes to mind at the thought of how that party regards local government. As a former mayor and civic leader of a district—a little further away from Gisborne I must admit but nevertheless on the East Coast—I valued the input and the desires of our local communities and me and my council listened and for the most part delivered just like this Labour-led Government delivers. I would have to say that the local member Janet Mackey a Labour MP is delivering on behalf of the Gisborne District Council in this particular matter. 
So in supporting this bill I would say “Good on Gisborne.” Good on the people of Gisborne for deciding to make a decision for themselves but they do need the assistance of Parliament in this particular matter because of the Reserves Act and the discrepancies between the contradictions that have been raised in here about what can and cannot or should or should not be cited on this particular piece of land which was probably part of the deed that Mr Cox probably arranged at the time of the gifting of that land to the area. 
In conclusion the whole House should be supportive of this local bill and should congratulate its local member and of course the Gisborne District Council on making its best efforts to provide this House with the relevant information and with something that is very simple and clear. I think it was a cheap shot from the previous member to make light of and to diminish the concern that that community has over this bill. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 As my fellow MP Maurice Williamson said we do not want to waste too much time on this matter. But having listened to his rhetoric I think he said a lot more words than he should have and actually supported the bill. Also I take up a point that Maurice said— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use another member’s full name or his or her title. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Sorry the Hon Maurice Williamson. His party gave him the job of conducting the debate on this bill. Jim Peters has bestowed that difficult task on me. 
I am quite happy to say that New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. It is a common-sense bill no different from the Montfort Trimble bill that was put through by my colleague Georgina Beyer for the Masterton District Council and that New Zealand First supported for the right reasons. This bill points in the same direction: the council needs a change in the law to make available the land for alternative uses. I ask Janet Mackey—that is if she is listening—whether the National Party holds a stall at the mini-market day. 
Janet Mackey 
: No members. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: That is OK. I just wanted to clarify that point because the Hon Maurice Williamson raised the point that these people should not be there. The world has changed. It is no different in Masterton. There are areas where land has been put aside for reserves but are now being used for different things. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Does that make it right? 
EDWIN PERRY 
: The Hon Maurice Williamson is calling out. He has agreed about this and National is supporting the bill so I really do not want to refer back to that point. Some members have some difficulty with it and that is no different from the Montfort Trimble bill. Some people opposed that bill but for their own reasons and not from the point of view of the community as a whole. 
This bill needs to be supported for the reasons I have already mentioned because a large number of people are using these reserve areas for different things. I know the information centre at Tourism Eastland. I know it very well from when it was first set up. It plays a vital role in the East Coast. The East Coast is the part of the country that sees the sun first. [ 
Interruption 
] There we go! National members are talking about themselves. There is an old saying around Anzac Day: “Lest we forget.” Those members have forgotten what they have done in the past. 
All I want to say is that New Zealand First will support this bill and we wish the council all the best in its endeavours to make sure the land is used for the community for the right reasons. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 Likewise the ACT party will be supporting this bill. I do not intend to speak for long. There are some very key bills to get to tonight and I would hate to think the two main parties were filibustering in an attempt to avoid getting to them. 
But I ask why this Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill should even come to the Parliament. That is the real question. Time is being wasted here. It is a very small matter a very local matter. In fact the deed of trust states that only buildings for the entertainment convenience or amusement of the public can be erected. Well if an information centre is not for the convenience of the public what is? I agree with the executive of the council who actually said that the bill does not need to come to Parliament anyway. Other than that he referred it here nevertheless. 
Let us not waste any more time. Everyone who has spoken supports the bill. No more long-winded speeches are necessary. Let us get on to the real business that we have on the Order Paper later on this evening. Let us pass this bill and get it out of the way. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill too. After all the excitement generated around this bill and Alfred Cox Park I hope that members will try to visit the park when they visit Gisborne because I am informed by the Green members in Gisborne—and I convey this information particularly to the National members—that the flea market whether it is weekly biweekly twice weekly or whenever it is held sells the best organic produce in Gisborne. So it is a very good source of that product. Alfred Cox Park is the centre of a lot of the cultural life of Gisborne. It may even have one or two cosmopolitan events but a lot of social events and a lot of organisations use its facilities. Alfred Cox Park is a central part of the culture of Gisborne. It is very good that everything will be square in legal terms after we pass this bill. 
I do pay tribute to Janet Mackey as she did indicate this will be her second-to-last speech in Parliament. We do wait for her valedictory but it is good that she has been able to bring this bill from the Gisborne people to Parliament as one of her last acts. She has done sterling work from the local level at Gisborne through to her work on the Inter-Parliamentary Union too. I pay tribute to her for taking the time and effort to perform on the international stage. 
I would like to indicate that Gisborne will probably be increasing its representation in the next Parliament because we have at No. 9 on the Green Party list Catherine Delahunty. She may get in on the list as we have nine MPs already so we need only to hold our present position in order for her to get in. Catherine Delahunty will either come in that way or as the new MP for Gisborne. But who knows how that will go? I see that Moana Mackey is looking at me a bit strangely on that question. As long as Catherine comes into Parliament—and I am sure she will do so on the list with the support of people throughout New Zealand—that will be of great assistance to the people of Gisborne. I am sure that Maurice Williamson will be very pleased about that and very pleased when he visits Alfred Cox Park. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All the speaking slots have been used on this first reading of a local bill. However members are free to seek the leave of the House if they want to speak. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave first of all as a candidate in that electorate and someone with an interest in Gisborne to have a chance to represent United Future on this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to do that and United Future has not had a call on this bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I seek leave for Moana Mackey a list MP from the region to be given the opportunity to make a 5-minute contribution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member herself has to ask. Is the member seeking leaving? 
Moana Mackey 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is two members. I point out that we have not actually used the total time for this debate because members have not taken their full time. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I also seek leave to make a speech as one of the National members of Parliament who have been out door-knocking in the Gisborne area with Anne Tolley who has told me all about this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Three members wish to speak. I will put the seeking of leave for all three at once. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. I call on the honourable member Janet Mackey in reply. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 In replying to this debate I will be moving that this Gisborne District Council bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I thank all members for their contributions intelligent and otherwise to this debate. This is as Mr Shirley says a small but irritating matter in Gisborne. It does need to be resolved by legislation and to that end the council has put forward this bill. I would just respond to Mr Williamson’s concern about what I have been doing with this bill since the matter was first raised. I can advise him that the process for dealing with local bills was changed. The bill was returned to the Gisborne District Council by the Clerk’s Office. The council had to reformat and rejig a number of aspects of the bill before it brought it back. The council has duly done that and the bill has probably gone through in record time because I certainly did not expect to see it introduced to Parliament while I was still a member. I thank all parties for their support for this legislation. I do not think it will be a matter of huge consequence for the select committee to deal with and I look forward to its passing. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee 
Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. 
I would like to say at the beginning of this debate that I do not smoke. It is now some 18 months since the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill passed into law. It appears to me that enough time has passed for Parliament now to revisit that legislation and that we can have a look at what unintended consequences have been created by the passing of that law. The primary effect of the smoke-free law has been that many people are no longer calling into their local pubs or clubs; they are just staying at home. Much of the camaraderie that used to exist in those establishments has now gone and the reason is that it is all too hard. If people want to have a smoke they are forced out into the cold. They cannot take their drinks outside; there is a huge issue about what happens to drinks that have not been drunk. Around the country various measures are being tried to make sure that people are not able to spike drinks. 
When people do go outside they often get hassled by kids who ask them for cigarettes by pedestrians who are trying to walk by or by neighbours who are not used to having noise outside the pub or club. In fact sending people outside has created a whole new set of problems. There have been complaints about noise obstruction and litter as well. Pub and club owners have a sense of responsibility for what is going on outside yet they are usually unable to do too much about it. 
The effect of the law on non-smokers has also been unexpected. Non-smokers have suddenly found that they too have to go outside into the cold because if they do not go outside with the smokers there is nobody left in the bar to talk to. That was something nobody predicted when that bill was being passed into law. 
In some parts of the country illegal drinking houses have now been set up in garages and sheds. They do not have liquor licences and there are no safeguards. There is none of the good host responsibility that needs to take place. I ask Labour members whether that is what they intended; I suspect it is not. 
A major effect of the law change has been that small businesses up and down the country have really had a problem. For many patronage has gone down by about half; others have been forced to close. I received a very desperate letter when the smoke-free law first went through from an owner of one of the cigar bars around New Zealand. He said that nobody goes into his cigar bar unless he or she wants to smoke a cigar. He said that no staff member works at his cigar bar unless he or she likes to smoke cigars as well. He asked why Labour was trying to destroy his business. I can only presume that that was not the intention of the Government. If that is the case—if it was not the intention of the Government—then the Government should support this bill going to a select committee so the select committee can have a look at the law that was passed and at what the unintended consequences have been and can allow for a better balance in the law. That is all I am asking for with this member’s bill. 
For some bars clubs and pubs the law change has been an absolute disaster. Patronage has plummeted. The worst thing is that so many promises were given when the bill was going through the House and the Health Committee that heaps and heaps of non-smokers would come in to replace the smokers who might decide to stay at home. That simply did not eventuate in most establishments up and down the country so many have closed. One of the big consequences is that many staff have been laid off. People who used to work in those places now no longer have jobs. It is not just bar staff either. All the other suppliers of services and goods to bars and pubs have suffered as well. 
I will read some excerpts from a letter from Jane. She has a small pub in a city area and her clientele are a lot of older people who enjoy coming in for a beer after they finish work. A lot of people who have retired want to come to enjoy music play pool be in good company and really have a good time. In Jane’s case she used to employ six bar staff herself and a security person. Now she is working on two staff—two bar people that is all—herself and a part-time security guard. She has gone from employing eight staff in that establishment if we count her to essentially having three and a half. She then states that people who stand in the street and try to have a smoke get hassled by young kids who want to smoke. When the kids are told they cannot have one they get very abusive vulgar and sometimes extremely violent. 
Then I have a letter from Annie who lives in a provincial town. She writes: “I have owned my hotel for 19 years and have suffered through the many changes in the liquor industry and I have survived until now. I feel so strongly about this breach of human rights that I have started smoking after being a non-smoker for 30 years. This law has not only adversely affected the hotel industry but also the service providers such as food beverage cleaning juke box and pool table businesses and maintenance contractors electricians plumbers and so on. Many people have shed staff to cope with the downturn in income. On the upside doctors and chemists are busier than ever before because of patrons getting ill through having to endure the cold weather or becoming depressed about not being able to live a normal life.” 
She goes on to apologise for writing such a politically incorrect letter but says that she now feels particularly desperate about the future. 
I have a letter here from Joe who lives in a country area. He says which I think is a bit of a worry that establishments that ignore the law are getting all the customers. He says that some people are even travelling 10 to 15 kilometres in country areas to such places and that of course they all drive back home. He says it is getting to the stage whereby one must ignore the law in order to carry on or go broke. He makes two really interesting points. He says that he was told there would be an influx of non-smoking customers buts asks where they are. That is the message that is coming from establishment owners up and down the country. He also writes: “We did not even have a choice or a chance to improve our bars to compensate for smoking to allow a healthier environment to cater for both smokers and non-smokers. I know there is a sensible solution.” 
That is what I am trying to do with this bill—provide a better sensible solution to the problems that have emerged. If the Labour Government does not support this bill going to a select committee then that will tell me it is anti-business. It is those little mum and dad businesses up and down the country that are feeling the brunt of that legislation. Since this bill was first drawn from the ballot I have consulted widely up and down the country. As a result I have put in an amendment which members can find on the Table. It appears to me that the best solution is to allow the establishment of smoking rooms within bars clubs or pubs and in those smoking rooms to have ventilation and proper air quality equipment with proper air quality standards. Most of the establishments that have been able to have put together some sort of outdoor smoking area. Many of the publicans say—and they are quite happy to do it—that if they had the opportunity to provide that inside or under cover where people can be kept warm then that is what they would like to do. 
So I ask that in this debate people consider that this is an amendment to fix up the problems that have emerged in the law. It is not draconian; it is common sense and I ask members to support its referral to a select committee. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I listened to the sponsor of the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill with great interest but some of the facts were quite incorrect. I would just like to correct those mistakes for the record and for Dr Newman. The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill was passed in December 2003. It was not implemented until December 2004 so there has not been 18 months of implementation. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Since it was passed in the House. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is right. It has been a reality out in the world for only 9 months. It is a strange thing that this exemption bill is being proposed so soon when there is a growing tide of public support for the legislation as it was passed in 2003. As one would expect non-smokers support the legislation as it stands. Support for it is now at 70 percent. That is really high—much higher than we ever expected when we passed the legislation. The other interesting statistic from the survey done by the Asthma Society is that even smokers’ support for the legislation has gone up from 22 percent to 42 percent. That is quite an astronomical increase—those people are actually saying that the legislation works. 
I also found it interesting that the sponsor Dr Newman said that whether we vote for or against this bill will flush out whether we support business. The Act is not anti-business; it is about having clean air for people to breathe. It is not just for non-smokers; it is also for the workers the volunteers the institutions and the public. The primary reason for passing the initial legislation was to ensure we had clean air. 
I am sad that one pub in my electorate is struggling—but the Lake House is an institution that has always struggled actually. It had its old drinkers and they are not going back any more. That establishment is struggling and I feel sad about that but it is ridiculous to say that a bill that began its journey in 1990—15 years ago—went through incremental increases and was reintroduced in 1999 by Tukoroirangi Morgan was something new and sudden that business did not adjust to. Business adjusts remarkably well to law. In 1999 when the next amendment about the environment was brought in business knew. If publicans bought an establishment knowing that the legislation was going to be in the pipeline over the next 5 years then it was at their own behest. Let the buyer beware. 
I am not surprised that ACT is sponsoring an amendment to the very robust Act. That is consistent with its vote against the original bill and then against the amendment bill in 2003. The exemptions proposed in this bill are simply stupid. They are stupid because we discussed the issue of exemptions at the Health Committee when we went up and down the country. It was actually the Hospitality Association of New Zealand that told us we could not have exemptions. We had been considering exemptions very seriously. At one stage we thought that pubs could have a room for smokers but that was unfair and I will tell members why. If we allowed exemptions—and in this bill I notice that exemptions would apply just to licensed premises and clubs—what would happen to the RSAs that also came to us? What about others that wanted an exemption? Suddenly we had exemptions all over the place and it was a really messy concept. 
We also learnt one other very profound thing during the submission phase of the bill—which was not that long ago—which was that ventilation systems do not work. I notice that the proposer of this bill talked about having a smoking space with a good ventilation system and a clean air standard. There is no ventilation system that reduces or eliminates the carcinogenic products of second-hand smoke or the sidestream smoke from cigarette smoking. One simply cannot remove them from the air. The particulates get into the wall and then breathe back out of the wall space. So that is an idea that would not work at all. Those contaminants stay in the environment; all a ventilation system does is blow them around. 
Just as the sponsor for this bill has been going up and down the country—I have heard that Dr Newman has been in Rotorua and good on her for finding out about it—I also went out. I had quite a haranguing from the Hospitality Association of New Zealand about the legislation and its impact but the overwhelming support from the public about saving 350 lives a year is what drove me to sponsor the legislation. It was a public health bill it was not against business and there was support from the World Health Assembly to which New Zealand is a proud signatory. 
We are determined that this legislation must remain in place and not be tampered with. The exemptions would not work. During the submission phase people from the RSA the Pool Association pétanque clubs and the Matai Club all said that the smoke-free law must go across the board without exception or else it would create an unfair playing field for commerce. We took that on board and therefore took the all-or-nothing approach. 
I think we are at a stage where it is too soon to look at the Act. After the Act was passed in 2003 we said that this issue would not be revisited. We need to get it well embedded. Any public health legislation does not start to bring about social change for over 5 years. We got social change overnight and it is simply astonishing to me that people complied with the law. 
It is also interesting that the Ministry of Health as the enforcement agency has had only 195 complaints across the country in the 9 months since the legislation’s operation. Ninety-four of those complaints came from licensed premises and some of those were from publicans who said that they needed help with recidivist offenders who when they were asked to go outside would not go. So they were from responsible publicans. Fifty complaints came from workplaces where the smoke-free legislation was not being adhered to 29 came from retail outlets and 22 came from others. 
In 2003 when the Act was passed people said that there would be police out there. I can remember the hysteria in the House about the smoking police and the smoking Nazis. That has not happened. For there to have been 195 complaints from people asking for help with the enforcement of this legislation is simply astonishing and far fewer than we ever expected. I certainly cannot support this bill. It is a little bit frivolous at this stage and I am hopeful that my colleagues are with me on this. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that speeches from here on in are 5 minutes. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I appreciate that Mr Assistant Speaker. Does that mean that I get two lots of 5? Is that what you mean? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I do not mean that— 
JOHN CARTER 
: I get two calls on this? I know you will want me to make such a long contribution— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You can try! 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is very kind Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill and I do so for a number of reasons. It has been interesting as I have been going around campaigning across the country in recent times and going into various clubs— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He’s gone. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well that is not what that member told the editor of the local paper actually. It has been interesting going around campaigning and going into different clubs. Of course as National’s spokesperson on veterans’ affairs I have been going to RSA clubs and specifically asking their members questions around the legislation. I have found some things that I am sure the House will be interested to know. One of the first things is that I was in a hotel where there was an outside restaurant. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: That’s unusual. 
JOHN CARTER 
: For me to be in a hotel? That is true! There was a restaurant that was out in the open—an outside open-air restaurant place—where a number of the patrons went to have their lunch. They had been doing so apparently for some long time. The problem now is that that practice still continues but that of course the smokers who used to be inside while the restaurant patrons were outside having their lunch are now going outside to have their cigarettes. They are now sitting outside with the people eating their lunch and the people eating their lunch outside in the nice clean air are suddenly now finding of course that they are getting smoked on. It is causing some problems. What may have to happen is that the restaurant may have to move inside so that the smokers can stay outside. 
The other thing that caused me some amusement was that I was talking to a mate of mine in a club in a town that will remain nameless. He said that the fascinating thing was that now when he goes down to the club there are normally three or four people inside and about 60 outside on the veranda—predominantly because they are smokers. He said the strange thing was that those on the outside were having a great time having their beers their cigarettes their fags—whatever—and that the three guys left inside ended up having a fight. It was probably because they were so bored they had to do something I imagine. 
So all sorts of strange things are happening. But the thing that struck me most of all in terms of the impact of this legislation is that when one goes into an RSA club and sees the old returned servicemen sitting there having their beers talking and reminiscing as they do one realises that in lots of ways that club is their home. It is where they are comfortable; it is what they have made it. It is their club—their place. Certainly they have visitors lunch rooms and different things but I ask myself what right we in this Parliament have to interfere in how those men and women want to run their clubs. Those people set up those RSA clubs for themselves; they did not set them up for people to come in and out of. They did not set them up to provide for the general public; they set them up for themselves. They are guys—men and women—who have given of their time and who have seen their colleagues and friends die and here we are now imposing rules on them against their wishes. If ever there was a case that we should be saying: “Hands off folks! It is time to allow those people to make up their minds.” it is this case. 
I could give other instances but I want us particularly to remind ourselves about the veterans. I want us to remind ourselves about the members of the RSA. Many of them go to an RSA club because it is the one place where they feel happy and where they feel at home. But we have interfered with that enjoyment. Those people gave of themselves for us; surely we should allow them some of their own time to spend in their clubs in their own ways and should not interfere in the things they think are important for them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill and is quite keen to see it go to a select committee. That is not because we want to promote smoking—far from it. I would say that the vast majority of New Zealand First MPs are non-smokers and certainly the vast majority of our members are non-smokers. But we recognise the points that the honourable John Carter made particularly concerning old ex-army folk sitting having a beer and a smoke at the RSA. We know that they are feeling the pinch with the smoke-free legislation and that many of them are quite upset by it. They fought for this country and rightfully or wrongfully when they were in the military they were encouraged to smoke. Now many of them are in their twilight years but when they go down to the RSA to watch a rugby match on the big screen they are prohibited from having a cigarette with their beer. 
The honourable John Carter also touched on the fact that the premium place in restaurants certainly in the summer months is outside. I always go outside with my wife. My wife enjoys going out to lunch and sitting on the balcony of a restaurant. But now who are we surrounded by? Smokers! It is absolutely ridiculous. The smokers now come outside and take the premium seats in a restaurant. That is daft. It is also true to say and I take Steve Crawford’s comment— 
Darren Hughes 
: Steve Chadwick. 
PETER BROWN 
: Steve Chadwick I beg your pardon. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member has got Joan Crawford on the mind. 
PETER BROWN 
: Clearly I have. Steve Chadwick stated that there are no inspectors or what have you but the Act allows for inspectors to go into an RSA a club or a pub and if the manager is not readily available to take photographs of people who might be sitting there breaking that law. I ask the members on the Government side of the House whether that is the New Zealand we want. Is that the New Zealand the Labour Party wants? Do its members want inspectors to go into a pub or club and take a photograph of somebody who is smoking if they cannot readily find the manager. I think that that is an absolute disgrace and at the very least this bill will address that issue. 
We heard the Hon Damien O’Connor a few months ago in reply to a question in the House say that 50 percent of bars and pubs are the same or better off but if that is taken the other way around it means that 50 percent are the same or worse off. Some bars and some pubs we know are losing a lot of money. Some have already closed down. Some would willingly adhere to a non-smoking policy if it were not compulsory for all premises to be non-smoking areas. 
This is a bill that gives authority to nanny State to rule on average New Zealanders’ lives. Most New Zealanders are intelligent when it comes to smoking or not smoking and to where they want to smoke when it comes to eating and drinking in establishments. New Zealand First does not believe that we should impose those sorts of restrictions on people. The average person goes to a club or a pub to enjoy a meal and a drink. Some go to enjoy a meal a drink and a smoke and we should be providing for all New Zealanders not just non-smokers. We now see many bars and establishments in a number of areas around New Zealand where smokers congregate outside and as we walk past we see dog-ends littering the pavements. I ask members whether that is the New Zealand we want. 
We believe that by going to a select committee this bill will allow the New Zealand public to have a voice to say whether the current law is working. New Zealand First is not promoting smoking; we are promoting a fair go for all New Zealanders. We welcome this bill going to a select committee. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support my colleague Muriel Newman’s bill. I support it because she is trying to get back a little part of the property rights that have been taken away from businesses. I used to smoke. I hate smoking now. My father died of lung cancer and I watched him die of lung cancer. It is not a pretty sight. It is not a nice thing to die of. But I support people’s right to smoke. Tobacco is still a legal substance. More than that I support the rights of those who have bars restaurants and clubs to have smokers on their premises. These are not public premises. Who pays the rent? Who pays for the leases? Who pays the costs of staff and all the other overheads? Who pays for the insurance? The owners do. The owners have the right to ban people if they smoke or to ban them if they do not smoke. At least they should have the right to do that. They do not have it any more. 
If this bill is really about health and clean air as Steve Chadwick said why has the Government exempted places like marae and prison cells? Maori on marae are deemed to be intelligent enough to choose whether they want to be smoke-free. Indeed a lot of marae are smoke-free now. But other ordinary New Zealanders who run bars clubs and restaurants are not deemed to be intelligent enough to choose. Why should a prisoner in his or her cell be able to smoke if this is really about clean air and protecting lives when the person whom he or she may well have mugged and stolen from cannot stagger into a bar sit down with a beer or a gin and tonic and have a cigarette to calm his or her nerves? That is why this bill is so iniquitous. 
Steve Chadwick talked about 350 lives being saved because of the second-hand smoke that workers who breathe in the second-hand smoke in bars are alleged to suffer from. Firstly that is dodgy science. Secondly if the Government is really concerned about people dying from inhaling second-hand smoke why does it not save another 350 lives by banning smoking in the home? We all know that if that science is true—if it is true that people are dying from inhaling second-hand smoke—then the real enemy in this is in the home and especially in the homes of Maori because Maori have the highest statistics for smoking especially young Maori women smoking near their babies. 
That is where this Government if it were serious about people’s health and about stopping them from dying would ban smoking altogether. But of course it would never do that—firstly because it would be totally politically incorrect to do that to Maori and secondly because of the huge amount of taxes any Government gets from selling cigarettes. Might I add that those taxes more than pay for the public health spend that is taken up by people with smoking-related diseases. Anyone who has gone through duty free and seen the difference in cost between what a carton of cigarettes costs in duty free and what it costs in the shops here will know how much of what we spend on cigarettes goes to the Government. 
So this is clearly about property rights. It is clearly even more about breaching the property rights of businesses because it is businesses that have been singled out for this ban. It is not homes it is not marae and it is not everywhere else. That is why anyone in this House who is concerned about supporting property rights—like United Future which has brought in its own member’s bill on property rights—should be supporting this bill. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise as a non-smoker who has many friends of a diverse age range who smoke to oppose this bill. This bill is plainly frivolous and silly in its proposal to make exemptions to section 12 of the Smoke-free Environments Act—which I remind the House came into force only in December last year and has been extremely successful legislation. The exemptions proposed would not work. They would simply be messy unnecessary and petty. The fact is that smoke-free laws are saving lives around the world without putting bars out of business and that is also the case in New Zealand. 
The Smoke-free Environments Act provides for the protection of workers volunteers and the public from the effects of second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. No one who reflects on that fact can see the Smoke-free Environments Act as a negative step. The Act does not take away the smoker’s right to smoke but it protects the right of non-smokers not to have second-hand smoke forced upon them. I remind the House that I am one of the 75 percent of the population who are non-smokers. 
We are already seeing the success of this law with a survey commissioned from UMR Insight Ltd in April this year showing that 70 percent of people support the smoking ban in pubs and bars. Even smokers are appreciating the benefits of smoke-free bars and pubs. The survey also revealed that 42 per cent of smokers now support the ban compared with 22 percent in the previous survey conducted in November. Support from non-smokers increased to 75 percent up from 66 percent. Second-hand smoke is 90 times more dangerous than asbestos. New Zealand’s over 10000 hospitality workers face dramatically increased health risks from second-hand smoke exposure. New Zealand’s restaurant and bar workers face nearly five times more exposure to second-hand smoke than someone who lives with a smoker and they run an estimated 50 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer. The Act is a good one. It does not deserve frivolous amendment and I will continue vocally to oppose such amendment. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting against this bill both for health reasons and to uphold people’s rights particularly the right to be in a healthy environment if they so choose. I have noticed in the hotels that I have frequented that the employees—the people who deliver the beer—are very thankful for the recent change in the law. They are very thankful because it is a much nicer and healthier environment for them. We have to think of them. Someone who is serving a long shift in a very smoky bar as these workers used to do is in a very difficult situation in terms of both discomfort and health. It is calculated that these employees had several times more risk of cancers and other diseases than people who actually live with smokers because bar workers were constantly in a smoky environment under the old system in the smokiest of pubs. 
This bill contains a provision that if all employees agree then smoking may be allowed in a bar. But I cannot see that it is very likely that employees would purposely put themselves in a smoky environment. That is not what we have heard when talking to such employees. It may be that employees who are desperate to have the job and the money coming in would sign some consent form but they would not really be doing so of their own free will; it would just be to keep the job. 
Another point that has been raised is the question of patronage. We are in a transition phase as Steve Chadwick pointed out. It may be that in the interim patronage goes down in some hotels. The hotel I went to the other day Galbraith’s Alehouse at the top of Symonds Street in Auckland was packed to the gunnels as it was—and it was fairly full—in the smoking days. A good pub where a good atmosphere is created will be well patronised. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Before the dinner break I was saying that we are in a period of transition to the new situation and there may be a bit of a drop in patronage during that transition but when we look at the statistics and see that cigarette smoking has declined to 25 percent of the population it makes sense that there will be more people like me—non-smokers who did not go to a club or a hotel very much because of the smokiness of it. I mentioned early in my speech when Muriel Newman asked me that I go to Galbraith’s Alehouse on Mt Eden Road at the top of Symonds Street. I do not think I am allowed to advertise in Parliament but I point out that I used to go there but could not stay very long when it was very smoky. They did not really get much out of me because it got too smoky. Now I go there for a longer period. I am sure there are more like me coming back. 
Sure non-smokers have been desocialised a little bit. That is because we could not stand the smoke in the pubs for a long period and we got out of the habit of going to pubs. We are getting back into the habit now although not over-imbibing when we go. John Carter and others have told us stories about the old diggers at the RSA and it is true that a higher percentage of the older generation they represent smoke so that does create certain problems for them. 
But we need to look at the health questions. It is a question of health rights—not just of individual rights but of the rights of everyone whom smokers are putting health risks on. For example those old diggers with emphysema on their last legs almost are forced to be in a smoky environment at the RSA and we have to think of them as well. We know that all the options put up in this bill—ventilation etc.—do not work. That is how I see it—it is a rights issue. It is about the right of people to have a smoke-free environment. There are options for smokers in terms of smoking taking breaks to smoke in other environments but not in the pubs where we all socialise. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 This bill brought forward by the ACT member Muriel Newman is a step in the right direction. It adds back to the debate a bit of balance about freedom of choice and particularly about reaffirming property rights. Of the members of this Parliament I am probably the only one who has run hospitality venues. I have had my own business in that regard and we were smoke-free. We chose to be smoke-free prior to the enactment of the principal Act because that was obviously the demand of our customers—not for any other reason. The point was that we did not need the nanny State to tell us what to do. We chose to do that of our own accord because we were responding to the market. 
Unfortunately one of the reasons why the original legislation—now the principal Act—was supported and pushed through at the end of last year was supposedly the pretext of protecting employees. It was not supposed to be the pretext of protecting the health of customers who could choose whether to come in. The problem is that at many hospitality venues there are no employees but literally a husband and wife team both of whom may smoke. There are no employees to take into consideration yet those people are still penalised by not being able to do what they want to do in the privacy of their own investment. And that brings me to a very important point. Individuals or groups of individuals borrow money or put money together to open up a hospitality venue and then they are told by the nanny State that in the privacy of their own investment their own property they may not do certain things such as smoke. However if a person goes out and rapes somebody or murders somebody and then goes to prison that person can smoke and the employees of the prison—and there are a number of them—do not get the same special regard paid to their health and safety. In other words those people who are Government employees living off the taxpayer are expected to endure billows of smoke yet people who choose to go into a private property which is a place of business are discriminated against. I do not think that that is fair at all. There is no balance. 
If this is a health issue though why stop at smoking? Why do we not pursue a quality of air standard? The effect on air quality is one of the reasons why we got rid of asbestos as somebody mentioned earlier. But there are other pollutants in the air as well. So what are we saying? We are saying that certain types of pollutants are not OK and that other types we simply do not legislate against. Would not the best thing be to legislate for a quality of air standard and be done with it? That would protect customers employees and the employer as well. I do not understand why prisons are given a separate status from that of private property. Why should the Government be an exception to its own do-gooder legislation? In other words why does the Government shove its ideology down the throats of individual citizens but we as a Government—not me personally of course because I want to have very little to do with that Government— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Except for your supply and confidence. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Well we are living up to our agreement but I tell members right now that my supply of confidence has run bloody short. It seems to me that the Government is giving itself an exception to a rule that it is trying to apply to individual rights. The Government is saying that it is somehow beyond a respect for property rights and that it cares for its own employees less than for others as second-class employees. But it is trying to shove its ideology down the throats of people who want to carry on their business unhindered by Government interference in the privacy of their own investment. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 
One of the things we need to do is to open up the wider issue that the bill addresses which is the right of people to congregate and do what they want to do. In a lot of rural areas pubs are suffering dramatically. Employees are losing their jobs and communities in the rural environment have to seek alternative social hubs. One of the alternatives that is happening is that people’s garages are being turned into de facto pubs. People go there and put some money into the kitty and those places are becoming de facto pubs. So all that this Government has really done is to take away legitimate business and drive legitimate users of hospitality underground. That is fundamentally wrong. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call on this bill the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill and like my Government colleagues I stand to oppose it. The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Act which came into force in December of last year provides for the protection of workers volunteers and the public from the effects of second-hand smoke. That being the case we have to ask ourselves why this bill was introduced to the House. I heard the Green speaker Keith Locke earlier on describe this bill as frivolous and I think he is quite right. 
The speaker from United Future talked about property rights. Well what about the rights of the workers volunteers and the general public to go about their workplace responsibilities and daily lives without being inhibited by somebody who smokes blowing smoke in their space? Those are the most important rights that any Parliament can protect. 
The member who sponsored this bill which I call her swansong is unaware of the support that the public in general has for the current Smoke-free Environments Act. It is quite widely accepted in those places that she promotes an exemption for that smoking is just not allowed. Workers can go about their work without being inhibited. Some workers may be harassed by employers who seek their support for smoking in clubs and pressure them into agreeing to allow people who enjoy a cigarette to smoke in their space. Those smokers can go outside to a car-park or to a paddock down the road and enjoy themselves there uninhibited. 
 So this bill really has no place in this House and certainly this habit has no place in today’s society. Statistics are telling us that each year one-third of Maori deaths are attributed to smoking either directly or indirectly. Amongst Maori communities there is huge support for the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Act in that even on marae where smoking was quite common and accepted it now is just not accepted and is not done. In fact the younger generation are continually reminding those who come on to marae to leave their cigarettes in the car and are telling them that if they feel like a smoke they should go outside to have one. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the first reading of Muriel Newman’s bill—the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill—and oppose it with some pride. When I consider all the arguments we had to listen to in Parliament at the time when Steve Chadwick sponsored the first bill through—arguments about the end of the entertainment industry and the end of bars and clubs— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Doom and gloom! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: As the Hon Dover Samuels says it was all the usual doom and gloom stuff that we have come to expect from the ACT party. I can understand the ACT party members having a slightly fatalistic and final view of the world at the present time. I do not criticise their sort of world view; one would think it would be doom and gloom. One would understand their thinking that things were going up in a puff of smoke and the smoke we will see them disappearing into I think will not be carcinogenic in terms of other members of the House. 
But I want to tell them that this legislation is working really really well. What has happened is that the three-quarters of the people who do not— 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Go and talk to people. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: That is exactly what I have been doing. The three-quarters of people who do not smoke have now experienced life in the new environment in bars and clubs and they actually say: “Gee I can notice a difference. I was prepared to stick up for my friends who smoked and I thought maybe that legislation was a bit over the top. But now that I can see what a clean-air environment actually means and what it is like to go out and eat socialise dance drink and party in I actually quite like it.” 
But more than that Dr Newman needs to know that people who smoke can actually see the difference as well. We get far more people telling us as we move about the place that the legislation is not as bad as they thought it would be than people telling us that we absolutely have to change it. 
Of course New Zealand was not the world leader in this regard. We always used to be at the cutting edge of smoke-free initiatives but after 9 long years of a National Government we fell behind on all those important public health measures—as is always the case—because it was too keen on trying to cut taxes education health and pensions and making New Zealand a mean and miserable place. So we have had to try to bring these issues back to the fore. 
In that regard the Americans have actually had a bit of a run on us. California which is a pretty busy place with a lot of entertainment and people out and about enjoying life and New York City—again a big entertainment place with people out enjoying themselves—have seen significant gains already through having smoke-free environments. 
We have never said that people should not smoke. Obviously that is an adult’s right to choose. If people are 18 years of age or over they can choose to smoke. But because we know categorically that smoking has an effect on other people we have said: “Wouldn’t it be quite a good public health idea to try to make sure that other people did not suffer from the actions of a few?” because only a quarter of the population of course smoke. The ACT party which one would think would say that people should be responsible for their own actions and not cause externalities to other people seems to be totally blind to the fact that other people breathe oxygen that has been polluted with tobacco smoke in confined environments—that is inside. People can go outside and smoke—that is fine; it is a big planet. But what we are saying is that our bars cafes and restaurants should remain smoke-free because it is working very very well. 
The Californian Medical Association reported that lung cancer rates in California have fallen six times faster than those in any other state in America that did not have public measures like this. That statistic alone—those kind of gains—would indicate to me that this is a good idea that we should continue to pursue. 
I acknowledge that some clubs have found the legislation difficult. What I do say is that bar owners have said to me that it is nowhere near as bad as they thought it would be and nowhere near as bad as the Opposition made out at the time. The scaremongering that was going on was of course—as everything is—from National. National told us that the Employment Relations Act would cause the end of the economy and joblessness all round. Of course what the legislation has created is much fairer workplaces and the lowest unemployment in the OECD. So things are not quite so bad as Opposition parties often say. 
The Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act is making a difference. People who work in this environment are finding it is worthwhile and also patrons are enjoying the smoke-free environments. 
Marc Alexander 
: Rubbish! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Marc Alexander calls out “Rubbish!”. When one goes into those places and asks people whether they prefer the clean air—and I am thinking of the Levin “cossie club” or across at our RSA—do people say: “The worst thing about my Friday night now is that I can’t breathe in other people’s smoke.”? How many people have said that to the member? 
Marc Alexander 
: Dozens. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The member is now in the final days before Parliament rises running the real risk of a privileges case because he is claiming that dozens of people have said to him: “My Friday nights are ruined because I can’t breathe in the second-hand smoke of others.” I find that proposition very difficult to follow indeed. What we see is that those places are improving. All the statistics that come from other areas show that more people are spending money more people are enjoying the atmosphere. I think this is a good measure that we have taken. It is just like when smoking on aeroplanes was banned and people said it was PC nonsense. 
Dail Jones 
: When was that? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: One used to be able to smoke on a plane on long-haul flights. If one had the first row of “non-smoking” behind the last row of “smoking” presumably the ACT party would say that was all right because there was a decent exemption. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 It is hugely disappointing I have to say to listen to the members of the Labour Party who clearly have not read the bill. The bill allows for people who smoke to go into a smoking room that has good ventilation and proper air quality standards so that their cigarette smoke does not go around the rest of the establishment. But clearly those members have not read the bill. It is very disappointing that Labour members along with the Greens are so ideologically driven that they are not even prepared to say that there are huge problems with their legislation and that it would be a good thing to send it back to a select committee and let the committee have a look at it and take out the problem areas. They seem to be absolutely determined to take away every single right of citizens who want to enjoy having a cigarette. 
As I said earlier in this debate I do not smoke myself but the point is that it is not legal in New Zealand to smoke in public places. Those parties are also taking away the rights of the small businesses who serve the public. I think that this Labour Government has just gone way too far with its legislation. It is political correctness gone mad. Fancy forcing veterans from the RSA out into the cold to have a smoke! Those people put their lives up for this country—and for them—and they are being forced out into the gutter and being treated like dogs. I think it is appalling in this society that we have a Government that is prepared to do that. I believe that every single New Zealander should be treated with respect. This Government is saying to those New Zealanders who chose to smoke: “You are second-class citizens.” I say that that is not good enough. I stand up for their rights to be treated decently in New Zealand and I stand up for the rights of the small businesses who serve them to be treated decently as well. 
All I am asking is that smokers be allowed to smoke in a smoking room in an establishment as long as it complies with the air quality standards. I personally do not see anything wrong with that. I would like to thank United Future New Zealand First and I understand most of the National Party for supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. It is common sense. I say to the Labour Government members that when they get thrown out at the election because they are a pack of dictators they will find that this bill will be reviewed by a select committee because New Zealanders know that what is going on is not right. Non-smokers are having to sit outside in the cold as well because there is nobody left inside the pub for them to talk to. It is a shame that this anti-business Labour Government does not care about establishments up and down the country that have lost half their patronage. All the little suppliers who provide the pubs with goods and services are going broke as well. People are setting up illegal drinking establishments around the country. Labour does not seem to care about that either. 
It is absolutely outrageous that Labour is so arrogant that it will not allow this member’s bill which says it is time to have another look at the law and correct its unintended consequences to be referred to a select committee. Labour does not even have the gumption or the goodwill to send the bill to a select committee so that the next Parliament can have a look at the law and make sure it is doing what it was supposed to do. When I started out in this debate I was charitable enough to think that the problems that are occurring up and down New Zealand are actually unintended consequences. But having listened to the Labour Party speakers I have to say that I now believe they do not care at all. One of the members stood up and said: “Isn’t it great that on marae people are choosing not to smoke.” I say that is fantastic but at least they had the choice. This Government took away the choice from every other sort of establishment in this country. It is like a dictatorship. It has got worse as the 6 years have gone by. Heaven help New Zealand if it has another 3 years of this Government. 
There are still a couple of moments left for those members who plan to oppose this bill to change their minds—an act of charity to a party. I have had about seven member’s bills before this Parliament and not one of them has ever been sent to a select committee even though many of them had merit and in fact many of the ideas have been passed into law by the Government. I say that this bill should be sent a select committee so that the next Parliament can have a look at it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the National Party to cast a split vote in this debate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that Mr Tisch will undertake to place on the Table the way in which National Party members have voted—naming those who have voted for the bill and those who have voted against it. I ask him to confirm that that will be the case. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 That is correct. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you just clarify that the motion that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee occurs after the vote if the vote is successful. Is that right? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is right. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Therefore I ask the House to support it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I need to confirm that there is no objection to Lindsay Tisch’s seeking of leave. Is there any objection? There is not. It is agreed to. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 7. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 3; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
The bill that I am presenting to the House tonight is a chance for Aotearoa New Zealand to take a step into the future and rid ourselves of an archaic law that legitimises the use of quite serious force against our children. At the moment judges and juries have it within their power to find parents not guilty of assault when for example they beat their children with things like belts canes hosepipes jug cords pieces of wood and horse crops. My bill simply seeks to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act—nothing more and nothing less. 
In law section 59 allows a defence of reasonable force when a parent is charged with assaulting his or her child even when that assault is carried out with objects like these. In practice section 59 conveys the message to all New Zealanders that the State thinks it is legitimate and OK to use so-called reasonable force against those who at least until they grow up are smaller weaker and less mature than we are. What I am not doing is proposing a new law that might for example make it a crime to lightly smack a child or to physically restrain a child when such restraint is manifestly necessary such as when a toddler is closing in on a power point with a fork in hand. I am not seeking in any way to criminalise ordinary parents. I just want to remove a legal defence that is used when some people seriously hit or beat their children with objects like those mentioned. 
It is a nonsense to say that as so many of my political opponents are doing at the moment should repeal of section 59 happen parents will suddenly be subject to arrest prosecution and conviction if they lightly smack their child. There is no way the Department of Child Youth and Family Services will abruptly abandon its huge current caseload to remove children from parents who smack them as United Future ridiculously alleges; nor will police all at once start arresting parents who put their child in a room for a bit of time out. It is patently ridiculous to think that all of a sudden the removal of the defence of reasonable force will lead to police all over the country arresting people for such actions. Goodness knows they have enough other work to do. The aim of this repeal is not to subject parents to prosecution for trivial assault. In other countries where laws like this have been changed there has not been a marked increase in such arrests. I certainly would not expect it to happen here where the climate of public opinion is so manifestly not ready for a ban on smacking. 
One of the best ways of dealing with the fear so many people have about this may be to get the police in association with bodies like the Children’s Commissioner and the Families Commission to develop and make public guidelines on prosecutions to cover situations where children are assaulted. Full consideration of this option could be a part of the select committee process. 
This bill is not about imposing penalties on parents who currently use light physical discipline. It is about giving children and young people the same legal protection from physical assault that adults have. I do not understand at all why it is illegal in New Zealand to beat my spouse another adult a policeman or even an animal harshly with a horse crop or a piece of wood but it can be legal to do the same thing to my child. It seems to me that section 59 of the Crimes Act is a relic of English 19th century law and thinking which said that children were simply the property of their parents and were subject to their total control and to harsh physical discipline. At that time the same applied to wives servants and horses. Strangely it is only children to whom this quaint but dangerous law still applies. 
I believe that babies and children deserve our careful love and respect from the time they are born. I am a mother of five children myself and brought up my first children—twins—on the domestic purposes benefit for their first few years. I know full well how hard being a parent can be. My kids were no angels and one of them had particular problems as alas so many of our children do. However to the best of my knowledge I have never used hitting or smacking on my children. I am not putting myself forward as some kind of saint; I am certainly not that. It is simply that I never wanted to strike them in any way and I never found it necessary. I just feel that as both an MP and a mother I have a responsibility to do everything I can to stop State legitimisation of the use of serious force against our children. While this is a member’s bill about which I am particularly passionate I would just like to note for the record that it has the full backing of the Green Party. Repealing section 59 is a key plank of our children’s policy and is also part of our commitment to the kaupapa of non-violence which is one of the Green Party’s four core principles. 
 I stand in the House tonight to call on members from all other parties to consider supporting the repeal of section 59 or at least to vote to allow my bill to go to select committee so that all the myriad issues involved can be fully debated through public submission processes and through Parliament’s political consideration. I am delighted that both the Labour and Progressive parties have publicly committed to supporting this bill through its first reading and for it to go to a select committee. I am also aware that other members here would like to support the bill and I hope that some of them will feel able to do so even though their vote may differ from their party’s vote. I call on those members to do the right thing and take this opportunity to cast their conscience vote with all of us who believe that repeal is one step that must be taken if we are serious about lowering the levels of violence against children. 
I have been speaking on and debating this issue in many communities over the last 2 months and I know full well the depth of feeling there is on all sides of it. The issue is highly controversial. It is one that cuts deep into our national psyche and it is a debate that needs to happen. The fact that my bill has been drawn on the eve of a general election makes it even clearer that this is a key issue for many. 
Numerous individuals and organisations support full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act and I would like to acknowledge their presence here in the House tonight. For some of them this bill is a further step in a life-long commitment to reducing levels of violence against children and I would particularly like to pay my respects to Beth Wood from EPOCH New Zealand who has worked so tirelessly on this issue for so many years. There are many others too. Some of the people and organisations that support repeal of section 59 include to name some of them: Plunket Barnardos Save the Children Parentline Parents Centre New Zealand Unicef New Zealand the Families Commissioner the Children’s Commissioner the Auckland University of Technology Institute of Public Policy the Law Society the New Zealand Paediatric Society the Association of Psychotherapists Wesley Community Action the Sisters of St Joseph of Nazareth the New Zealand Association of Counsellors Pax Christi the Quakers and all the groups that make up the Every Child Counts campaign. 
Our country has an all-pervasive culture of violence against children that leads to us having one of the highest abuse and child mortality rates in the developed world. People coming to this country for the first time even from places like Israel are shocked by the culture of violence we have here in the household and in the family. It is high time we lived up to our commitments as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are currently in breach of the convention despite paying lip service to it because we allow State-sanctioned force here. I believe that Government has a responsibility to lead the way on this. 
I welcome the national debate that my bill has opened up about how as a society we regard and treat our children and I hope that during the process of submissions on the bill we open the way for the voices of children and young people to be heard as well. Children do not usually make submissions to select committees. On section 59 I think it is critical that we adults do allow our ears to open—and our minds as well—to hear what young people have to say about this issue that affects them so deeply. If ever there was a time that Parliament should begin to seriously include the views of children in our processes it is now with this bill. All the research I have ever seen shows that children who are beaten and assaulted have much poorer outcomes as adults and are much more likely to perpetuate cycles of mental illness criminality violence and deprivation. 
For the sake of all our futures I call on all MPs here tonight to think seriously about allowing this bill to go to a select committee and to consider the possibility that full repeal of section 59 would actually benefit all parents and children in this country rather than create some of the totally absurd scenarios currently being put forward in some quarters. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are we going to have clapping calling or anything else coming from the public gallery? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: How outrageous! 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister will stand withdraw and apologise. The member was taking a point of order and I was going to rule on it. The member knows that there should be silence during points of order. This is a final warning. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I do apologise although I do think the member was being very ungracious. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will now stand withdraw and apologise with no other comment. He knows better than that. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I apologise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I think the people in the public gallery probably are not aware of the rules of the House—so it is just to be fair to them. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes. There will certainly be no contribution from the gallery to the procedures of the House. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just as a further clarification often during a treaty settlement bill the gallery will contribute by way of either a waiata or applause as we have just heard. The National Party never objects to that. Can I just take it that this new one standard of citizenship will apply to the largely Pakeha crowd in the audience tonight as well? 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It may be that many of us have assumed that consent had been obtained. I know that when I first heard those kinds of displays and knew that they were against the Standing Orders we were told that approval had been given by the Speaker. If approval has not been given then perhaps it could be sought because it is very difficult for the Speaker to enforce order of that kind. I seek the leave of the House to overlook that gallery rule although I do it reluctantly and with a great sense of objection that Mr Benson-Pope should try to cover his tracks by pretending to have a great interest in this bill. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The position of the House in granting leave for a waiata and an acclamation at the end of a passage of a piece of legislation has been accepted practice and I believe that it would certainly get the agreement of New Zealand First at the end of the debate here tonight. But to allow it to take place progressively throughout the debate would I think be totally wrong and in defiance of the Standing Orders. It would not get the support of New Zealand First as an ongoing thing but certainly as a wind-up end to the debate we would support it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. Stephen Franks is absolutely right—that permission is sought—as is the Hon Brian Donnelly on the point he made. Is there any objection— 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Can I just clarify that the leave asked for by Stephen Franks was an open blanket one whereas I am asking whether Mr Franks accepts that it is just at the end. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 That would be more decorous and I therefore amend my request for leave along the lines suggested by Mr Donnelly. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. It is actually at the discretion of the Speaker too. But certainly if members agree to that that is a quite proper way to do it. Is there any objection? There is not.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 To all the viewers of television news can I state very clearly that this bill is not about smacking. This bill is not about family values. This bill is focused on section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which provides that every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. The issue is our understanding of “reasonable force”. 
New Zealanders are in agreement that children should not be assaulted or brutalised. New Zealanders are also in agreement that parents who smack children must not be criminalised. The problem lies with the interpretation of section 59. Section 59 allows parents to use physical punishment with the intention of disciplining their children without being guilty of an offence as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Section 59 operates as a defence that can be raised in relation to any charge involving the application of force to a child by a parent. However the term “reasonable” is not defined. 
The test of reasonableness is one of fact. Therefore if that defence is raised in court then “reasonableness” must be determined on a case by case basis. In making that decision the judge or jury can only be guided by their own experience by knowledge of community standards or past cases. Is their own experience determined by their experience as children and when was that? There is a difference between Mr Hughes’ childhood and mine. Is it “their own experience” as parents or is it their experience as grandparents? It is a very different time and responsibility. 
In relation to knowledge of community standards every member of this House will know that that issue is extremely difficult to assess particularly because it is so much a matter of practice within a community or group. Lastly they are guided by past cases. 
Life and community activities change. My mother beat me with little actual success I have to say with a cane as was shown over there. She beat all four of us with that cane. She raised three children by herself during World War II while my father was overseas. It was a fairly stressful time. She did that. It did not work with me and I can remember my brother at 6 foot breaking the cane in front of her. I did not beat my children like that but I did hit them and I acknowledge that. I am not proud of it but life has changed. I would no more think of caning my children now than my mother would not think of it because she believed it was so important. 
It is very difficult to make general legal rules as to what is reasonable and what is unreasonable force. I suppose it is because of that difficulty that Sue Bradford in her bill argues that the solution is to repeal section 59; to repeal the defence that is available. Others like some members of United Future argue that we can solve the issue by clarifying the meaning of “reasonable force”. 
The Labour caucus has agreed that there is benefit in the issues surrounding section 59 being referred to a select committee for further discussion and debate. It has therefore agreed to support the referral of the bill so that a full range of options can be identified and carefully considered. Some of those options do include repeal as Sue Bradford is suggesting. They can include amendment to give judicial guidance on what amounts to “reasonable force” or repeal with a specific prohibition of what the majority of New Zealanders would find unacceptable by way of physical force and I suppose that means by trying to define it. 
Labour welcomes wide public debate on which solution is the most workable. Parliament is a place of debate. That may surprise listeners. Parliament should be a place where issues are clarified. We should not be afraid of taking a difficult issue and putting it to a select committee to hear submissions and to clarify the issue with the community—not for the community but with the community. That is why Labour is voting to send Sue Bradford’s bill to a select committee. That will provide a forum for argument a forum for listening to submissions from the community a forum for examination. It is hoped that some clarification will result. 
We are not the only people who agree that this issue should be discussed and examined. The issue of whether smacking is good or bad is not the issue that is on the table but whether section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is clear as to what makes a defence. What is meant by reasonable force? If we cannot clarify that maybe we should repeal the provision or rewrite it. As I said Labour is not the only group to support such a discussion. In a release today Plunket said: “Plunket supports the bill going to a select committee because it will provide an opportunity for public debate about the serious issue of violence against children and whether it is appropriate or necessary to retain the legal defence for parents who assault their children.” 
After the select committee hearings of submissions a report will be prepared making recommendations about the future of section 59 and any amendments to the bill. Then members of Parliament will vote again as to where this bill proceeds. Then we have Every Child Counts which is a wonderful coalition of Barnardos Plunket Save the Children Unicef New Zealand and Auckland University of Technology’s Institute of Public Policy. It is also supported by 290 more organisations and thousands of individual supporters who say that a select committee hearing provides the opportunity for legislators to receive submissions from all the interested parties such as parents children’s organisations academics faith-based organisations and children themselves. Once those views have been considered then Parliament—the debating chamber the listening chamber—as a whole can have an informed debate. 
I do get tired of simplistic reporting. This bill has been reported so lazily to the public as being simply anti-smacking. Parenting is a tough job. The story told by Sue Bradford as an early parent reminds me of things. Parents need support and encouragement. Too often they feel alone. Parents need not to feel guilty. As I said my mother caned me. My parenting skills were not quite like that but I did hit my children particularly in stressful times. But the action that I feel most guilty about is the several times I put my child in the garage because he would not eat his peas— he turned 33 yesterday! I put him in the garage because he would not eat his peas and I left him there for an hour and a half. I think that is fairly shocking. How successful was I? He has turned out to be a vegan. 
The Labour Government’s programme of SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents is about supporting parents to find their way of working with their children. By voting to send this bill to a select committee Labour is not arguing that one method of parenting is better than another. We know that parenting is the most important and the hardest of jobs. But we do need to focus on section 59 to scrutinise whether it is achieving what the community intends. I am confident that New Zealanders do not support the brutalisation and fear of children. 
I ask my colleagues to consider sending this bill to a select committee for just such scrutiny—whether repeal or amendment. United Future let us have this issue discussed. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 As Sue Bradford will know I considered long and hard whether to support this bill. When I saw the bill I discussed the matter with many parents and I came down firmly on the side of saying for parents: “Hey we know that parents cannot do a perfect job. I’m not a parenting expert; I’m just a parent. We don’t expect parents to be parenting experts. We expect them just to try to do the best for their kids because if they don’t do it no one else will.” Being a parent is one of the toughest jobs in the world. Our only preparation comes from our own life experience. No amount of education programmes or well-meaning advice from members of Parliament will necessarily make one scrap of difference to how a parent parents. The fact is we learn from our own parents and we actually learn from our own parents’ mistakes—mistakes that we try not to make ourselves. No doubt we all make our own mistakes and mistakes that our own parents did not make we tend to make. 
Children are not just little adults. Children cannot vote they do not drink alcohol—I hope—they do not work for income they do not get benefits and they cannot stand for Parliament but occasionally we wonder about that! A 10-year-old can hit his mother and get away with it. There are different rules for children and for adults and there are reasons for that. I do not think anybody in this Parliament and I acknowledge that previous speakers have also mentioned this would ever condone beating children. But I think about being a parent and I think about being a child and I know of people whose children have been burnt by boiling water. I have seen what happens when a little child has reached up and pulled the kettle cord and boiling water has gone all over him. I think the only thing to do when a 3-year-old is about to do that is to smack the child’s hand take him or her aside and talk about it as best one can. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been made clear that we are not to have interruptions from the gallery. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be no comment from the gallery. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I expect there will be an addition to the member’s time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you Mr Jones. It is not all right to say to a parent who takes that sort of action that he or she could be criminally liable. I note the points made by Sue Bradford and Marian Hobbs. I note the point that we would hopefully not have Child Youth and Family Services workers running around interfering in situations like that and hopefully not have the police doing that. But I also note that that was one of the arguments that in particular Mrs Bradford gave in terms of the Prostitution Reform Bill. It was said that the police might run around prosecuting people for prostitution but I think there has been one conviction in about 3 years. 
The fact is we cannot have it both ways. Parliament does not make laws so that they can be broken. If I were to smack the hand of an adult that would be an assault. If I were to take an adult by the shoulder or arm and force that person to sit in a room by himself or herself for an hour that would be an assault. If a parent picks up a child who is physically struggling puts the child in a room shuts the door and leaves the child there that is an assault unless there is the defence of “reasonable force”. No amount of nonsense spoken in this House is going to change that. I understand that the previous speakers do not have backgrounds as lawyers but I can tell them that that is an assault. The fact is most assaults are never prosecuted—but that is still an assault. We cannot afford to criminalise our children and our parents in this way. 
I have listened to speakers talk about some of the simplistic answers. Well this bill is a simplistic answer. When we come down to the House and see instruments such as whips and canes brought in here that is done for effect and for a headline. The fact is we in this House do not know all the facts of those particular court cases. We were not one of those 12 jurors who looked at all the facts—we were not. It is not in our role to judge those jurors. If we need to redefine “reasonable force” we need to do so but simply to leave good parents wondering whether their child at a day-care centre might say: “Mummy smacks me if I do that.” and the next thing the parent finds she is in trouble is something we should not do to our parents or our children. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I congratulate Sue Bradford on having the bravery to bring this issue forward and I think it is wonderful timing that it has come to the House before an election. I am proud to support this bill. I have been a long-time advocate for children and families professionally having established the first women’s refuge in Rotorua and the first child advocacy service at Rotorua Hospital where we had to do the forensic assessment of very abused children. That is where I learnt my trade. I now have the pleasure of co-hosting the Littlies Lobby sponsored by Plunket and the Office of the Commissioner for Children. We have wonderful support for the campaign of Every Child Counts. This is an issue that is hugely controversial but it is a discussion that is going on in our communities now. That is because of Sue Bradford’s bill and she is to be congratulated. 
There does need to be clarity around the issue of what is just known as “reinforcing behaviour” in relation to risk. The previous speaker mentioned the example of a jug of boiling water. We all understand that fine line when it comes to disciplining a child but here we are talking about “reasonable force”. This bill does not condemn parents the rights to discipline their own children and that includes smacking—something I never had to use for any of my children. We were probably of that middle class that rationalised with children rather than having to use the strategy of smacking. 
The bill does not criminalise parents who smack their children as extremists all around the country are suggesting. It is about giving consistent messages and protecting our kids. We do need to look at the definition of “reasonable force”—and heaven forbid lawyers spend enough time in the courts trying to define what reasonable force is. Sue Bradford’s bill simply removes Section 59 as a defence before the law. I am married to a lawyer who deals with family law cases where heaven forbid we see enough lawyers trying to hide behind the defence of reasonable force which is simply inexcusable for many of the cases that go before our courts. This reminds me of a very young child whom I admitted to our children’s ward. I held the child up to get him into the cot and his body collapsed under my arms. His father told me that he had not struck the child; that the child damaged himself trying to get out of the cot. But 22 bones in that child’s body had been smashed. That child had been struck. It is indefensible to hide behind the defence of reasonable force in the courts. 
The bill protects our kids from unreasonable violence. We all know that line of what is “unreasonable violence”. It also supports the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I remind members that New Zealand is a signatory to that treaty which is committed to protecting and ensuring that children’s rights are met—that is the right to protection from harmful influences abuse and protection. We are signatories to this treaty internationally. New Zealand reported on that convention in 2003. It is next due to report in 2008. One of the recommendations in 2003 stated that section 59 of our Crimes Act was inconsistent with the convention. It recommended that appropriate mechanisms be put in place for programmes and services for parents. We do know how difficult parenting is. 
As a Government we have done so much about protecting the rights of children—from Te Rito Opportunity for All New Zealanders Agenda for Children and SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents and we held a hearing on “Creating a Culture of Non-violence”. One of our recommendations from that was that we needed to look at the whole aspect of violence with a whole-of-Government approach and in my view that also suggests repealing section 59. I am proud to support this bill. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I want to emphasise New Zealand First’s concern for the family and all the members of the family. As members will recall New Zealand First put forward a bill the Commission for the Family Bill in the name of Craig McNair ultimately and it had I think the best definition of “family” of any of the families bills that came before Parliament this year. We got it right this term and we got it right the first time. Unfortunately that bill was not supported by the House. For myself when I came into the House in July 1976 and made my maiden speech I said I was very pleased that the then National Government newly re-elected had re-established the Cabinet committee for children and the family. I mentioned that especially in my maiden speech. 
I am the father of three children and I have admonished my children both my giving them a slap on the back of the hand and on the extremely rare occasion by using a little black strap. It was something that was in a woollen car seat cover and it sort of fell out one day. It was only this big not big at all and it seemed to be a very appropriate thing to use on the very very rare occasion when someone did something terribly wrong. I agree with Marian Hobbs that the main concern as a parent in those early days especially with our first child—and most experiments I think are conducted on the first child one way or the other—was to get the child to eat. That usually seemed to be an issue at dinner time when my wife had gone to a lot of trouble in preparing a good meal and our son would not eat anything. So we gave him a slap on the back of the hand to encourage him to eat. My daughter never had any admonishment by me. My younger son was a little naughtier and he got the black strap on the hand at least once. I do not think that that was necessarily violent; I believe that what I did in the circumstances was appropriate parenting. Of course if this bill were passed into law I would be committing a criminal offence by doing that. It is a criminal offence to assault someone but a defence is currently available to a parent if any admonition is of a reasonable kind. This bill would render someone who does what I did liable to a criminal charge. 
I think that one of the worst things a parent can do—and it is not covered in this bill—is to shout at his or her children. I think that to shout constantly at a child and to have parents shouting at each other can do more harm in the average family than the occasional slap on the back of the hand does. I think that one of the worst things we can do to a child is to not speak to him or her for about 2 weeks. That is another thing that some parents do and it can be even worse than a one-off slap on the back of the hand to warn children to pull themselves together. One hates to say it but as parents we may feel even more hurt than a child does because we have had to admonish a child in that way. 
Judith Collins mentioned the boiling water situation. When my children were growing up we had a house that had open fireplaces with a surround around them. One cannot stop a 2-year-old from toddling up and heading towards a fireplace. Even with a surround around a fireplace a child can touch it and get burnt. Somehow or other we have to teach children that that is dangerous before they find that out for themselves. 
I find that I am unable to support this bill because if I supported it I would be a hypocrite. It would be absolutely wrong in my own mind that I would be setting up a situation that I did not carry out and I would not want other parents to become criminals for doing something that I did during the course of bringing up my children. Of course people say that the laying of charges will be at the police’s discretion. Well that is not very satisfactory. Police forces can change circumstances can change and Governments can change. 
One thing I say to the people who make submissions on this issue—and I would like to say this to Plunket—is that they should have another look at the answer to question No. 1 in Plunket’s paper  
Questions and Answers on the Repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 
. It states: “It will simply remove a legal defense that is used when parents seriously assault their children—”. I think that in that case Plunket has it slightly around the wrong way. When I look at the Littlies Lobby survey I see that it really should have asked the question: “Have you smacked your children?”. That would have been very helpful. Instead it has come up with question No. 4. I appreciate the trouble the Littlies Lobby went to but of the answers given 1332 people admitted that they did smack their children. So there is a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty. 
Of course Sweden has come into the act once more—the Plunket paper mentions Sweden. We cannot do anything these days without Sweden being mentioned. My investigations show that things have become worse for children in Sweden since the passing of Sweden’s declaratory law. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I look at these matters first as a lawyer then as a citizen and as a parent. I became involved in this issue 5 years ago when I was asked to speak at a Barnardos forum. I realised later that it was assumed that I would be the man in the black hat because I found that all the other parties—National and New Zealand First included—were keen on repealing section 59. I assumed that they had a sincere good motive. I understand the helpless rage that a teenager perhaps feels at being beaten. I can see the awful hurt for children who are waiting for the world to hit them—the brutalising effect of helplessness in the face of adult strength. 
I believe too that for many parents it is probably quite clear that non-violent methods of discipline are better. But I am very conscious of how humble we must be and how hard it is to find cause and effect in human circumstances. I suspect that the consistency and predictability of discipline is much more important than the actual kind and I am quite confident that cold deprivation of affection will be more damaging than some temporary exasperation expressed physically. A vicious selfishness will be just that however it is expressed but discipline from loving concern will probably work almost regardless of how it is expressed. 
I have found that the people I have dealt with—and I know that this may sound hurtful to many of them—are not sincere. I think after the many many debates I have now had that they actually enjoy the fact that many ordinary parents are outraged by the suggested interference in their child rearing. I think that this bill’s promoters relish the anguish because there is a kind of self-righteous pleasure in telling lesser mortals what to do. In fact the more the protest the more justified they feel—the more they feel that they are the leaders and are out ahead of all the people who do not know how to do it. They really get their jollies in this debate from the people who are resisting. 
New Zealand is a violent place. I heard mention of 11000 suspected cases of child abuse. Hundreds of kids out there are basically living wild and sniffing glue. There are 12-year-old girl prostitutes. Thousands of kids who are sponsored by the State and who are in fact bred by the State are victims of each other. 
I really ask the people promoting this bill whether they ever have a moment’s self-doubt. Do they ever stop to ask why New Zealand today seems to have so many more kids who have been abandoned? Do they ever stop to ask why we did not get the heaven on earth that was supposed to occur in our schools 15 years ago when corporal punishment was abolished? Does it ever occur to them that the 20000 kids suspended from school or two-thirds of the 18000 kids in the Correspondence School might still be at school if it had not been for the loss of a discipline method that was familiar to many of their families? I know that when that bill went through conservative Labour Ministers said that it would hurt their people most of all because their culture assumed rigorous discipline. 
Humility is in order for this Parliament in any situation whereby 70 or 80 percent of parents are telling us to leave them alone. Juries hear the circumstances. The law says “reasonable force”; it does not say “serious force”. This law will criminalise. In fact it is very hard for me not to use unparliamentary language when I hear some of the arguments here. I have debated with Sue Bradford five times now and she keeps saying that she does not intend to criminalise people. She knows very well that assault is any uninvited unintended and unwelcome touching and that smacking will be a criminal act if her bill goes through. 
I am also very conscious that the last time I heard this kind of cant was when the prostitution legislation was going through. Labour and the Greens insisted that we remove the provision the police had wanted that would allow police to ask the age of prostitutes. Those members went through a crocodile-tear eye-glistening performance in this House while they took out the only practical means of enforcement. They are responsible for this misery. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 2005 which is a member’s bill in the name of Sue Bradford. 
At the beginning United Future considered supporting the first reading for some of the reasons that have been outlined by members in the House so that it could go to a select committee and be discussed. One of our members also has a member’s bill to do with section 59 which has not been balloted. We wondered whether we had an opportunity to address his and our concerns around section 59 alongside Ms Bradford’s bill. We wrote to her and asked for some feedback as to whether there was a willingness on her part to consider our concerns. I have certainly shared a platform with her on this matter on several occasions in the last few weeks and it is absolutely clear that anything less than full repeal is unacceptable to her. That has then forced us to say that there is no point in supporting a first reading because there is no willingness and no openness to discussion. All Ms Bradford is open to is full repeal. That is why United Future will not be supporting this bill. 
 My colleague’s member’s bill unlike what is often being touted around the galleries is not about calibrating reasonable force. He looked at what was needed because he knew that there were concerns. There have been rumours for years. Back in the 1980s when I was parenting small children there was talk about the repeal of section 59. What became obvious was that it is very easy to define “unreasonable force”. Hitting a child around the head the chest the stomach the back or anywhere that protects vital organs and bruising breaking the skin or breaking a bone of a child are easily defined and would send a clear message to parents about what unreasonable force is. Unfortunately there is no willingness for those kinds of discussions to be had. 
When I first got into Parliament a very sincere lady came to see me about section 59 and we had a bit of a discussion about it. In the end I said that I had to be honest with her; I had smacked my children on occasions when they were growing up. Her response was really interesting. She hung her head for a moment and said: “Yes I lost it occasionally too.” I said: “Hold on a minute. I didn’t lose it.” There is always the assumption that when a child is smacked somebody has lost control. My message to her was that no parent should do anything if he or she is out of control or if he or she is frustrated tired and distressed. Parents should not even open their mouths when they are in that condition. I have spent time with adults who are still suffering from things that were said to them by an out-of-control parent when they were small children that have been far more damaging than a smack that they may have received in those same years. 
The parent-child relationship is unique. It is not like any other kind of relationship. Section 59 does not actually say anything about striking a child. It just provides a legal defence for parents who discipline their children using reasonable force. It respects the right of a parent to impose their will on their child. Every form of discipline does this. Even placing a child in time out requires the best use of reasonable force. The defence exists for parents to allow them to act in the best interests of their child even against their child’s own wishes. As I said before that is because the parent-child relationship is completely unique. 
I finish by saying that the claim that this helps us to comply with our obligations to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is misleading because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requests that all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence injury or abuse are dealt with. “Violence injury or abuse” is a world apart from reasonable force. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 Firstly I want to state that we all abhor abuse and violence towards children—I do not think there is one member in this House who does not. Secondly the bill before us as at present drafted in the event that it is passed in its present state would make all parents criminally liable for assault. In terms of the way the present bill is drafted that is a fact. I do not accept or agree to that. I do accept on behalf of the Labour Party that because it is such a contentious issue such a widely debated issue it should be referred to a select committee so that Kiwis can have a good say about it. The extent to which the report back occurs will be interesting to say the least. 
Thirdly I want to say that in my respectful opinion in terms of the information and evidence received as Minister of Youth Affairs 95 percent—or more—of Kiwi parents are great parents. I am sick and tired of hearing report after report from do-gooder organisations that feast on the failure of dysfunctional families and that come into the House lobbying groups and telling Kiwi parents that they are bad parents. I disregard that and I have the greatest of disrespect for that. One day in this country and in this Parliament we will start to stand up rejoice and celebrate our great parents and the great successes they are achieving with the great kids they are producing. It is about time that we shift the debate to that extent. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why don’t you vote against the bill? 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I say to that tug muscle that I have just said that the bill is going to a select committee so that people can have a say. 
I also want to challenge the view expressed by Stephen Franks who thinks that New Zealand society is violent. Why does he not go to Iraq? Why does he not go to London or wherever else? That is an overstatement. Is there violence in New Zealand society? Any violence regardless of the degree or level is unacceptable. That is the issue. The issue is that we should not beat ourselves up over it. The reality is that more people will then start to see our research projects. If people care to have a look at our research projects in terms of what we fund they will see that we always fund what is going wrong with Kiwis rather than celebrating and rejoicing in what is right about them. So in terms of this debate I say that the bill as at present drafted criminalises all Kiwi parents. 
I am a parent. I have five children and I smack them. It is not a problem to me and I say right now that if someone wants to come on to my land into my house with my family and dictate the terms as to how I can bring up my family then that person has another thing coming. 
When we have this wonderful debate before the select committee and when everybody else gets involved in it under no circumstances can we allow the nosy parker State to start to poke its nose into our lounges to the extent that it starts to dictate how we will rear our children. 
The second thing is that that is the thin edge of the wedge. In the next minute I will not be allowed to give them a drink of coke because it is full of sugar. Where will it stop? So I say to my colleagues that I support the debate I support the bill’s going to a select committee but under no circumstances can the present bill be referred back to this House to be voted on in its present state. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 In the next 5 minutes while I am speaking a child will be hit unnecessarily. That punishment may scar the child for life. It may set the child on a path of violence because he or she will have learnt at an early age that hitting someone is the way to get what one wants. I do not expect some members in this House—particularly Mr Adams—to believe me but members may take heed of Dr Emma Davies of the institute of public policy at the Auckland University of Technology who is a spokesperson for Every Child Counts. In an article in the Christchurch  
Press 
 on 2 June she wrote that some of the children who grew up in violent homes are literally “incubated in terror”. She went on to state that those children are more likely to become seriously ill or to commit violent crime without remorse. They are more likely to be victims or abusers when they grow up. And so the cycle goes on. 
Sue Bradford’s bill is a crucial step towards addressing a wider culture of violence. It is not a silver bullet; it does not spell the end of child abuse and neglect. But it does remove the excuse of so-called reasonable force from our law. State-sanctioned violence against our most vulnerable citizens is intolerable in the 21st century. What may have been mainstream in 1961 is irrational in 2005. It is just as irrational as it would be if our Parliament were to legislate to give adults the power to use reasonable force against our elders when they enter their second childhood. Sue Bradford’s bill is an anti-beating bill not an anti-smacking bill. When judges and juries continue to accept section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 as legitimate justification for beating children with canes riding crops four-by-twos and other weapons it must be repealed. It does not need to be replaced by any “degrees of violence” legislation. 
But I tell members not to take my word for it; they should listen instead to the advice of the organisation that had more to do with our growth in our formative years than anyone—with the exception of course of our immediate families. I am talking about Plunket. In a very comprehensive series of questions and answers on repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act Plunket asks amongst other questions the following: “If Section 59 is repealed will I become a criminal if I smack my child?”. The answer was: “Repeal of Section 59 is about removing a law—not creating a new one. It removes the legal defense for a parent to physically assault their child and acknowledges that just like adults and pets children should be protected against assault. Repeal of Section 59 is not about criminalising parents or introducing a new law against smacking. Just as jostling and shoving at a rugby match is technically assault the police only take action when it goes too far.” Another question asked: “What’s wrong with smacking and physical punishment?” The answer was: “The vast majority of parents want the best for their children and they want to raise their children in a positive way. Physical punishment is  
not 
 the most effective way to discipline children. Positive parenting strategies have been shown to be much more effective.” 
Plunket is a member of Every Child Counts and the Green Party is pleased to support the four key policy goals of that mainstream lobby group which are to put children and families at the centre of policy development to ensure that every child gets a good start to end child poverty and to reduce child abuse and neglect. Sue Bradford’s bill is a positive step in the right direction. That is why so many organisations support this bill including the Families Commission the body set up for United Future—a body it had a big hand in creating. Its very own Families Commissioner has come out wholeheartedly in support of this bill along with the Children’s Commissioner and a whole host of other opinion leaders and individuals. So I have to ask United Future as a party that claims to be family-friendly how it can oppose this bill. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West I wish to commit to  
Hansard  
an open letter to all members of Parliament from the Parentline Charitable Trust written by the directors chief executive Maxine Hodgson and Gayle McLean. That is a truly mainstream organisation and the two people I alluded to as the directors of the organisation are exceptionally mainstream. 
This is what they say: “To the public of New Zealand the repeal of this law is not an anti-smacking issue; it is an anti-bashing issue. Parentline was asked to comment by the  
New Zealand 
Herald -  
DigiPoll on the complex question put to the New Zealand public regarding the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. When quoted the question by the reporter I commented that the question was confusing and complex. From Parentline’s clients’ comments Parentline staff and peers plus participants in the recent Parentline child summit in Hamilton last week it is noted that the repeal of section 59 is welcomed. The children the experts tell Parentline staff of the pain fear humiliation and anger that they feel when ‘given the bash’. Never has a child commented on a smack. New Zealand needs to repeal section 59 as soon as possible plus resource a comprehensive programme which addresses parenting issues finances health relationship problems etc. as well as parenting skills tantrums and sleep deprivation etc. In the 28 years’ experience of Parentline we find that parenting programmes that concentrate on the needs of children parenting skills without first addressing parenting needs parenting issues do not result in the best outcomes for the parent-child relationship.” 
I have heard a bit tonight about Sweden. Maybe in my city if we were a bit more like Sweden Kelly Gush would not have been taken alone to the Starship Children’s Hospital to die alone. If that tragic death along with many others in this country is to have any meaning I urge members to let this bill go to the select committee and let this Parliament address this serious issue. No doubt there will be members who will speak with forked tongue and who will deliberately try to misconstrue that— 
Paul Adams 
: What’s the connection? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: The connection is simply this and I would like to quote from a very good mainstream member of this Parliament Brian Donnelly when he wrote in an article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
in 2001: “Section 59 of the Crimes Act not only gives protection to parents who smack their children; it also gives protection to parents who thrash their children with a piece of wood leaving serious bruising several days later as a recent case demonstrated.” If that is supposed to be family values then I do not think it is family values at all. What is the issue? The issue is that this Parliament will give a bill a first reading—no more no less. This Parliament will give a select committee an opportunity to address the issues in order to see where a reasonable balance lies. This Parliament in a democracy will give community groups and individual submitters from across the spectrum the opportunity to address this very important issue. 
In the mainstream Dr Cindy Kiro the Children’s Commissioner from the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Paul Baigent the chief executive of the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society have said: “Given New Zealand’s appalling child abuse rates it is important that as a nation we start talking about the violence against children and ensure that our laws and policies consistently seek to reduce the incidence of all forms of violence against children. We support the repeal of section 59 as an important step in this direction as it will remove the legal defence used by parents charged with assaulting their children. We do not believe repeal would criminalise parents who occasionally use physical punishment.” 
The Minister in an answer to a supplementary question I put to her today clearly said that it is not the Government’s intention to outlaw smacking but that we want a robust reasoned discussion at a select committee to find where the real balance is and to protect the rights both of parents—the good decent parents whom John Tamihere talked about—and of New Zealand’s children. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 First of all I would like to thank the Labour members who have spoken for their wonderful support for this bill: Marian Hobbs for her wonderful anecdote about the peas Steve Chadwick for speaking from the heart about her own experiences working with some of the very damaged children and Martin Gallagher for just now pointing out again that it is not the intention of either the Labour Party or the Green Party somehow to use the repeal of section 59 to outlaw smacking. That is not what we are here to do tonight. 
I turn to Judith Collins from the National Party who talked about this bill being simplistic. Yes it is. It is very simple. I make no bones about it. It is not a complex issue. All we are trying to do is to stop parents from getting away in court with using things like this riding crop on their children. That is all we are trying to achieve; it is a very simple goal. 
Stephen Franks said many things that I disagree with—as usual. He talked about the people who are working to repeal section 59 as not being sincere relishing the anguish of the families that are joining in this debate and enjoying telling people what to do. What a load of nonsense! I know many of those people and find his comments absolutely distasteful. I reject them absolutely. Those people are giving their lives to promote the legal and human rights of children and usually provide many many on-the-ground services to families and children as well. 
Judy Turner talked about the United Future bill that Murray Smith has in the ballot. This is an issue that I am sure will be canvassed at length in the select committee and indeed I welcome that debate. I tell Ms Turner that I am not shying away from it. I think it is very important that we have that debate. But very quickly I say that the reason the Green Party does not support amending the bill and somehow calibrating or defining the type of force that we could not or should not use against our children is that that does not afford our children their full human rights it does not protect them and it still sends unhelpful messages to parents. Such an amendment is unlikely to conform with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and above all defining what might be unreasonable is totally problematic. We would start to get into things like at what age can a baby or child be hit or not hit and by what form or what method can a child be hit or not hit—with what how often in what circumstances? It becomes simply impossible. I will actually find it very interesting to hear what is put before us at the select committee but I defy any member of this Parliament to come here and say with certainty that this type of force will not harm a child but that type of force will. It is simply impossible to say. I have looked at some of the bills that have been put up on this issue and I just cannot see it from either a legal or a simple human point of view. 
 Mr Tamihere again rather forcefully totally disrespected the groups that are working on the issue in saying that no one should dictate to his family. Fair enough. I am not trying to dictate to Mr Tamihere’s family. But I certainly reject the way in which he like Mr Franks has shown such disrespect to the people who are working in this area. 
In the debate on this I have heard many things. One is that the reason parents use violence against their children is that one simply cannot reason with children—that one has to hit them to make them see reason. In response—and there was an article about this in one of our newspapers recently—I ask why if this is OK we do not legalise the use of violence against old people people with Alzheimer’s perhaps people with severe psychotic mental illnesses criminals and other politicians. All these types of people often cannot be reasoned with. Does that mean the State should legitimise force against them? I do not think so. So why do we treat our smaller citizens differently? 
Another argument I have often heard is: “I have to use force against my child because my child is rebelling against me as a parent.” What nonsense! I celebrate all the rebels in the gallery tonight and out in our communities who are working so hard to change the culture of violence against our children and who are working in so many practical ways to support families. 
The repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act is only one part of our journey but it is an absolutely critical one. I look forward to the debate ahead of us and to the day when full repeal of section 59 becomes law. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave on behalf of the New Zealand First members to split our vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That is the way we will proceed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 2 (Brown Donnelly); Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 11 (Catchpole Gudgeon Jones McNair Mark Paraone Perry Peters J Peters W Stewart Woolerton); ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 7. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for New Zealand First to table the names of the two members who have voted in favour of the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I guess you wish to have them recorded as well? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Yes. 
Document not tabled. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee 
. 
referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Motion agreed to. 
New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. In 1987 this Parliament passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act. That essentially banned the deployment of nuclear weapons in New Zealand or their passage through our territorial waters—that is the 12 nautical miles; of course it did not extend out to include the 200-kilometre exclusive economic zone. We must recall though that earlier in 1986 New Zealand had signed the Treaty of Rarotonga along with Australia and for that matter the United States. The Treaty of Rarotonga signed in 1986 actually banned the deployment of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific zone. 
My bill has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. I am not proposing any change to the existing law that stands on our statute book. Indeed that issue is covered by the Treaty of Rarotonga on a much broader scale—all of the South Pacific. That treaty is supported by Australia and the United States our allies and others—understandably so. No one wants to see an extension vertically or horizontally of the use of nuclear weapons. 
However when that legislation was passed back in 1987 a clip-on clause had been attached: clause 11. I can tell the House that there was a lot of controversy within the Labour caucus at the time. I was there; I know. I am the only one in the House tonight who was there. There was a lot of contention and a lot of people were arguing that it was a bridge too far. Let me assure the House that it carried a deliberate intentional anti-American sentiment. There is no doubt about that. Labour wanted to send a signal to America and it surely did—and we have been paying the price ever since. I say it was a clip-on clause because it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons; it just banned visits of nuclear-propelled ships—very foolishly I believe. 
The reason why we do not need that legislation is obvious. No foreign warship can come to New Zealand without the express invitation of the New Zealand Government of the day. So if the Government does not want either a nuclear-propelled or a conventionally propelled vessel to come here it does not come here. We all know that British French and other navies’ ships have come to New Zealand waters quite regularly in the 10 to 20 years since this legislation was passed. A lot of people say that American ships could come too. Well I have it on very good advice that the American navy has never been invited. No New Zealand Government has invited a US naval warship to visit here. We have extended invitations to the French in spite of what happened up at Mururoa. We have invited the British navy. But no US navy vessel has been invited since the passage of this legislation. 
My bill is very simple. It merely proposes the removal of section 11. I would like to draw to the House’s attention Supplementary Order Paper 386 which lies on the Table. It states that my bill would not become operative until we had had a referendum of the New Zealand voting public. How can members vote against that? This is an important issue. Various political parties have somewhat entrenched views on it. This Supplementary Order Paper is saying that this bill would not become operative until a majority of New Zealand citizens said that yes we should lift this ban. How can members oppose that? Will Labour say because of its blind cold war mantra that it will deny the New Zealand public the right to have that referendum? 
 That was the National Party’s position; National said that it should not occur without a referendum of the New Zealand voting public. Well here is those members’ opportunity to walk the talk if they really believe that—and I think a number in National do. I know that Lockwood Smith feels very strongly about the legislation. I was actually in the Pentagon with him in 1987 soon after the legislation was passed and we got a clear message did we not I ask Dr Smith. He spoke out very vociferously about what nonsense this legislation was and how he would do everything in his power to get it off the statute book. Well here is his chance tonight. He had 9 years in Government and did not do it. Here is his chance tonight to walk the talk rather than just thump the chest. 
New Zealand’s nuclear-free status is a myth and that is the point. The legislation that was passed was about our being free of nuclear weapons but we have turned it into our being nuclear-free. Labour trots out: “We’re clean and green and we’re non-nuclear.” What utter rubbish! New Zealand deploys nuclear technology every day of the week. [ 
Interruption 
] The Green member beside me has just said yes. He acknowledges that. The Somers report commissioned by Cabinet in 1992 is a report by three eminent professors and a retired High Court judge who studied the issue for a year travelled internationally and heard public submissions. That report concluded there was no environmental risk or public safety justification for the continuation of the ban on nuclear-propelled ships. That was the consideration of that committee. The Somers report stated—I recall that it was on page 63—that Auckland Hospital alone emits twice as much radiation into the environment every day as does the entire US naval fleet and all its support services in an entire year. So to stand up and say that New Zealand is nuclear-free and that we do not want nuclear technology because being nuclear-free is part of our clean and green label is utter cant. What utter cant! What utter rubbish! 
I have an interesting news clipping here. It is a report of an accident that occurred on State Highway 1 by Tirau in April of this year. A cargo of nuclear material—30 kilograms of radioactive material—was on a truck and trailer that crashed just out of Tirau. If we are really a nuclear-free country why is radioactive material going up and down State Highway 1? It is utter nonsense—the myth that is perpetuated around this nonsense of our being nuclear-free. 
The other point I would make is that there is nothing in our nuclear-free legislation that prevents the use of nuclear energy. The bill passed in 1987 is totally silent on nuclear energy and properly so. If we believe in elevated carbon dioxide levels and in climate change as a lot of people around this Parliament do the obvious solution is to move to nuclear energy. In France 78 percent of electricity comes from nuclear power-stations. The French actually export it to the UK through the Chunnel. Germany Belgium and all the neighbouring countries around Europe use that power. It is the cleanest and safest fuel for energy purposes. So in New Zealand’s future—I am not saying we should rush out and build a nuclear power-station—we should be considering that option. I introduce that into this debate just to help put it in context. It shows how foolish our ban on nuclear propulsion is. 
Minister Goff stood up in this House and said that there have been accidents. I went and studied the examples he gave me. There has never been a serious nuclear power plant accident. The accidents he referred to were things such as burst steam pipes but because they happened on a nuclear-propelled ship they were registered as nuclear accidents. That is a nonsense. We know about the  
Kursk 
 a nuclear-propelled submarine. Yes a torpedo went off it exploded and it sank. I think from memory that some 152 Russian sailors perished in the Barents Sea. That submarine is lying on the bed of the ocean. There has been no leakage of radiation to this day. None has been recorded and the experts say it is most unlikely that it will ever occur. 
So the risk is totally overstated out of all proportion and New Zealand is not nuclear-free. I am appealing to this House to take this step so that we can actually be on the same footing as Australia in negotiating a free-trade agreement with the United States which the economists tell us would be worth a billion dollars a year to the New Zealand economy. It is a no-brainer: this bill should be supported. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I do not think it will come as any surprise to the House or to New Zealand that Labour opposes this bill and will be voting against it. Mr Shirley wishes to revisit the prohibition on visits to New Zealand ports by nuclear-propelled ships. 
It sounds quite simple. It sounds as though nuclear propulsion is the normal method of propulsion. Well if it is the normal method of propulsion and nothing to be feared why are cruise ships not nuclear propelled? Why are large container ships not nuclear propelled? Why are only military ships nuclear propelled? It is not the normal method of propulsion because there is a much higher risk to this method of propulsion and I have to say a much higher risk than when the Somers report was written in 1992. I read from page 171 of that report 13/20: “A Valid Question. I know that nuclear-propelled vessels do not visit New York or Sydney. Why should they be allowed to visit Auckland or Wellington? An answer involves an explanation of the assessment process which is carried out by the United States Navy before permission is granted to visit any ports. While it is not US Navy policy to reveal what matters are taken into account we know from Captain Bush’s submission that though the criteria used to answer each request to visit a particular port were different in general such factors as tide and current characteristics harbour traffic population density near the proposed berth were taken into consideration and weighed against a possible nuclear accident for the reactor plant—a worst-case analysis.” 
I think that speaks for itself. If at that stage and still today the Australians are not having nuclear-propelled vessels in Sydney’s port why should we open our harbours? We do not go to such lengths when determining whether a ship containing hazardous cargo enters our ports yet it is standard practice to do this sort of work for the entry of a nuclear-propelled ship which is a military ship. 
But worse than that this report was written in 1992. Post-9/11 the risk has become even higher. US military ships have become targets for terrorists. Do we want to invite a mobile target into the hearts of our cities—in Auckland or Wellington? New Zealand is proud to be nuclear-free—free of nuclear weapons free of all weapons of mass destruction and free from nuclear energy. I do admit we are not free of nuclear medicine. I recognise that. 
New Zealand has two main reasons for its stand. Firstly it is anti weapons of mass destruction. Just the other day we stood in this House in silence for the victims of the recent suicide bombs. We abhor random violence. So why would we join forces with nuclear weapons? Why would we welcome them into our country? Why would we sign away our sovereignty to ban such weapons and their possible presence in our harbours? 
The second reason is more environmental than an argument about weapon choice. No one has yet solved the issue of nuclear waste and its safe disposal. I ask members to look at the situation in Australia. It is a regular election issue in Australia as to which state or territory they will bury the nuclear waste in—and I freely admit that some of that is New Zealand’s nuclear waste generated up there. Why use a source of energy whose cradle-to-grave responsibility has not been agreed to by the community? 
Labour members are proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status. It has become part of our national identity. It is something that is unique about New Zealand. We are nuclear-free and we are proud of it. It will not be gone by lunchtime with a Labour-led Government. It is a solid determined stand. 
The stand of our opponents is not so solid. We have had at least six positions from Dr Brash—I find it really frightening actually; I hope he does not get to Kama Sutra numbers—well the proportions are there. We have had six positions from him. In January he told an American congressional delegation: “If the National Party was in Government today we’d get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today—by lunchtime even.” On 16 June: “The likelihood is that if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable”—to the Americans? What about New Zealanders? “…if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable and that of course would be after we became Government we’d then seek a referendum.” So National would go to the Americans first before going to the New Zealanders! Not us. It is quite clear: New Zealand wants to remain nuclear-free. Give us a break Dr Brash and establish some credibility! What is National’s 54-day position on this particular issue? We have had at least six of them. 
What scares me though is whether such flip-flopping such poor credibility will result in selling New Zealanders’ ideals and beliefs for trade. It is not just about our nuclear-free ideals; it is also about the lives of our young people and bodies being returned home from Iraq in body bags for a trade deal. That is why we are not getting any clear answers from Dr Brash. He cannot resolve this question that is being asked by the television stations and by the Opposition. He says things such as: “I’ll get my officials. I’ll wait until I get some official advice about this.” Dr Brash and the National Party should understand that I know my values. I do not need officials to tell me my values. My values cannot be bought or sold. New Zealand is nuclear-free and as long as Labour forms the Government it will remain so. Labour therefore will be opposing this bill. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 This issue is important for New Zealand. I say to the honourable member who is introducing this bill that National believes this is not the way to resolve this hugely important issue. I think a measure of the importance of the issue was raised in Ambassador Swindell’s farewell speech to New Zealand on 4 July when he spoke of the drift in the relationship between the United States and New Zealand—a drift that could see New Zealand float off into irrelevance to America in the future. I know that there are some extremists in New Zealand including some Labour members on the benches opposite me who probably want things to be that way. They probably have an innate dislike of things American. But most New Zealanders who have travelled through America have experienced the generous spirit and goodwill of American people. Those mainstream New Zealanders want us to have a good working relationship with America. That is where National wants to see New Zealand; clearly Labour does not want that. 
In fact to be blunt about this issue our security in the Pacific is ultimately dependent on the security presence of the United States of America because if there was any conflict one thing is for sure: neither New Zealand nor Australia has the military capacity to ensure the security of the Pacific. Perhaps even more important for New Zealand trade is our lifeblood. The security of our trade is totally dependent on the US global naval presence. I want the Labour members to be fully aware of that. What is more as we look to the future whether we like it or not—and I know that a lot of Labour members probably do not like it—we can see the United States will be the major economic player in this world for many years to come. As such that is important to New Zealand. The US is our second-biggest trading partner now; that country whether we like it or not is very important to New Zealand. It is therefore in New Zealand’s interests that our relationship with the US be as good as possible. 
Having said that New Zealand’s antinuclear policy is very very important to many New Zealanders as well. It is more than just an issue about the safety of nuclear-propelled ships. I mean for goodness’ sake my wristwatch that I wear here in the House tonight emits more radioactivity than a nuclear-propelled ship—far more. But that is not the issue. The issue is that many New Zealanders feel very deeply about the importance of New Zealand’s antinuclear legislation. I think it is fair to say that many New Zealanders would feel that there should be no change to that legislation in this overtly political way whereby a bill is introduced into Parliament—and I do not want to be too unkind to the member from ACT but the bill is really introduced for political purposes. An issue as important as this to New Zealanders should not be tried to be changed in this way. 
National has made it very clear that we will not change the antinuclear legislation without a specific mandate either by way of a referendum or through a specific election policy mandate. We will not make any change without either of those mechanisms whereby the public of New Zealand has a chance to express its view either through a referendum or a specific election policy mandate. That is important because an attempt to change this legislation politically is not in New Zealand’s interests and it is not in America’s interests. Just the fact that one may get a change of Government in New Zealand and therefore try to change the legislation does not mean that that is in New Zealand’s interests. The only change that makes sense for either New Zealand or for the United States of America is a sustainable change—a change that the people of New Zealand want. That is the only change that makes sense—a change that the people of New Zealand want. Therefore before this Parliament tries to change this legislation we should give the people of New Zealand the chance to indicate what they want. After all we do live in a democracy and on something as important to New Zealanders as this issue we should show New Zealanders respect by asking them what they want before we seek to change the legislation. 
That is National’s policy. We agree this is a hugely important issue. We agree it is an important issue for New Zealand’s future—hugely important. It is very important that we should listen to the people of New Zealand before attempting to make any change to the antinuclear law in this House. That is National’s policy and it is very simple and very clear. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 At least on this issue there is no ambiguity about ACT’s approach unlike its erstwhile coalition partners in the National Party. At least members know where ACT stands on this issue. There is no ambiguity. 
We have just heard a speech from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith which if it was not preparing the way if it was not preparing the ground if it was not softening us all up on the inevitable policy change that would happen under a National-led Government then I do not know what would be. It was a fine speech. It was a very soothing speech. It was a very soothing sales pitch speech. But I think most people in this House who were listening to it would have heard a very key clear message—“We will be preparing the ground for a change of policy.” He may not have echoed the words of his leader in January 2004 when Dr Brash told an American congressional delegation that if the National Party were in Government it would get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today by lunchtime even—no he was not saying that; he was saying that it would take a few months. But figuratively they cannot get rid of it by afternoon tea or morning tea. It may take a few months. But the outcome is going to be exactly the same. 
We on this side of the House are absolutely proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status. The Labour Party is not ambiguous on this issue. There is no ambiguity. It will be very interesting to listen to the other National Party speakers during this debate as to where they stand on this bill. 
To its credit—if I can use the word “credit”—there is no ambiguity about ACT’s position just as there is no ambiguity about ACT’s position on wanting to send our troops to Iraq to support the coalition of the willing. The National Party in its heart of hearts had exactly the same policy and indeed Simon Power in one of those moments of absolute honesty said on 1 May 2004—and I will quote him because this was a moment of non-ambiguity a moment of absolute honesty by Simon Power: “Without reservation we will support our close allies Australia the United States and Britain when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” That was very unsubtle code for saying that the ships will be back by afternoon-tea time. That was very unsubtle code for saying we would have joined the coalition of the willing to go to Iraq. 
At least Simon Power was honest; at least he was upfront. There was no ambiguity about Simon Power. And for being upfront and honest he was dumped from that portfolio but he absolutely gave us the hint of where a future National-led Government would go. Any party that was even contemplating any coalition arrangement with that particular party might do well to reflect very seriously in terms of this nation’s interest in putting New Zealand first and this nation’s interest in terms of what the National Party really wants to achieve. 
No the nuclear-free status will not be gone by lunchtime with a Labour-led Government. We will not be sending troops in terms of the coalition of the willing by lunchtime. Indeed the words of Phil Goff say it all. This Government has “never moved from our point that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders want this country to stay nuclear free and not because we are paranoid about nuclear power. It is part of the way we see ourselves part of the way we promote ourselves to the world and for many New Zealanders it is also symbolic of New Zealand’s right to make its own decisions. That is why indeed so many ports including those of London Sydney New York and Boston to name a few also do not allow visits by nuclear ships.” They are joined by the port of Lyttelton the Port of Tauranga the port of Wellington the Ports of Auckland and the port of Port Chalmers. I am proud to be part of a Government that supports nuclear-free legislation. There is no ambiguity on this side of the House. There is a helluva lot of ambiguity on the other side of the House. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I say that I think the comment made by Mr Gallagher about ambiguity is important. As I listened to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith I thought he was a little ambiguous at least in what he said. I just say on behalf of New Zealand First that our defence policy in our manifesto states that we will maintain New Zealand’s commitment to its nuclear-free policy. We say in our foreign affairs policy that we will remain strongly committed to New Zealand’s antinuclear policy. Is there anything ambiguous about that? In defence and foreign affairs we have made it absolutely clear that we have a nuclear-free policy. 
As has been mentioned during the course of this debate New Zealand First also opposed the sending of troops to Iraq. That is unambiguous; we clearly opposed it. Of course when we look at New Zealand First’s ability to consider Middle Eastern affairs and affairs involving Islam we can see we have the great advantage of having two members of our caucus who have been in the defence forces. Bill Gudgeon served in South-east Asia with the New Zealand forces and that area has an Islamic background and of course Ron Mark served in the New Zealand armed forces and then also served in the Gulf States. He has a smattering of Arabic and has knowledge of the way the Islamic people in the Gulf States and the surrounding areas act and react. I of course having been born and brought up in a Muslim country also know something about Islamic affairs. So New Zealand First is very well placed in so far as refusing to send troops to Iraq is concerned. As we all know it is not a question of what they would do when they got there; the question is how we would get them out again. That was always going to be the problem in Iraq and that is the problem that the Americans are facing in a big way. So we were opposed and remain opposed to the sending of troops to Iraq. From the point of view of our policy we put New Zealanders and New Zealand first. 
People have asked us what we will do after the next election. We will wait first of all to see what the people of New Zealand have to say. I understand that other political parties are making that statement as well copying New Zealand First’s stand as usual. Whether we go with one party or the other party or whether we decide to stay in the middle and do the sort of thing we have done this time which is to support good policies and oppose bad policies remains to be seen. It is dependent upon what the electors do on election day and on the decisions that will be made afterwards. But New Zealand First’s policy is very clear: we support a nuclear-free policy and we oppose the sending of troops to Iraq. 
Indeed we oppose nuclear energy altogether even in so far as electricity generation from nuclear power is concerned. One of the things we are most concerned about—and I think Ken Shirley made a very very good point about the building of nuclear-powered generators in New Zealand—is that the royal commission’s report of 1977 stated that we should have nuclear power-stations commissioned between 2005 and 2008. We should have had them by now based on the population growth we had in those days which was an increase of about 160000 over 10 years. In the last 18 years we have seen New Zealand’s population rise by 25 percent or by about 750000 people. Indeed in that time Auckland’s population has risen by 435000 which is almost the entire population of the Wellington region from day one. So we are looking nuclear power generation in the face especially if the United Future leader has his way and New Zealand’s population rises from 4 million to 5 million in 10 years’ time. [ 
Interruption 
] He says that it will anyway. Mr Dunne and United Future support nuclear power generation That is their view. New Zealand First says that we have—[ 
Interruption 
] The member said it will anyway. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I talked about population. The member made a comment about nuclear generation which I have never spoken about. 
DAIL JONES 
: If the member wants to interject he takes the consequences of that. He said: “It will anyway.” and I said that was what he had said—that it will anyway. I am just quoting what he said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a debatable point which that member may clear up at the end of the speech or in his own speech. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although this is a robust debate if members are being deliberately misrepresented by a speaker in the course of the debate that then becomes a matter of order and the member has the right to seek your protection against that deliberate misrepresentation. 
DAIL JONES 
: Speaking to the point of order I ask the member whether he used the words: “It will anyway.”? Those are the words I was quoting. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I used the words “It will anyway.” in respect of population. The member then went on to say I had used them in respect of nuclear generation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has given an explanation so we will move on. 
DAIL JONES 
: The very clear fact is that New Zealand First is committed to a nuclear-free policy. We want as a matter of interest to ensure that our Defence Force expenditure goes up to 2 percent of GDP and we will not trade defence for trade. We will not give away our rights to defend New Zealand in favour of getting a free-trade agreement whether or not that agreement is with the United States. We will not give away our rights to China as the Labour Party wants to do. We want to make sure that New Zealand is a nuclear-free country and we certainly will not support the National Party’s policy on selling New Zealand out to every Asian country with low wages that the National Party can ever find for itself. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be opposing this bill. It seems clear that it is not really about nuclear energy or nuclear power but from what Mr Shirley said about getting a free-trade agreement with the United States. It is about playing up to the Bush administration. The explanatory note of the bill talks about the strains on the ANZUS relationship over a couple of decades. That is what the bill is about. It is not about nuclear power. It is about military power and the projection of military power with the use of nuclear weapons. 
I quote from an article in this year’s May-June  
New Zealand International Review 
 by a respected defence commentator Dick Gentles who says: “The only nuclear-propelled ships operated by the US Navy are the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and submarines. The carrier task force groups including submarines are the most critical element of American power projection capabilities. Their use depends on access to port facilities around the globe. The US Navy could not accept the precedent that would be set by a New Zealand policy precluding port access for these crucial assets. This is now a more important issue as the United States draws down its forces stationed in foreign countries and relies more on its power projection capabilities to protect US interests.” 
That is what the bill is about and ACT wants to go down the track of supporting the military power projection of the United States. Those carriers and aircraft carriers are the front forces of that country’s projection including with the invasion of Iraq. Of course ACT did support the sending of New Zealand combat troops along with the Americans to Iraq. 
I refer to the question of safety and of course the chances are not great that we would have a nuclear accident by a visiting nuclear-powered warship but it is possible. So why take the risk? A nuclear accident could occur with a nuclear-powered warship ending up sitting on our seabed leaking radioactivity that would destroy our future for generations in terms of fishing and everything else. Why take that risk? 
Mr Shirley has portrayed those with nuclear-powered warships as being infallible virtually. He said there was no chance of accidents in that respect. We know that accident after accident involving nuclear-powered warships has happened. Members might have seen on their television screens a couple of weeks ago that this year the USS 
 San Francisco 
 a nuclear-powered submarine struck an undersea mountain in the Pacific and smashed its front to smithereens. It was very lucky not to stay on the bottom. So these accidents do happen and they have happened over the years with nuclear power. 
There was the big incident in 1979 at the Three Mile Island power plant in the United States. In 1986 the Chernobyl disaster occurred where between 300 million and 400 million people in 15 nations were put at risk and a nuclear cloud spread right across Europe. There are radiation leaks from nuclear power plants or nuclear reprocessing facilities. Over the years there has been big controversy about the Sellafield plant in Britain. The Irish Minister for the Environment Martin Cullen said just a couple of months ago that the plant should be closed down because it is still leaking radiation into the Irish Sea. 
Lockwood Smith says there are great Americans. There are. There are great Americans who are fighting nuclear power and nuclear weapons. In fact just a couple of days ago a whole combination of native Americans actors—all sorts of people—have been fighting for an end to nuclear power in the United States and particularly against the putting of 44000 tonnes of nuclear waste into one of the Indian reservations in Skull Valley. There are people in America who are fighting nuclear power and the Bush administration’s policies around the world that have a nuclear spearhead. We should be alongside those Americans. Those are the Americans we are making friends with in order to end the more aggressive policies of the Bush administration and its policies in relation to nuclear energy too. 
Nuclear energy is not an efficient form of energy. It exists around the world only because it is heavily State subsidised. ACT should not be pushing it because as far as I know it is not in favour of State subsidies. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future upholds and supports New Zealand’s nuclear-free status and therefore will not be supporting this bill. But we also recognise one of the points that lies behind the bill and that is the broader issue of our relations with the United States. We do think that 20 years on there is merit in reviewing where things are at and seeking to improve what has become a somewhat isolated relationship. 
The blunt truth that both we and the United States should reflect upon is that both our countries over the last 20 years have got on to respective high horses that we find it very difficult to get off. The New Zealand position for a long time was: “Your move.” The American position has been in return: “No it’s your move.” The reality is that both countries will need to make progress in the relationship at the same time in a way that respects their particular positions. What we ought to be concentrating on in this Parliament are the steps that we in New Zealand need to take to start that process from our end. Neither an arbitrary move to repeal certain provisions of our antinuclear legislation nor our putting an untested issue to the public in a referendum will produce the type of progress that we might seek. There needs to be some subtle diplomacy here. 
I think the advice given by the American ambassador in his valedictory address of calling for some form of discussion between the two countries is an appropriate starting point. I note that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade ruled it out completely at the time the statement was made. The question therefore becomes what is the best way in which this dialogue could proceed. 
For some time the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has had before it a proposition that we consider some form of inquiry into our relations with the United States. I think the climate has shifted now to the point where that becomes a real possibility in the next Parliament. Initially it would be at a low level but ultimately it would involve the business community political and defence interests and education and cultural interests to try to put on the table all aspects of the relationship between New Zealand and the United States and to assess what common ground there might be where the differences are and what the prospects for progress overall might be in that respect. Changes that come to any aspect of policy flow out of that but they also have to recognise the bottom-line positions of the respective countries. We do not expect the United States to change its defence policy. Equally the United States should not expect New Zealand to change its policy. We need to move forward in a way where we are addressing this issue step by step to see what is achievable what can be resolved and what progress can be made. 
Everyone agrees on one core point. Our shared values our history our language and our sense of communication with each other give us a platform from which to move forward. The challenge is whether we actually decide to do anything or whether both countries remain entrenched in their particular corners lamenting the fact that the relationship is drifting apart as the former ambassador noted. 
I think the real issue is not whether we pass this legislation or change our antinuclear legislation. The real issue is whether we in this country matched by the Americans have a commitment to sitting down and working out what we have in common what we can achieve together and what progress we can make. The challenge of this Parliament should surely be in the interests of our people to see what effort we can make in that regard without compromising our basic principles. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 It is a real pleasure to have the opportunity to take a brief call on this most significant bill. I have been heartened by some of the comments we have heard in the House over the last little while. Like most New Zealanders I am very proud of this country’s nuclear-free status and our very clear and consistent policy over the years—more than two decades—to maintain that policy. I guess that for most New Zealanders that nuclear-free status has become a clear part of our national identity; one that we treasure as something that is unique about our position in the world. We are nuclear-free and we are proud of it. 
I must say that one of the pleasures of being a member of this House is seeing the effect that that position has along with other statements of our international integrity when we have the opportunity to talk with parliamentarians and people from other countries. It is an often-stated cliché that New Zealand punches above its weight. That is certainly true in terms of international politics and I think we should be very proud because we have that integrity that independence and we make our own calls about our foreign policy. That is in no way to denigrate our relationship with other countries. It is essential that we do develop good-operating cooperative relationships with everyone in the world where that is possible. But the fundamental essential for this nation—as for any other independent nation—is for our foreign policy to be decided by sovereign elected members and the citizens of New Zealand. That is the position we hold and that is why our nation of 4 million people in the southern Pacific Ocean has the international respect that it does in so many areas of world activity. 
I guess we all acknowledge that in most recent times that respect stems from the political interventions of people like Norman Kirk; of leaders of this country such as David Lange and most recently the superb leadership we have from our current Prime Minister. I think most New Zealanders would acknowledge that this country has been put back on the international stage by those interventions and by that activity. 
I was pleased that my colleague Martin Gallagher mentioned earlier the issue of port closures to nuclear ships including in the United States. I think it is a telling criticism of the ACT bill and a telling criticism of the American policy itself in fact that even some of America’s own key ports such as Boston and New York are closed to the sorts of vessels that were referred to earlier—not just London Sydney the port of Otago Port Chalmers and other ports around the world. 
I say to Mr Shirley that I am glad my parliamentary colleague Mr Locke did refute some of the extraordinary comments he made about the safety of nuclear power and the use of nuclear energy. I do not know where Mr Shirley has been! 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Read the literature. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have read the literature. I have read the literature in several languages about Chernobyl and I taught in Germany at the time when there were continued demonstrations about nuclear storage and waste disposal in Gorleben. I read the German and English literature about the failure of nuclear plants in France and in Germany. So I say to Mr Shirley that like a lot of his policies I find no connection between the proposed legislation and the reality of the literature as he tells it or recent history in terms of the dangers and the failures of nuclear power-plants and nuclear waste disposal in many parts of the world. 
With regard to the position of the opposing parties I guess I would agree with Mr Gallagher that the one redeeming factor of the ACT policy is that at least it is upfront unlike its extremist friends in the National Party who have about six positions that we can calculate on this issue; about five positions on related issues around Iraq; and as for tax well they are breaking their promises there already. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition policies of extreme-right Opposition parties in this House cannot be trusted. Clearly the ACT party—not much longer for this place because of its extremism and because of the fact that its policies have been pirated by the National Party—at least has the integrity to put its policies on the table. Unfortunately Dr Brash and his friends do not have that same honesty but they can none the less be no more trusted. 
I am very pleased to support the position that the Government has taken on this issue. Clearly the Government will not be supporting this bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 In view of the time and in view of the fact that this will be the last member’s day of this Parliament—my calculation is that there is one ACT speech remaining to be given by my colleague Stephen Franks and that I then have 5 minutes in reply—I therefore seek the leave of the House to complete the debate on this member’s bill. 
Jill Pettis 
: But Labour has a speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am aware that Labour has a speech. We will just see what happens. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am proud to rise to support my colleague’s bill on the nuclear propulsion issue. I am proud because it is in the long tradition of bills motions and amendments that ACT has brought on matters that other parties simply will not touch. I believe that that is a function that the Greens too from the other side of the spectrum perform in this Parliament. They raise issues that the big parties would rather not debate. In this case it is essentially a foreign policy matter. I heard the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control the Hon Marian Hobbs tell us in relation to the bill debated earlier tonight that one of the things she wanted was to have the hard issues discussed in this House—to take matters that were important to New Zealand but that were difficult to a select committee where New Zealanders could express their views on them. She said in ringing tones that she would vote for the Green bill we debated earlier tonight because she wanted to send it to a select committee. Then I heard the Labour speakers on this bill wanting to close the debate down. They want to close it down because they know that the submissions would be embarrassing. 
We have been a shameful crawling craven lefty country. The kind of credit that David Lange secured by talking about uranium on the breath has long since run out. We now get our credit in international fora by going to the cocktail parties in New York of people who cannot pay their bills—the representatives of countries that cannot even feed themselves. We have elevated that kind of posturing to an art. New Zealand has managed to embarrass itself with the British who have nuclear-propelled vessels with the Americans who have nuclear-propelled vessels that are now accepted in almost every other country in the world and with the Australians. All three countries are our longstanding and natural allies and we have got ourselves into a position whereby we have reneged on defence arrangements with all of them. 
We have paid dearly for that. The Government may sit quietly and pretend that none of that matters because it has hidden quite a lot of the costs. The Minister of Transport knows just how much this country paid when Australia decided to give us the fingers on theopen skies agreement when Australia decided to tell New Zealand that it had better hand part of Air New Zealand to Qantas or else and when Australia decided that we were untrustworthy. Dr Cullen therefore had to go crawling to the Australians and ask whether they would make things up with us if we gave them our banks. He asked them whether if we gave them absolute control of our banking sector they would not trash our economy. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: This is just stuff out of fairyland. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is out of fairyland. In terms of the New Zealand Government’s foreign policy the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control has managed not to intervene in support of our so-called sovereignty. The police are about to destroy $2 million worth of perfectly sound sporting firearms because we do not have enough guts to say to the United Nations that those firearms are lawful weapons in this country and that we do not like to waste money. Instead we are kowtowing to the spirit of an agreement that does not even require us to destroy them. 
What connection does that have with this bill? It is that we are primitives. It is that no one is prepared to say that the emperor has no clothes. We have a Government that simply will not stand up and say that it made a big mistake 20 years ago: that it could have banned nuclear weapons and that it could have achieved a situation where it preserved its defence relationships but instead it wanted to punch the nose of the big boy on the block in order to distract itself from internal debates it could not otherwise win. It is pretty much like the student loan bribe. But I will get back to foreign policy. It is like the president of Indonesia picking a fight with Malaysia because he had domestic trouble. This country has been no better than that. Now we are picking a fight with Zimbabwe a little country because we are too scared to tell Mbeki and China that they should stop supporting Mugabe. The vaunted sovereignty position of this country is in absolute disgrace. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I have to say in seeking what I think will be the last call in this debate that I am pretty disappointed in the quality of the debate in the last speech. That is disappointing because in many ways I have quite a lot of respect for that speaker. His logic has failed him pretty badly. The first bit of logic that failed him was on the issue of who was in Government at the time when Ansett convinced the Australian Government to renege on the open skies agreement. If that was done on the basis of Labour’s antinuclear stand then why did the Australian Government kick New Zealand when it was under a National Government that was so pro-America that it actually changed its position twice on the nuclear issue at the 1990 election? This flip-flop nonsense is nothing new. Mr Shirley knows that well because like me he was a member of Parliament from 1987 to 1990 and was then defeated. We had to watch National lying its way around the country at the time. I told the candidate in New Plymouth at the time—in 1990—that I would be back in 1993 pointing out to the people how right I had been on those issues. The National Party which became the Government changed its position twice on the issue in days. 
It is no surprise to me whatsoever that on issues of nuclear policy National has changed its mind—has it been six times so far? Have we heard six different stories from the National leader? I am not quite sure where the National leader is today on the issue but I can tell him where New Zealanders are. They are overwhelmingly opposed to nuclear ships coming to our ports. And I say to Mr Shirley that it is not just New Zealanders who oppose nuclear ships; it is people right around the world. Other countries have the same antinuclear policy as ours in a very similar way. Denmark is an example of that. Denmark has had visits from US ships because the US ships have been prepared to tell it that there are no nuclear weapons on board. 
I say to the member as well that today I had a visit from a very charming doctor who is doing some research on the European Union. She happens to be Ukrainian and to remember extremely well what happened at Chernobyl. I am sure that that has been rehearsed many times during this debate. Kiev is a major city that still suffers today from the after-effects of Chernobyl and its medical bills will be going through the roof. We know that there have been nuclear accidents right around the world—nuclear leaks. We have seen leaks from nuclear plants including leaks from the very ship-type reactors that Mr Shirley wants to have American ships bring back here. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What about the one out in Upper Hutt? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I say to Mr Shirley that we are not talking about nor is he talking about a small device for medical use. We are talking about nuclear power reactors and nuclear ship reactors. If those reactors are so safe in ships what happened to the ship-type reactor that the Americans installed at the McMurdo base to replace the diesel generators because of the pollution from the diesel and the risk of spillage of diesel etc. at the height of the American enthusiasm at the time for things nuclear? The US base at McMurdo put a ship-type nuclear reactor there. Sometime later after it leaked I tell Mr Shirley not only was the reactor dismantled and taken back to the US for decontamination etc. but so was a whole lot of the material below the reactor—the subsoil etc.—taken back to the USA for decontamination. Now not many people live there and we do not know what the effect on the environment was—whether there was a long-time effect or not. But today the US is generating again by diesel at McMurdo. If nuclear power generation is such a safe technology why was the use of the nuclear reactor discontinued? 
I tell Mr Shirley that we are respected throughout the world for our stand on this issue. I fully agree that some countries are saying that they have to look again at the issue of nuclear power while other countries are dismantling their nuclear reactors. We can do one of two things here: we can pass this bill or we can throw it out. I am firmly for throwing it out. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I thank the members of the House for their considered comments. There were many I disagree with but that is the purpose of this House—for the various views to be expressed. I have to say I am disappointed in some. 
There are a number of points in reply that I would like to make. Firstly I draw the House’s attention to a recent  
Herald 
-DigiPoll a nationwide poll of 750 New Zealanders. It was a published  
Herald 
-DigiPoll done under its normal stringent conditions. When asked the question whether based on the fact that the US had removed nuclear weapons from its surface ships in 1992 we should allow nuclear-propelled US ships to visit this country 65 percent of the 750 people polled said yes. Yet speaker after speaker in this debate said that the New Zealand public does not want that. Well that is partly why I changed the commencement clause of my bill to say that it would not take effect and my bill would not commence until a majority of New Zealanders by way of a referendum said that we should remove section 11. Those parties that are not going to support this bill are denying the voting public of New Zealand—New Zealand citizens—a say. What are they scared of? This bill would not become operative until it was carried by popular referendum. 
I agree: I think this issue has become such an iconic issue in the New Zealand psyche that it is wrong for this Parliament or any party within this Parliament just to thrust such a change on the New Zealand public. It is up to the New Zealand public to express its view by way of a referendum. This bill provides for that yet in spite of it Labour is saying it does not want to hear from the New Zealand public. National although its policy is to have a referendum is saying when tested that it does not want to pass this bill either. Well there is not much credibility in that position. 
A number of other issues are raised. I give this example. How many people here know what following the Boxing Day tsunami and the disastrous earthquake off Sumatra that measured 9 on the Richter scale the first support on-station was for those devastated communities? It was the USS  
Franklin D. Roosevelt 
 a nuclear-propelled aircraft carrier with a whole mobile hospital and helicopter support crews. Let us think about this scenario. New Zealand is a very tectonically active zone. It is very similar to Sumatra. We could perish the thought have something of equal proportions. Wellington and the Cook Strait could be devastated. Would we say if all transport were down and if we were offered help in the form of a ship like the  
Franklin D. Roosevelt 
 which has a mobile hospital and helicopter support that such a ship could not come here because we had nuclear-free legislation and we did not think it would be appropriate? I say to Mr Duynhoven that we should think about it. It is absurd. 
The other point I make and reiterate is that if we pass this legislation we are not saying that these ships can automatically come here; they can come here only if invited by the New Zealand Government. All that the bill is saying is that we should not keep legislation that was introduced to be anti-American that has been an incredible irritant and that has cost this country dearly because of some cold war chest-thumping bravado that has more to do with the Labour Party in the 1970s than it has with contemporary New Zealand in the 21st century. 
The time has come to revisit the legislation and I call upon the House to vote in support of my bill and refer it to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. How can the House not at least refer it to a select committee for further consideration? Others have made the point that the bill needs further debate and consideration. Well let us give the opportunity for New Zealanders to make submissions on this bill. This issue is an important aspect of New Zealand’s foreign policy and our trading policy for that matter. Let us have a parliamentary select committee consider the bill with public input. I urge every party here to vote in support of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Nuclear Free 
 Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 7; Maori Party 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 10.12 p.m.