Volume 628 Week 4 - Wednesday 7 December 2005 
Volume 628 Week 4 - Wednesday 7 December 2005 
[Volume:628;Page:601] 
Wednesday 7 December 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Referral to Privileges Committee—Hon David Benson-Pope 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move without debate the motion in my name: “That the House refer to the Privileges Committee a question of privilege relating to an alleged contempt under Standing Order 400(b) by Hon David Benson-Pope who told the House on 12 May 2005 that ‘I have not been guilty of or involved in any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years as a secondary school teacher’ despite what the police have described as ‘evidential sufficiency … that prima facie an assault(s) did occur.’ ” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Social Development and Employment Minister—Police Decision 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why has she referred the actions of the Hon David Benson-Pope’s press secretary to Ministerial Services yet taken no action against the Hon David Benson-Pope himself in relation to the selective leaking of police documents? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Because the staff member concerned initially denied to media that his office was the source of the information in the  
Herald on Sunday 
. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why has the Prime Minister taken no action against Mr Benson-Pope who having delayed the scheduled release of the police file by several days authorised its selective leaking to accommodate his own political interests and does she accept his assurance that he was under no restraints about what he could do with the file despite his having previously said that its release date was a matter for the police? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a matter of judgment by Ministers as to what they put in the public arena. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister asked Mr Benson-Pope for a full explanation as to why he authorised the deliberate leaking of parts of the police file over the weekend having previously delayed the scheduled release by the police for several days for his own political interests; if so what was the explanation given to her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that it is a matter of judgment by Ministers as to what they put in the public arena and what legal action they choose to take to protect their reputation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that someone should be able to remember something that happened 22 or 23 years ago when a leader of a political party in this country could not remember talking to the Brethren church 4 days ago? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As members have indicated that question was not relevant to the original question. I rule the question out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If I were to interpose in that question whether the Prime Minister had received any reports on the issue of fairness would it then be in order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It does not relate to the principal question. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Did Mr Benson-Pope give the Prime Minister a categorical assurance that he had absolutely nothing to do with his press secretary’s denying any involvement in the leak of the police file given that Mr Benson-Pope himself had clearly made a decision to authorise the leak and has she accepted such an assurance? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes and yes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is the point in keeping a Minister of the Crown whose actions have been deliberate and deceitful and whom the media and the public no longer trust? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not accept the assertions in the member’s question. 
Pharmaceuticals—Disparity with Australia 
2.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he concerned at the growing disparity in Government expenditure on pharmaceuticals between New Zealand and Australia which now spends more than twice the amount per capita on pharmaceuticals that New Zealand does; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No I am not. Australia spends more money on pharmaceuticals than does New Zealand but New Zealand and Australian drug volumes are broadly equivalent—the reason being that New Zealand’s drug purchasing is more cost-effective. Last year for example drug volumes in New Zealand rose by about 11 percent whereas costs rose by only about half that amount thus allowing precious health dollars to be spent elsewhere. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does he think that New Zealand’s proposed increase in pharmaceutical investment of $11.85 per person over the next few years is adequate when compared with Australia’s proposed increase of $50 per person and when taking into account that an ageing population will inevitably require more medications; and is he committed to closing that gap in funding or will it continue to widen? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I suspect that the member is a little out of date. Yesterday the Australian federal health Minister said that the Government wants to save up to $850 million a year in Australia—a figure that is much higher than New Zealand’s entire drug budget. 
Ann Hartley 
: Does the Government have any aspects of drug expenditure under review; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes we do. As a result of our confidence and supply agreement with the United Future party a long-term medicine strategy project is now being undertaken by the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne. I am delighted that New Zealand First apparently is showing interest in that area of endeavour as well. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Will the Minister allow the patients to come forward to tell their stories about how their lives have been damaged by the Government’s medicines policy or will he continue to shut those people out of the ministry’s in-house deliberations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I shut nobody out of anything so long as my diary fits. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he share the concerns of the previous Minister of Health that the direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to consumers—which of course happens only in New Zealand and the United States—is driving up the demand for pharmaceuticals that are still under patent and exposing a greater number of people to the risk of adverse effects from pharmaceuticals; and will he therefore take steps to curtail the direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals as the previous Minister promised publicly she would do back in 2003? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may be aware that the Government’s approach to direct-to-consumer advertising is to resolve those matters in a trans-Tasman forum. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister concur with the view that one of the reasons that lies behind the proposed national medicine strategy is to ensure not only the ongoing quality usage of pharmaceuticals but also to ensure that the issues addressed by the member asking the primary question regarding price and other forms of availability are factored into national policy so it does not just come down to a strict rationing decision? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Precisely. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that in the 18 months to May 2005 the Australian Government listed 38 new drug subsidies on its pharmaceutical schedule against nine in this country and if so what action does he intend to take to improve the availability of new drugs to New Zealanders? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may not be aware of a bunch of press statements that came out from Pharmac yesterday as a result of its annual report but it is a matter of fact that there are more products on the New Zealand drug schedule than there are on the Australian schedule. 
Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Ministerial Briefings 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Can he confirm that an April 2002 briefing to the Associate Minister of Education and the Minister of Education contained this statement regarding Te Wananga o Aotearoa: “Ministry officials have stressed the need for increased governance involvement oversight and financial management and planning.”; if so which Ministers and officials were responsible for ensuring those concerns were acted on? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Yes. The quote referred to is one used to describe the advice from officials to the council of the wananga that the officials are working with. Those officials were those from the Ministry of Education. The responsible Minister at the time was of course the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education). 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen a report dated 18 June 2003 to Steve Maharey and Trevor Mallard outlining officials’ concerns about poor governance conflicts of interest and financial mismanagement and their concern that there was a lack of progress on dealing with these issues; and why did the Government wait another 2 years before taking decisive action to sort out problems in the wananga when Ministers knew the facts in 2003? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not recall seeing that particular report. Action had been taken in May 2002 in respect of the appointment of a Crown development adviser. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What action was taken to assist the wananga council to improve its “governance involvement oversight and financial management and planning”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said a Crown development adviser was appointed in May 2002. In addition other advisers were brought in to assist with the development of rules. The problem is that often rules are adopted—including rules around conflict of interest—but those rules are subsequently breached. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement made on National Radio in respect of the work done by officials and Ministers: “None of that worked. We can agree on that. It didn’t work.”; if so who is accountable for the multimillion-dollar failure of officials and Ministers to safeguard taxpayers’ money spent on the wananga over the last 5 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would have thought that the person primarily accountable was of course the chief executive Mr Rongo Wetere who is now on leave. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Labour Government make Shane Jones the chair of Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee when he was a member of the wananga audit and finance committee where one of his responsibilities was policy on credit card use which the Auditor-General described in his report released yesterday as unacceptable? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I note that the Minister has no responsibility for that appointment. That appointment was made by the committee. Would the member please submit another question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen reports that Labour MP Shane Jones now chairman of Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee was a member of the wananga audit and finance committee during the period covered by the Auditor-General’s report and that one of his responsibilities was policy on credit card use which the Auditor-General describes in a whole chapter of analysis as “unacceptable”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I am advised that he also resigned in frustration at the lack of progress being made whereas—[ 
Interruption 
]—peace to that member too—as recently as June of this year Mr English appeared to have learnt nothing about the failures at the wananga. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has he received any other reports on governance issues at the wananga? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have received reports with comments: “The answer here for the wananga is that the Government stops trying to take it over.” “The wananga is not in a financial crisis and has not been.” and “They are good. They are courses that do have value. They do reach a lot of people.” Those comments came from the Hon Bill English in June this year. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister keep saying in the media that the council of the wananga has changed from the time when the Government threatened to sack it when only one of the existing five members of the council is a new appointment and the rest of them including the chairman are long-term members of the council who were there right through the period investigated by the Auditor-General or are close associates of Rongo Wetere; why does he keep misleading the public about that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Far more than five members have ceased to be members of the council and as that member should know very well one can be a member of a body and still be a minority within it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I ask the Minister whether the quotes he quoted in the last supplementary answer bar one were made on a Maori radio station and whether that is the explanation for the inconsistent comments that he has heard from Bill English—it is one of those things one says to brown people as opposed to when one speaks on National Radio? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for any of those issues and cannot answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question was not in order but the first part was. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can Dr Cullen be responsible for where quotes are made? That would be one question. The second question is what else was there in the part that you have picked out that made it comply when there is clearly no ministerial responsibility for what a member of the Opposition has said. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister in making the quotes therefore made himself responsible for those quotes and therefore a question directed at them was in fact in order—but not the second part; the first part was in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is a clarification on your ruling. You have just ruled that by using the quote the Minister himself is responsible for the quote. How can that be? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He is responsible for it to the extent that the veracity of that quote can always be challenged by another member. So I would ask the Minister to address it to that extent. It is the veracity of those matters that he is responsible for. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A technique that is repeatedly used by Ministers to avoid the Standing Order and make quotes of the sort Dr Cullen made is to give a big long quote then right at the end put the name of the Opposition member who is associated with it. If they put the name at the front end the matter would clearly be out of order and you would intervene to say it was outside the ministerial responsibilities. I would just ask you as Speaker to wake up to that technique and to ensure that both the intent and the meaning of the Standing Orders are complied with and that that technique is not used just as a mechanism for Government Ministers to be able to misquote Opposition members. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comments but as I have ruled a Minister can be challenged or questioned on any quote he makes. That is what happened in this instance and that part of the question should be addressed now. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We down here on the cross benches have been unable hear everything and in the points of orders we have actually lost track of what the question was. I ask whether we could have the question asked again please. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member makes a very valuable point. The level of noise in the Chamber through chatting or commentary on questions or answers does make it very difficult for other members to hear. I tend to allow members to respond robustly but when it impedes the hearing of other members I will intervene more often. For the purpose of the members who did not hear the question I ask that the question be repeated—but only that part of it that was in order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Were the quotes the Minister supplied made on a Maori radio station and does he have any explanation for that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Not the last bit. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Were the quotes made on a Maori radio station; if so which? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you explain to us where ministerial responsibility applies in this case. If members of the House are able to ask silly questions such as: “Where did you get the quote from?”—and no one is disputing the quote; the issue here as Dr Smith pointed out is the misuse of the quote and that misuse is well outside the Standing Order—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please respect the member on his feet who is making a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Minister of Maori Affairs hardly ever speaks normally. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not necessary either. Would the member please just make the point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The point is that no one is disputing the quote; the issue is that the quote is being used in a way that is outside the Standing Orders. If you allow this question it simply runs away from the intent of question time. Question time is to scrutinise Ministers not comments made by members of the Opposition. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Apart from anything else if members wish to have this point of order applied then of course that would have ruled out Mr English’s question to me about whether I had seen reports that Mr Shane Jones had been involved in doing something. I am afraid that Opposition members if they get a ruling on this in the way they are seeking at the moment will find asking some questions in the future very difficult indeed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. The Minister has used quotes; therefore the Minister can be asked about those quotes. There is nothing unusual in members quoting someone else and being challenged when they do in fact make that quote. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I am advised that the comments occurred on the Willie Jackson programme. It does seem to me to be important that one has one press statement for all. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain the conflict of interest inherent in the Crown’s appoint of Mr Graeme McNally as the development adviser to the wananga when the wananga is audited by the Auditor-General by statute the Auditor-General has delegated Deloitte’s to carry out the audit of the wananga and Mr Graeme McNally on whom the Crown has relied for advice over several years is a partner in Deloittes—the firm that does the audit and should have uncovered all the financial mismanagement that the Auditor-General uncovered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that the conflict was not known to the Minister at the time that Mr McNally’s appointment was made. Mr McNally of course had been appointed— 
Hon Bill English 
: So no one found out what auditing firm he was from? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Mr Angry act will not do in this respect. Mr McNally had been used frequently in terms of tertiary institution monitoring and very successfully. When the conflict became clear Mr McNally’s appointed ceased. 
Hon Bill English 
: How long did it take two Ministers of Education one Minister of Finance and 350 officials all being paid tens of thousands of dollars to work out that Mr Graeme McNally a partner in Deloitte’s and auditor of the wananga was the same Mr Graeme McNally who was paid $127000 by the Government to give the Government advice on the wananga and is not that a direct and fatal conflict of interest? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Rather too long in my view but significantly less than the time that member has taken to discover there is a financial problem at the wananga—because he still does not think there is one. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister how long it took three Ministers and 350 officials to work out that Graeme McNally a partner in Deloitte’s was the same Graeme McNally that the Government had appointed to give independent advice on the wananga and the Minister did not answer that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question by saying as I heard it “too long”. Question No. 4 Moana Mackey. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry but one more interjection during a point of order or when a member is asking a question and the member will be asked to leave the Chamber. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Examinations 
4.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent reports has he received on progress with the NCEA exam season? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The exam season is going smoothly. The sitting of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exams is now complete and scholarship will finish this Saturday. Marking is now under way and is progressing as anticipated. To ensure consistency and fairness early in the marking process a sample of scripts is marked and checked. The marking schedule is altered if necessary. That is exactly the process that was put in place earlier this year and it is working exactly as expected. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is being done to ensure a high level of transparency around NCEA and scholarship exams? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: During the year the New Zealand Qualifications Authority held 272 workshops around the country involving 4000 lead teachers. Prior to exams the authority sent information directly to parents and schools. Since exams began the authority has provided regular updates to the public including a press briefing five media statements numerous media interviews and an exam hotline 0800 NCEA. Since marking began the marking schedules of just nine so far out of 335 standards have required attention. These have been identified early and dealt with. This means that the marking schedules for less than 2 percent of all of the questions for all of the standards in all of the subjects have required some attention. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that at a select committee hearing this morning the Ministry of Education disagreed with the public statements made by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority over how the marking is happening and when the ministry was asked whether it agreed with Karen Sewell’s statement that there was an expected distribution of results the ministry official said: “No it’s not quite like that.” so whom do we believe? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What we believe is that this is a standards-based system and people are working towards a standard. The member has often raised the notion of scaling so can I point out to him that scaling cannot take place until all the marks are in. All the exams have to be marked for scaling to take place. I know that the member has never marked exams but he has to understand that that is when scaling can take place and not before. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister a direct question which was whether he was aware of the disagreement between the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. He did not actually refer to that at all and I request that he answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is correct. Would the Minister address that part of the question please. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Until I can check that matter given the member’s track record I will not reply to the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How is that reply in any way in order and how will it help order in the House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Certainly the Minister’s reply that he should check was in order; the throwaway line about his reference to the member was not. So I ask that member to stand and withdraw that part. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw the last part of the answer. 
Moana Mackey 
: What advice has he received that students and parents can have confidence in the exam system? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) recently passed a motion of confidence in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Graham Young from the Secondary Principals Association early this week said that “problems were being recognised early and rectified promptly”. Karen Sewell the acting Chief Executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority said: “The process we put in place this year is working as expected.” In other words those who set sit and administer the exams are confident the process is working. The only person who is seeking to undermine this confidence is Bill English and he should take his own advice and let young people sit their exams and teachers do their marking. 
Social Development and Employment Minister—Police Decision 
5.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday when he said: “Can I stress that I believe I have acted in a perfectly upfront way in all matters and have not been deceitful.”; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes as I said in the House yesterday although I was not aware of any restraint placed on me with regard to the files in my possession in hindsight I recognise that releasing details was not the wisest course of action. At the time the material was given to a Sunday newspaper to provide a more accurate analysis of the number of students who supported me and did not support the allegations against me than the misinformation provided to the House last week by Rodney Hide. 
Judith Collins 
: If as the Minister says he has acted in a perfectly upfront way in all matters and has not been deceitful why is it that he changed his story yesterday when he said he did not recall the alleged events from his statement made in the House on 12 May when he said: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.”; or is that because he no longer stands by his statement made on 12 May? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can confirm that my statement made in the House yesterday was to the effect that I am one of the 19 people who either do not recall the alleged events or do not believe they happened. 
Judith Collins 
: When the Minister authorised his press secretary to leak selective parts of the police report to a Sunday newspaper what did he tell his press secretary to say to the media in case they asked where the leak came from? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I gave no instructions other than being completely honest with the media to my press secretary. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister stand by his press release on Sunday which stated that the police report vindicates his position and how is that not deceitful given that the police report showed there were nine credible witnesses to the incident and that the police believed them? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I do stand by the statement. The prime reason is that 19 individuals including myself in that class either have no recollection of any such alleged incident or refute it absolutely. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House yesterday: “Can I stress that the analysis that was released was in no way selective.”; if so would he please explain how neglecting to include any evidence that might point to his guilt is neither selective nor deceitful? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes and that document contained reference to statements not in support of me. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister stand by his press release on Sunday: “Now that the investigation has concluded he does not feel constrained talking about the case.”; if so why will he not front up to the media and talk about the case? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I point out to the member that the police investigation recommended no further action and for me that is where the matter rests. 
Judith Collins 
: What did the Minister mean when he told the House on 12 May that he refuted the allegation and he found the allegation ridiculous? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened carefully to the member’s question. The Minister is not responsible for actions or what was said on 12 May in the previous Parliament when he was the Associate Minister of Education. I ask that the question be rephrased so that it is consistent with the Minister’s ministerial responsibilities. 
Judith Collins 
: When the Minister told the House yesterday that he had no recollection of the incident and he was one of the 19 people who could not recall it or did not believe it had happened did he mean the same thing as saying that he refuted the allegation and found it ridiculous? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The questioner has mixed up two statements in that question. What I said to the House yesterday was that I am one of the 19 people in the class who either do not recall the alleged events or do not believe they happened. 
Social Development and Employment Minister—Police Decision 
6. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Has his office received the transcript of the police interview he had on 21 September where he said “the sort of activity that I’m being accused of of forcing a tennis ball into someone’s mouth would be as unacceptable then as it is now and I was not I have never committed such an offence.” and does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday that “I am one of the 19 people who either do not recall the alleged events or do not believe they happened.”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: What event has caused the Minister not to remember what he categorically denied to the police less than 3 months ago and can he remember providing a signed statement to the police denying that he stuffed a tennis ball into the mouth of one of the students? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: My statement to the police is a matter of public record. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The fact that the Minister’s statement is on the public record in no way addresses my question. He could stand up—as he will probably now do—and say that in answer to every question. He actually has to address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes he addressed the question by stating that the statement in the police report was a matter of public record. That addressed the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: No it does not. With the greatest of respect— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry it does address the question. Would the member please be seated. I know that the answer may not satisfy the member but it did address the question. 
Judith Collins 
: When the Minister said yesterday to the House: “I am one of the 19 people who either do not recall the alleged events or do not believe they happened.” in which camp does he fall—is he one who cannot recall it or is he one who thinks it did not happen? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Both. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why can the Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have warned members that when a member is asking a question it is heard in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why can the Minister not remember every detail of every school day 23 years ago and show a memory superior to that of the leader of the National Party who could not remember a month-old conversation with senators or a 4-day-old conversation with the Exclusive Brethren? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that question is not in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect I am asking the Minister why he cannot remember every detail of every school day 23 years ago because that is the core of this issue—whether there is any memory of the event about which the National Party complains. Now according to the National Party he should be able to remember those and I am asking him whether there is any obvious reason why he cannot. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the question relates to the statement of yesterday then it is in order but the Minister is not responsible for anything that happened in the past. He is responsible for his ministerial responsibilities. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The key issue is that he says he cannot recall and that does not relate just to yesterday; it relates to 23 years ago. I want to know why he cannot remember every detail of every school day on which he was professionally occupied 23 years ago because the National Party thinks that that is a fair question to be asked of this Minister—when its leader cannot remember conversations held 4 days ago. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that question does not relate to the Minister's ministerial responsibilities in the way it is phrased so I ask for the next supplementary question. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister just explain to the House what he meant by saying that he was both a person who did not recall the alleged events and a person who did not believe they happened—how can he be both? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would have thought that that was self-evident. I do not have any recall of the alleged events nor do I believe they happened. 
Rodney Hide 
: Now that the Minister has changed his mind and can no longer remember whether he jammed a tennis ball into the mouth of one of his students—and according to Mr Peters that must have been a fairly regular sort of occurrence— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect that cannot be in order particularly in regard to myself. There is only one member in this House who could have a tennis ball put into his mouth—and that is Rodney Hide. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Both those references to tennis balls were out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: Now that the Minister has changed his mind and can no longer remember categorically whether he jammed a tennis ball into the mouth of one of his students has he contacted the police to change his statement in which he categorically denied sticking a tennis ball in a student’s mouth; and if he has not contacted the police to change his statement why has he not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have had no further direct contact with the police. 
Plunketline—Telephone Calls 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many calls were made to Plunketline (excluding calls transferred from Healthline) in the month of October 2005 and how many of these were answered? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The total number of calls answered in October was 5155. The non-response rate however was over 80 percent. The non-response rate is why I announced last week that the Government will contract directly for a Plunketline service. The tender process is now under way. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister failed to answer the question. I have been specific because I have some information here that he could have confirmed. I asked about the total number of calls and the number of calls that would have been answered excluding the Healthline transfers and he has given me a figure that includes the Healthline transfers. I think he should address the question and provide the information that was sought. The question has been on notice for some hours. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would ask the Minister to address the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I put all this information into the public area last week. If the member wants to know the number of calls answered by Plunketline that came directly to Plunketline in the month of October the answer is 3425. The reason I gave the higher number is that a number of calls are made to Healthline and then directed to Plunketline and it seemed to me that it would give the member a better idea. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to labour this point but we do need to have the information. There were two questions: how many calls were made to Plunketline and how many calls were answered? We know that 3425 were answered. Now the Minister should be able to tell us how many were actually made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that the Minister through both his answers has addressed the question but the member may like to redirect a supplementary question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No no Madam Speaker. The question was on notice and is quite specific. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister however has addressed the question. Ministers are not required to answer specifically with yes or no answers. They are required however to address the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When the Speaker is speaking to this House it is a requirement that members of Parliament sit down—even if the member is a Government poodle like Mr Peters. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide you always spoil your points of order with irrelevant comments. Yes you were right that members should remain seated but I was not on my feet. Can we recommence with a supplementary question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—no a point of order first. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the light of Mr Hide’s point of order I also remind you that you have already given a final warning for people who interject whilst a point of order is being made. Whilst the Hon Tony Ryall was making his point of order to you Mr Hide interjected calling Mr Peters a “poodle” across the floor of the House. That was an interjection during a point of order after a final warning and I ask that you exercise your authority and chuck him out of the House as he deserves—he has nothing to offer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No he was actually on his feet making a point of order but he made an irrelevant comment in the course of it. 
Ron Mark 
: He made the comment long before the point of order was taken by him Madam Speaker. He was sitting in the seat as he is now talking while you were talking and hearing a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Mark. I missed that but I will be listening in the future. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister have any reports on Plunketline’s success over the years particularly in the year 1999 when National’s leader Jenny Shipley shut it down? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I certainly have. The issue around funding for Plunketline in the late 1990s when the member who asked the primary question was in Cabinet but when the member who asked the first supplementary question had already left the Government was a mean and foolish part of our recent history characterised by amongst other things Plunketline shutting down for months through lack of funding. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave before I seek the call to ask another supplementary question to table the answer to question for written answer No. 8978 which shows that last month 3425 calls to Plunketline were answered out of a total number of calls of 26453. That is why he would not tell me the information. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How did the previous National Government support Plunketline? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Very badly. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That question is not in order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The House needs to know that that was a patsy supplementary question from a junior Labour Party back-bencher written on a piece of paper— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member will be seated. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When only 3425 calls were answered out of 26453 calls made last month—87 percent of calls to Plunketline are going unanswered and it has got worse since the Healthline and Plunketline merger—why has it taken this Government so long to realise that Annette King’s merger was a complete and utter failure? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The House may be interested to learn that McKessons who run Healthline and Plunket who run Plunketline wrote to the Ministry of Health in August 2003 stating: “We want to assure you that we share your desire to ensure a fully functioning integrated national Healthline service.” People thought it would work and when Plunket came to the Government a few months ago and said it would take a direct contract in preference to that we said it would be fine by us. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has the Government ignored endless correspondence from Plunket regarding dissatisfaction with Annette King’s merger of Plunketline and Healthline and why did the Government arrogantly ignore the concerns of Plunket and of the desperate parents who were trying to get help? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I say again to the House that Plunket believed that an integrated service would work and said so in writing and that is why it was embarked upon. It is clear after a bit of learning by doing that a direct contract between the Government and Plunket which will be tendered for in due course will work better. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How does this Government’s support for Plunketline compare with recent history in respect of dissatisfaction with service? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: What an excellent question! It is now known that Plunket was so frustrated with the previous National Government that two rallies were organised in the late 1990s. Plunketline was shut down through lack of funding in 1999. It was then opened again but only for part of the day and only at $400000 a year. That was the level of support that National was prepared to give Plunketline when the member who asked the primary question was a member of Cabinet. When there was a change of Government the funding was doubled to more than $1 million and now Healthline and Plunketline between them are working with about $10 million. There is a much higher level of support now than there was when the member who asked the primary question was a member of the executive. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many calls— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that New Zealand First has four supplementary questions and that it has taken four. It is not entitled to any more. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall Madam Speaker that you ruled out the first two supplementary questions. That being the case we have one to go. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: They still count though. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can you count a question that has been ruled out? Usually one is given the right to rephrase the question which is a privilege that you did not extend to me. I seek leave to ask one more question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was going to suggest to the member that he can always seek leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hone Harawira 
: He aha nga mahi kua wakaritea e te Kawana i enei tau 2005 ki te 2006 kia orite ai te utu o nga nehi ara wera o Te Ropu Tiaki Tamariki a Plunket me Nga Nehi Maori a-Rohe ki nga nehi e mahi ana mo nga Poari Hauora a-Rohe? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What provisions has the Government considered for the years 2005-06 to ensure that nurses working outside district health boards such as Plunket or Maori community health workers receive salaries on a par with district health board nurses? 
] 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Some nurses are employed by the Government and some nurses are employed through non-governmental organisations. The Government is responsible for the setting of the salaries of the first group of nurses. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How when the Minister is reported as saying he was shocked to discover that only one in seven calls to Plunketline were being answered—saying: “You couldn’t rate it as a success.”—can he explain those comments when Mrs King said on behalf of the Government in light of facing the same rate of unanswered calls earlier this year that she was pretty relaxed about the situation that six out of seven people calling Plunketline could not get anyone to answer the phone? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The hope has been and had been for some time that an improved use of software and triaging facilities would improve the non-response rate. That has proved with the experience of time not to be the case. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If this Labour Government cannot even arrange a decent telephone service to deal with 26000 phone calls—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would people please keep their chatter down. [ 
Interruption 
] Those were not interjections; they were comments—[ 
Interruption 
] Then I am sorry but half of this side of the House will have to go too. The interjections have been the problem but members do keep the level of chatter at unacceptable levels. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Government cannot arrange a decent telephone service to deal with 26000 phone calls from desperate parents who need some advice how can the public have any confidence at all that this Minister could manage the hundreds of thousands of phone calls that would need to be answered during a possible bird flu pandemic? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: What the member does not know and neither do I is how many people are not getting through. We do know how many phone calls are not being answered. Plunketline invites people to ring back. Plunket has apparently analysed how many phone numbers the unanswered calls come from and it estimates that the unmet demand is much lower than the unanswered calls would indicate. 
KiwiSaver Scheme—Reports 
8.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on the KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I received recently a report outlining the recommendations of the United Kingdom Pensions Commission that the British Government establish a national pension savings scheme similar to the KiwiSaver model. The similarities have led the British media to dub the model “BritSaver”. 
Shane Jones 
: Do any aspects of the United Kingdom Pensions Commission report vary substantively from the approach taken by this Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes; there is one particularly important difference. The British commission proposes to increase the age of eligibility for the publicly funded pension from 65 to 67. That is not something this Government is considering notwithstanding the equivocation on many occasions on this point from the current Leader of the Opposition. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 16 November —Amended Answer 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a statement I previously made to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What is it about? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is in response to a previous question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am just trying to help the Minister. It would help members enormously if the Minister would explain a little more rather than just saying he is going to correct something he said in the House in answer to some question. I ask the member to give a fraction more detail. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes; would the Minister clarify why leave is being sought. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a statement I previously made in the House in response to a question for oral answer on 16 November 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The rule I understand is that a Minister makes a correction at the first available opportunity. We have had a day and half of sitting since that particular day. We have also been sitting here today since 2 o’clock—we have had over an hour today—so we would be inclined not to grant that leave. The Minister has of course the opportunity to make a ministerial statement to correct his position. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I think the course of action would be to deny the leave but I will put the question. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like some clarification because this is an important point for Ministers. If one has given an incorrect answer to the House one seeks leave to correct it because otherwise one is potentially exposed to a breach of privilege charge. I assume of course if leave is being denied that no member is then in a position to bring a breach of privilege charge. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The point is that the correction should come at the first available opportunity. We have had all day yesterday and we have had today. The Minister cannot tell us that this is the first moment that he knew about it. If he knew about it at the start of the House sitting today he should have brought it up then. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sure the member is right that certainly the matter could have been raised earlier today. But then of course I assume if you accept that that is a hard and fast rule that we will no longer have any points of order raised at any time other than immediately after the offence occurred—which has been a frequent occurrence already in this Parliament let alone in the previous Parliament. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Madam Speaker that is not a matter for you to consider at all in this because this is about a Minister who after considering a question on notice comes to the House 4 hours after he got the question makes a mistake in the answer then apparently does not find out about it until quite some number of days later—10 or 12 days later—then comes to the House at 2 o’clock knowing that the mistake has been made but waits until his question comes up on the sheet to correct it. The correction should have been made right at the start. The courteous thing would have been for his office—[ 
Interruption 
]—to make some sort of analysis of his answer on the day so that we would not be in the position of asking a question that might very well relate to that actual mistake. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 This is a very important point. The rule exists that a Minister is required to make a correction at the earliest possible time— [ 
Interruption 
]—because we actually want to have correct answers in this House. What appears to be the case here is that the Minister has bothered to make a correction only because he is getting a subsequent question and that is entirely out of order—and indeed I suspect a potential breach of privilege—because Ministers do not come down and correct their answers when they are caught; they come down and correct their answers as soon as they become aware of the need to do so. The easy course of action for the Minister is to do this—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Peters has interrupted three times. Madam Speaker it is very hard to give a point of order when Mr Peters is sitting on the cross benches chipping away three or four times. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree with you and I would have to ask that member to leave the Chamber. There have been so many warnings. I know that this will deny some people an opportunity because he does have a question to him on the Order Paper but as members have raised the matter I have to ask the member to leave. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to return to answer my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I seek leave to return to answer my question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have asked the member—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry but Mr Brownlee will be joining him very shortly! As I said there will be very few of us left at the rate we are going. I have warned this House on several occasions yesterday and today that constant chipping in is not acceptable. I let chatter go as long as it is not too loud but that chipping in via interjections is unacceptable. I am asking the member to leave. He has sought leave to come back for his question. Is there any objection to that? No. The member will please now go and return for his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The easy way forward for the Minister is in seeking leave to explain why today is the earliest possible opportunity for him to correct the answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Hide. That is the obvious point. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 It is because quite simply the error was not detected until the processing of an answer to a parliamentary question today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The normal course of action is that as soon as one becomes aware of that one should take the earliest opportunity to explain. That should in fact have been taken at the beginning of question time as was indicated. It was not but leave was sought. Leave has been denied. The member can now approach the Speaker in writing to explain what has happened—that is what has happened in the past—to determine whether there has in fact been any breach of privilege. 
Immigration—Priority of Applications 
9.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Are immigration representations made by members of Parliament given priority over other immigration applications? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Immigration representations are not applications. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why when answering a question in this House on 16 November in respect of some of the 438 immigration appeals made in the past 3 years by the honourable Taito Phillip Field did the Minister tell the House that I had made “In the realm of 80 in the last 3 years.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member must have ESP because that was precisely the point I was attempting to clarify for the House in my point of order. In fact the member made only 21 representations during that 3-year period and I take this opportunity to apologise to the member for overstating his hard work. 
Jill Pettis 
: How many representations were made to the Minister of Immigration in the last financial year and how many standard immigration applications were made in the same period? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In 2004-05 around 4000 ministerial representations were received with approximately one-fifth originating from members of Parliament. In the same year over 400000 immigration applications were made to the Department of Labour. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that his own department had established on 19 October—not long before that Minister answered the question in this House—that I had in fact made 21 immigration appeals in the last 3 years and why did he choose to give this House an erroneous figure almost four times higher than the correct figure? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Quite simply because I made an error. I have previously apologised to the member for overstating his efforts. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that on 16 November he also told the House that I had “put a higher number of cases before the Minister than most members of this House have done.” and did he simply make up the figure of “80 in the last 3 years” in an attempt to support a false statement; if not where did the figure of 80 come from? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have already clarified that figure was an error and the member is now quite correct. He did not in fact make more representations than a majority of members. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does this set the standard we can expect from this Minister of Immigration—that if he wants to score a political point he is prepared to just pluck out of the air any figures that might happen to suit his political purpose? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. 
Health Care—Role of Nurses 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: In what ways is the Government supporting a greater role for nurses in health care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 New regulations mean that from tomorrow qualified nurse practitioners will be able to prescribe a range of new medications. This move not only encourages the professional development of the nursing sector but is also a key part of the Government’s work to provide timely flexible high-quality health-care for all New Zealanders. 
Darien Fenton 
: What would a nurse have to do to qualify to prescribe medication? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Quite a lot. Apart from the 3-year undergraduate degree that nurses must undertake they then also should undertake a 2-year masters degree in the scope of practice for which prescribing rights are sought followed by several years of clinical practice. Some non-doctor professionals such as midwives already prescribe. There is only one prescribing nurse in New Zealand at the moment but about 100 nurses are now preparing to apply when the regulations change tomorrow. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he concerned that by July of next year most full-time primary health-care nurses will earn around $160 less than district health board nurses for a 40-hour week and what specific steps is he taking to bring about pay parity for those primary health-care nurses who are paid through the public health system so that there is not a mass walk-out of primary health-care nurses next year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We are not taking any specific steps because we are not the employers. However the member will be aware that this Government has a very high commitment to primary health-care and that commitment has been matched by substantial funding increases in recent years. 
China—Trade Deficit 
11.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association at the APEC meeting that he would raise our “$2 billion” trade deficit with China in his meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister and what proposals if any did he advance at the meeting to address the issue? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 In a pre-APEC interview with Ian Llewellyn from the New Zealand Press Association which took place in Wellington several days prior to my leaving for APEC—not at APEC as the member falsely asserts—Mr Llewellyn canvassed with me a wide range of hypothetical issues that might be raised in my meeting with my Chinese counterpart including our trade deficit with China. On further investigation of course I realised that the Foreign Minister in China is very much like the Minister of Foreign Affairs in New Zealand: he does not handle trade matters. He was accompanied by one Bo Xilai who is the Commerce Minister who later that day had full bilaterals with Mr Goff and Mr Sutton. That is the reason why I did not raise the matter with him when I saw him. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has he seen the description of his performance at the APEC meetings carried by the  
New Zealand Herald  
as that of “a politician whose role is now so circumscribed by his ‘colleagues’ that he is little more than a post box through which his international counterparts must route their requests to where the real foreign policy decisions are made” and what reassurances can he give the House today that he is not just acting as a postbox for Miss Clark and Mr Goff when he meets with overseas Ministers? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have most certainly seen the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial which is in line of course with the 68 it wrote against me about the wine box—and it was wrong. It has never apologised. It does not have a shred of integrity when it comes to that but more important I have seen this. It is a series of emails that shows that the National Party had the  
New Zealand Herald  
doing its work—[ 
Interruption 
] oh yes—from one Peter Keenan who worked for Don Brash. This email states things like this: “One place to argue the case would be the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s ‘Perspective’ page.” I will read on further—no members should listen to this; it is good stuff. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It may have escaped your attention but not ours that Mr Peters goes not only around this country but around the world claiming to be this country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has been asked a question about his activities as Minister of Foreign Affairs and we are getting a history lesson on the greatest debacle of any politician in this country the wine-box affair and now on some spurious emails which have absolutely nothing to do with his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs—unless of course he wants to admit that he is just the postbox he is accused of being. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Unfortunately perhaps the member failed to listen to his colleague’s supplementary question which specifically referred to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article and comments about the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. Although the member may have been discursive he was addressing the question because it did refer to that particular newspaper. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Does that mean that if in a question to a Minister we were to mention a particular publication the Minister could simply produce it and start reading it because that is what he appears to be doing—just reading a few pages out of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 taking up a bit of time— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry Mr Brownlee but we had not actually heard the answer to the question. As I said perhaps the Minister could address it more succinctly and relate the relevance of the emails to the question which was about the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I most certainly will. Hear this: “We could use a slot we have available a free slot in the  
New Zealand Herald  
for you. Text to be in by this Friday.” That is from Peter Keenan to Don Brash Gerry Brownlee Murray McCully Wayne Mapp Pansy Wong and Richard Long. It just shows what a scurrilous piece of ragtag journalism we have to live with.[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I agree with the member. That is drawing a long bow with the conclusion. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am being asked to comment on a  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial. I am giving some reasons why those comments are not worth the paper they are written on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes but it was your description at the end of that answer that was unacceptable. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The point is that these very illuminating emails also discuss how they will get me on side with the National Party post-election. Now what does that tell us? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant to the question that was asked. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps it would help if the Minister were prepared to tell the House whether he considers himself to be a postbox or in his case an inbox. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Please we wish to hear what the member has to say. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Just in case the public did not hear that and not being a plagiarist nevertheless I will— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee asked a question for the Minister to respond to— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is right. Just in case—[ 
Interruption 
] It was a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to sit down and I apologise. I thought it was a supplementary question. It was a point of order in the form of a question. The point of order itself was not a point of order. It was invalid and it would have been as a question. So there is no question to answer. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the Minister have any further reports about why he might have been misinterpreted or his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs misunderstood by so many people? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is an extraordinarily insightful question. Can I just say that a  
New Zealand Herald  
correspondent who went to that meeting at APEC gave a full commentary on a meeting she was not at. She said that all sorts of things happened to the extent that I had to contact the embassy in question to confirm that the discussion reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
did not happen. I challenged that  
New Zealand Herald  
writer to correct it and she would not. That tells us what that newspaper’s editorials and commentary are worth. 
Keith Locke 
: Is not New Zealand’s trade deficit with China larger than it should be because Chinese exports are subsidised through wages being kept at a very low level unions being banned and through very little money being spent on workplace health and safety or environmental protection as we saw in Harbin a week ago; and what is the Minister doing to end these subsidies which are to our disadvantage? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Although our discussions were wide-ranging— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could explain what the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in relation to ending Chinese subsidies in matters of this sort. At the very outside it is a matter for the Minister of Trade or the Minister for Trade Negotiations not a matter for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes and I assume that that was to be the point of your point of order Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was going to ask you to pay attention to the answer given by Mr Peters because quite clearly he does want to answer as a Minister in the House well outside his designated portfolio areas. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and ask Mr Locke whether he wishes to rephrase the question so that it is within the specific area of ministerial responsibility. 
Keith Locke 
: Could I just speak to the point of order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: All right. The member may speak to the point of order. 
Keith Locke 
: I think that my question shows that trade questions do have a Minister of Foreign Affairs dimension to them because my question did concern issues of human rights union rights environmental protections and workplace health and safety all of which should come within the framework of the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as of the Minister for Trade Negotiations. Therefore I think it is up to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to answer such questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order first. The Minister is not speaking to the point of order is he? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question was about a trade deficit and Chinese trade practices so there is a relevance to the question. But of course the Minister in his reply is responsible only for his ministerial responsibility. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am able to report that although our meeting was gracious elegant and went long overtime and that the Foreign Minister for China Minister Li was terribly positive about our communications we did not have time to cover every other area of the portfolio that is represented in Cabinet. Therefore I have not written any report on that matter. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does he stand by the statement made in the House 2 weeks ago on his behalf that “the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepts that seeking a free-trade deal with China is one of our highest foreign policy goals”; if so how did the Minister of Foreign Affairs manage to have a formal meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister without once raising what he accepts is our highest foreign policy goal? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The plain fact is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs for China like the Minister of Foreign Affairs for New Zealand does not cover trade and commerce matters. Hence he leaves it to his colleague Minister Bo Xilai and he did that for the afternoon meeting with Mr Goff and Mr Sutton. There is nothing extraordinary about that. Over half of the Foreign Ministers in the 21 APEC economies do not cover trade. It is only the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the Opposition that find this extraordinary; the rest of the world finds it normal. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a very specific question of the Minister starting in this way: “Does he stand by the statement made in the House 2 weeks ago on his behalf …” and then I repeated a passage from  
Hansard 
. Those of us who have been here for a while will have heard many sermons from Mr Peters about the accountability of Ministers and about the requirement to provide fulsome and accurate answers. I was wondering whether you might like to suggest that an answer that complies with the Standing Orders and gets a little bit closer to the loftier sentiments for which Mr Peters has been such a fervent advocate in the past might be called for in relation to such a specific question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is a fact that I am on record demanding accountability for Ministers. That is what I demanded on the wine-box inquiry and got expelled from the National Party—does the member remember—whilst they covered for their rich fraudulent mates. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not an answer. Would the Minister please be seated. I thought the Minister was talking to the point of order. I listened to the question and I thought the Minister did in fact address the substance of the quote of the question. The Minister may not have answered with a yes or no answer but he is not required to do that. The Minister did address the substance of the question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the  
New Zealand Herald  
column by political editor Audrey Young regarding the APEC meetings which states: “Under a private agreement between Peters and Labour the only person who can supersede Peters is Clark. But Goff came close this week in substance if not form in what amounted to a very messy beginning.” and what can he tell the House about that private agreement? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can tell the House that I went to all the arranged bilateral meetings at the APEC conference in Korea. Not one journalist went to one of them. I ask the public of this country to answer this question: would they believe a witness in a jury box who was not at the scene or someone who was? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That answer is not acceptable. It can hardly be reasoned that it was addressing the question. It was certainly verbiage that came out of his mouth but it did not address the question. I call the House’s attention to a statement by Mr Winston Peters earlier this year—9 February in fact—when he said: “it is up to the Speaker to ensure that the Minister does his duty and answers the question. I cannot conceive of any Western democracy where the Minister could behave as incompetently as that and get by question time and still survive.” I think asking Mr Peters to live by his own standard is not an unreasonable request. You should just ask him to remember what the question was and focus his answer on that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Madam Speaker my point is— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I am answering the question as the member asked me to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No would the member please sit down. I was distracted just for a second because I was trying to recall whether the question in fact was addressed to the Minister’s ministerial responsibility or was in fact addressed to another arrangement. So it would certainly assist me if we could start again. The member could ask the question and then we could get the answer. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen the  
New Zealand Herald  
column by political editor Audrey Young regarding the APEC meetings which states: “Under a private agreement between Peters and Labour the only person who can supersede Peters is Clark. But Goff came close this week in substance if not form in what amounted to a very messy beginning.” and what can the Minister tell the House about this private agreement? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The comments made by Audrey Young in the  
New Zealand Herald  
are baseless false and without any merit whatsoever. In particular she has never had a conversation with me about that and has never attended one bilateral meeting that I have attended. Her comments in terms of their veracity are of the nature of her comments made back in July where she claimed that we were in secret talks with National. 
Metiria Turei 
: Did the Minister advise the Asian leaders at the APEC meeting that on 19 May of this year during the Budget debate the leader of New Zealand First referred to Asians as “ying tongs”; if so what was their response? Perhaps some clarification of the volume of  
Hansard  
in which his statement is made might be necessary for the Minister? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is fine. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have no idea whatsoever as to why that member—having got in contact with the brotherhood in Europe I might add to raise the question with Prime Minister Clark—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant to the answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order 377(2) that a “reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter …” and there must not be discreditable references to any member of the House. This member has time after time breached Standing Order 377. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for referring to that. I note however that both questions and answers do not always comply with that but perhaps in future we will have a stricter standard on both. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister did not deal with or in any way address the question concerning his statements recorded in  
Hansard 
— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He has not finished answering it. Could we just allow the Minister to have an opportunity to reply succinctly. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: In a long career I have made many speeches in this House and I am surely not required to remember every one of them. Mind you they are works of art and I can see why my colleagues have been studying them very closely. But I want to make this point very clear: if the National Party wants to throw the rubbish it is throwing around it will get the kind of treatment it is getting right now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not an answer to the question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is an answer. I am saying that I do not recall the content line by line of every speech I have ever made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Fair enough. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How on earth was that answer in any way consistent with the Standing Orders— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He gets a question asked by the Green Party and his answer is some sort of attack on the National Party. The man is clearly struggling in his job. He set a high standard for himself; he is not meeting it. All he has to do is answer the question but— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I did pull the Minister up for what was irrelevant to his answer. He then did address the question at the end. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He attacked us at the end. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No he did not attack you at the end. I have ruled on this matter. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Does the Minister not accept that when he is superseded at public functions as he was at the Japanese Embassy function last night by Mr Cunliffe that will simply reinforce the impression in the eyes of overseas Ministers that he is merely a postbox to the real decision makers; and will he reconsider the practice of his being so superseded by Ministers like Mr Cunliffe? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That comment is absolute drivel because the person who spoke there was from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and works for me—one Mr McKinnon. That has been the practice that the Government has followed for a long time; otherwise I would have to go to every embassy nearly every night to make a speech. I know they would welcome that but I have not got the time! 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What did happen at APEC that caused his colleague Mr Goff to tell the media about Mr Downer questioning Mr Peters’ status as Minister of Foreign Affairs to correct his statements about Chinese students to rebuke him for browbeating the Chinese Minister and to refer to him as Cabinet’s mother-in-law; before publicly appealing to the media to give him a fair go; and does the Minister expect to receive that sort of assistance from Mr Goff in future? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to ask the member to authenticate most of what he has said because most of it is totally untrue in the way he has put it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The Minister can respond. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can understand why a party of perpetual bridesmaids would have problems understanding the concept of a mother-in-law. As for the other comments that Mr Goff so rightly complains about they are a fiction concocted by the media as I will point out in the general debate coming up shortly. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek the leave of the House to table media reports to verify each of the assertions I made in respect of Mr Goff. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table various media reports. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Through you could I seek the opportunity for Mr McCully to seek the leave of the House to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs another supplementary question because so far this has been such a one-sided lopsided affair— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a valid point of order. The member cannot ask on behalf of another member for leave. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You were probably not able to hear because of the noise but I said “Through you” could I offer the invitation for them— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is unacceptable. He has been here long enough to know that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To be fair and reasonable and after all Parliament is the master of its own destiny we were promised fireworks and we are still waiting and it is day 2. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has made that point. Please be seated. That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is simply that there would have been fireworks but the cracker turned out to be a fizzer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is equally not a point of order and perhaps we can now desist from attempts at humour through points of order. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This had better be a valid point of order; otherwise the member will be leaving the Chamber. 
Phil Heatley 
: My point of order is that I believe that it is time for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to leave the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that is quite correct. That is a valid point of order. 
Paid Parental Leave—Changes 
12.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What changes have recently been made to the paid parental leave scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 As one of a list of family-friendly moves by this Government the successful paid parental leave scheme has been extended to 14 weeks from 1 December. This latest extension follows on from the December 2004 increase in entitlement from 12 to 13 weeks. 
Sue Moroney 
: Are further changes being planned to the paid parental leave scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As a matter of fact yes. Further extensions to the scheme are planned with a bill referred to the select committee last evening to extend paid parental leave to self-employed people. The bill reflects this Government’s strong commitment to support working families. Well over 2000 self-employed people each year are expected to benefit from the move. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. This is the first Wednesday debate of a new Parliament and the first Wednesday debate since the National Party in September historically lost its third election in a row. In doing so the National Party has established itself in the record books as the least successful and the least effective Opposition in two generations and have we not seen examples of that in its performance today? Sadly for the National Party members it does not look like things are getting much better for them. A couple of weeks ago the  
New Zealand Herald  
much mentioned in the House today ran this headline: “National inflicts more self-abuse”. Well it does not come as a surprise to anyone in this House that the National Party is a party of self-abusers—but they are still at it. Members need only look at what they have done so far this week. 
Yesterday the Electoral Commission laid complaints with the police against the National Party and the charges are serious charges surrounding electoral abuses which the National Party president has now been forced to own up to. National breached the law of the land by spending $112000 more on broadcasting advertisements than it was legally entitled to. The question is whether that is a case of the National Party deliberately cheating to defraud the electorate by breaching the electoral law and the Broadcasting Act. Well the party president again jumped to its defence. She said it was not deliberate—that it was because they were incompetent. The National Party which would have the country believe that it could competently manage the finances of this country apparently cannot even manage to run competently its own financial affairs even on a relatively straightforward matter. 
The other instance of abuse this week was even more serious and on a personal level and that was the statement made by its new up-and-coming education spokesman Allan Peachey who modestly describes himself as “a pop star” and “the best of the best”. I ask Mr Peachey to take a call in this debate in the House today to explain what was in his mind when he wrote to the woman principal of one of the schools in his electorate threatening: “Yes I do have a knife in your back so be careful!”. The president of the Post Primary Teachers Association Debbie Te Whaiti I think accurately described that attack as: “unprovoked malicious unethical and inexcusable.” It was all of those things. Clearly here is a true future leader of the National Party whose judgment rationality and behaviour we can all have faith and confidence in! 
Speaking of leadership and knives in the back I note that the National Party leadership clearly has cause for concern about its longevity and the stability of its party. I am not going to waste the time of the House with what Mr Brian Connell has said about that. But when somebody like Murray McCully attacks Simon Power whom he describes as—Mr Power should stay and wait for this—the “pinstriped jailer from Manawatu”—I do not know what that means and obviously Mr Power is not going to stop and tell us—and when Gerry Brownlee launches an unprecedented attack on the Governor-General and when there are leaks from the National caucus saying that Gerry Brownlee’s buffoonery means he does not deserve to stay on as deputy leader of the party one can see the problems the National Party has. 
On the back benches is an ambitious and frustrated group of National members and those members are coming to the House for the first time and seeing the inadequacy and the poor performance of the National Party front bench and middle benches. Those new members see that those failed men on the front bench of the National Party and the bench behind are the cause of that once-great party’s 9 years in the political wilderness. The  
Sunday Star-Times 
 described the National shadow Cabinet as “the return of the living dead” and then went on to say that Don Brash was being measured up for a body bag. Well it cannot come soon enough. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 We can see why Mr Goff was so keen to divert attention from the performance of his fellow Minister David Benson-Pope. When Helen Clark was the Leader of the Opposition she made all sorts of statements about political standards and ministerial accountability. She said: “We are calling for higher standards of ministerial accountability and behaviour.” [ 
Interruption 
] Lianne Dalziel is someone who maybe should not be shouting out about this time. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: She’s the last person! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: She would be the last person to want to call out anything. In March 1997 Helen Clark said in a speech to the Lower Hutt chamber of commerce—[ 
Interruption 
] She did. She went on to say about Ms Dalziel the member who keeps wanting to shout out: “I advised Lianne that in my view a clear line had been crossed between a statement which was misleading and a statement which was untrue.” Most of us in the normal world think “misleading” is pretty untrue and that clearly is a statement and a standard that this Prime Minister is prepared to accept from her Ministers—certainly from David Benson-Pope. 
We have heard today from Mr Goff about editorials or comments written in newspapers many months ago. Well let us have a look at some that were written today. What did the  
Press 
 editorial state about Mr Benson-Pope and his behaviour? It stated: “But to excuse Benson-Pope’s performance is to set the standards of behaviour for Cabinet Ministers at an abysmally low level.” That is what the Christchurch  
Press 
 said today about David Benson-Pope and Helen Clark’s decision to back that man when there are all these other MPs in Labour who could take his place. How about the parochial  
Otago Daily Times 
? This is a newspaper that always backs its local people and it has been backing Mr Benson-Pope all the way. Then yesterday it heard him change his story. No longer was he willing to say that no it did not happen; suddenly he could not remember. Today of course he said it did not happen and he could not remember all in the same breath. 
 This is what today’s  
Otago Daily Times 
 editorial said about Mr Benson-Pope: “It has succeeded in substantially enlarging the sense that Mr Benson-Pope’s judgment is not reliable.”—that is what it said—“When measured by his own attempts this week to misrepresent the police report his appreciation of public opinion verges on the contemptuous. Prime Minister Helen Clark does neither herself nor her unfortunate Cabinet Minister any good in turning a blind eye to the failings he has displayed.” That is what the editorial of his local newspaper said about him. That is what the Dunedin people think about David Benson-Pope. He is unfit for Cabinet and he is bringing down the rest of the Labour Party although after some of the performances we have seen today they do not have to come down very far. That is the man who said in his press release on Sunday that the police report vindicated his stance. 
Let us have a look at what “vindicated” means. One dictionary states that “vindicate” means “to clear someone of guilt or suspicion.” Well did it? No it did not—quite the opposite. Or it could mean “to provide justification for”. Well it did not—quite the opposite. When Mr Benson-Pope said today in the House that he had told his press secretary to tell the truth when he was asked where the leaked document had come from did any of us think that that must be true? I do not think too many of us felt it was. If he really had said that then how come the document was leaked in the first place? Why did he not just put it out with a note saying: “Here it is! Everyone come and get it.”? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was an honest leak. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well I think Mr Smith is too kind. What about the  
Herald on Sunday 
 statement: “Last night he refused requests for an interview …”? That is what the article stated about Mr Benson-Pope. Mr Benson-Pope had leaked that report—or little excerpts from it—to that same  
Herald on Sunday 
 reporter. On the one hand Mr Benson-Pope is leaking and on the other hand he is saying he is not here to talk about it. That man is dishonest and he needs to go. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I have just three words for that member: Casino Control Authority. I have a question about the difference between the Prime Minister and the caretaker Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is supported by her caucus and the caretaker Leader of the Opposition is not—and the numbers are being done as we speak. The Prime Minister is universally admired from one end of this country to the other. Admittedly it is a begrudging admiration from people who come from the other side of the political spectrum than Labour’s but they admire her strength and ability. The caretaker Leader of the Opposition is regarded as an enormous disappointment particularly by National Party supporters. He was funded to the nth degree to win the election not to lose it like he did. 
Phil Goff has already talked about the National Party’s spend which was illegal. I want to talk about the record spend on non-attributable advertising this election—from the billboards that included what could be described as an incitement to racial division in this country through to the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. Who paid for the billboards? Will anyone from the National Party stand up and say who paid for the billboards? Who was the American who was touting for money for the National Party over that whole period of time? I understand that those billboards cost over half a million dollars for the time that they were up and we know that the money was collected overseas. How much? Who from? The return of expenses will not show that because it was not attributable spending. 
Then we had the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. Dr Brash knew that the Exclusive Brethren were going to publish and distribute the pamphlets but when asked whether he knew who was behind those attack pamphlets he said that no he did not have a clue who was behind them. [ 
Interruption 
] It is a bit rich for anyone on the Opposition side of the House to comment about me when National’s own leader lied to the public of New Zealand. I understand that over half a million dollars was paid for the pamphlets which were distributed free into every letterbox in the country. Again we will never know the cost because it is not attributable. So over $1000000 was spent on an election campaign and the people of New Zealand will never know where that money came from. The maximum that any party can spend on attributable spending is $1000000 so National was ahead before it even got started. 
The bottom line is though that several of the National back-benchers who are here today—particularly some of the better-known ones—were told that this election was a “cincher”. They were told that they would be sitting on the Government side of the House after the election and that is why they are sitting there like stunned mullets on the Opposition side of the House day after day. They cannot believe they lost the election; they were promised they would win it. They cannot believe how hopeless the leadership of the party is and how unable it is to perform in Parliament. Don Brash cannot perform in Parliament. His absences are legendary. 
On a day when apparently the Opposition was all charged up and ready to take on the Government on so many issues its members failed to fire. The Christchurch  
Press  
stated this morning: “Opposition squanders embarrassment of riches”. Although I would dispute the underlying assumption I say that the promised fireworks were a fizzer. When those members cannot win at question time we get ridiculous points of order instead. It is absolutely pathetic. 
There are several stages in the grieving process and the stage of disbelief is where the National members are up to in that process at the moment. Anger is coming and there is only one person they will direct the anger to: Don Brash. That is why he is the caretaker Leader of the Opposition. 
The Rt Hon Helen Clark has done what no National Party supporter ever thought would be possible. She has put together a third-term Labour-led Government because she understands MMP because she is a great Prime Minister and because she believes in building a strong and an inclusive society—she does not believe in driving wedges between people. The National Party has done exactly what it thought would never be possible: Don Brash has led his party to an historic third-term loss. The National Party has been punished for its divisive campaign but it is clear that it has learnt nothing. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I will start by responding to that member’s assertion about who paid for the National Party billboards by saying that it was not the Post Primary Teachers Association it was not the engineers union and it was not actually the Prime Minister’s office using taxpayers’ funds—something that the Labour Party did to fund just about every part of its campaign. If we go back through history we find that a number of political leaders have led massive campaigns that not long after those campaigns got under way they regretted ever having started. One that springs to mind would be John Major’s back-to-basics morality campaign. He thought it was a great idea he fitted the charge and within months I think he had five Ministers resign—because they were caught in women’s clothing or doing all sorts of things—and eight back-benchers. 
Another campaign that springs to mind is the campaign Helen Clark waged before the 1999 election. That was to bring back a new standard in government. The quotes are unbelievable; I have them here. Here we go—here is part of the campaign speech in Taranaki - King Country: “We will restore public accountability openness and honesty.” said Helen Clark. That is what she said. Here is another statement she made in May 1999 in a speech to the Labour Party congress: “I want honesty in politics. I want politicians to say what they mean and mean what they say.” 
Oh it gets better. There are better quotations than those; there is so much material that I wish my speech were for an hour not 5 minutes. She put in one speech the definition of the word “responsible”. Let us take Helen Clark’s definition not the dictionary’s. She was speaking at St Andrews on The Terrace at a winter lecture series and she said: “Responsible—I interpret as being morally accountable for one’s actions.” Now I raise all that as background and there are about 20 more quotes from the now Prime Minister about the new standards she would bring when Labour was in Government. 
What has happened since then? Let me give members some names and then they can work out what the new standard was—Dover Samuels Marian Hobbs Phillida Bunkle Ruth Dyson John Tamihere and the last of this great list of luminaries David Benson-Pope. But there is a difference. In the case of every other one of those members whose names I read they were dealt to—sometimes when there were only “accusations swirling around”. Of Dover Samuels Helen Clark said that he would not be able to fulfil his duties as a Minister because there were allegations controversy and public debate swirling around him. So she fired him. It turned out that the allegations were not true. 
Then we had Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle as the double. Both got the sack because they somehow were rorting their expense claims about where they lived. It was not proven; it was just an accusation. It went on. Lianne Dalziel was sacked for telling lies. John Tamihere got the sack for some accusations about what he might have done at the Waipareira Trust and it did not turn out to be the case. But then we get to “Mr Tennis Ball” and what happens to him? Nothing—absolutely nothing! I think the best I can give members is the result of a  
Stuff 
 poll. Members should listen to the question: “Has David Benson-Pope further tarnished his image by trying to prevent parts of a police report on bullying allegations against him from being released?”. The result was that 84.3 percent of people who responded said yes—yes he had. 
So it is not just the National Party that is attacking Mr Benson-Pope. It is not just a whole swag of editorials which I have here from right across the country. My colleague Judith Collins quoted from the Christchurch  
Press 
 but there are lots of other examples in papers from the  
Taranaki Daily News  
right down to the  
Otago Daily Times 
 from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and so on. But here is some good stuff out of the Christchurch  
Press 
 editorial. Members should listen to this: “Despite all this Helen Clark and her colleagues have decided to brazen it out. A large part of their motivation will be a desire not to give the Opposition the satisfaction of a Cabinet-level scalp.” Well how much honesty integrity and decency is there in politics when the motivation is not to let the Opposition score a point when it is sitting there blatantly in front of it? 
But it gets better: “Public opinion on the original matter is in any event ambivalent.”—that is with regard to the tennis ball incident. I actually think that had David Benson-Pope stood up on the day and said: “Look it is possible back then that I might have done that. Teaching was different then and who knows what happened?” it would have been all over. The paper then says: “But to excuse Benson-Pope’s performance is to set the standards of behaviour for Cabinet Ministers at an abysmally low level.” And that is what this House is now facing—a set of standards that were supposed to be the highest but are the lowest they have ever been. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 The only thing that member said that was relevant and that could be measured against his own performance was “an abysmally low level”. If he wants to quote from documents I will quote one back to him. After all it was Maurice Williamson that bastion of loyalty who showed that loyalty to his National Party leader. 
I will quote from an email by Peter Keenan given to me by a very reliable source. It is an email to Don Brash and says: “We are probably sitting on our base support level of 25 percent in spite of a messy deputy leadership issue and now the Maurice Williamson issue. Actually I will make a brief comment on that. Williamson did behave outrageously deserved to be sidelined and should only be allowed back in gradually. A delayed re-entry seems to be appropriate starting at the back bench and working back from there.” 
Hon Member 
: That’s what happened. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No no. Here’s the best bit the advice of Mr Keenan to Dr Brash: “Remember what he”—that is Maurice Williamson—“did to English others could do to you one day but enough of that.” 
What we have seen in the National Party of course not 2 months out from an election is a bunch of whingeing whining individuals in this House who for 6 years have proposed no policy or very little and who still cannot come to terms with the fact that they lost the election. Their election tactic was very interesting. It went like this: if they have no policy or if the people reject their policy or if they cannot persuade them then they will try to con them. And if that does not work they will try to bribe them with policies and if that does not work they will break the rules. They will be deceitful and they will break the law. We saw in the paper what has been divulged—$100000 of overspending. 
But there is more than that. Let us look at the Exclusive Brethren issue. I say to Mr Williamson who referred to the trade union movement that I simply rebut his point with this: for every billboard for every feature article for every newspaper page that was taken out by the union movement and others they unlike the Exclusive Brethren put their names to it. They declared their support. [ 
Interruption 
] It is a bit like that member Tau Henare who declared his support for I think four political parties: Mana Motuhake New Zealand First Mauri Pacific and now he says he is a National Party Tory. I say he always was a born-to-rule National Party Tory and he has found his roots. He has sold out every supporter in the four political parties he represented. 
I say that unlike the Brethren the trade union movement nailed its colours to the mast. We knew about it the country knew about it and the National Party knew about it but of course no one knew about the slimy secret deal that had been done with the National Party and a group of people—many of whom are constituents in my electorate. I say this in seriousness to those Exclusive Brethren who may be listening. I ask them to reflect on their religious beliefs and on the religious belief of honesty. I ask them to reflect very carefully on their actions after years of telling politicians including myself that they do not involve themselves in politics—and that is an honourable position to have—that they do not back political parties—and that is an honourable position to have—and that they hold dearly their religious beliefs. I respect them for that but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot then leap into bed with the Devil and pretend they never did. And for them to show their face in the National Party and front up as holier-than-thou—excuse the pun—I think is a bit rich. Front up! [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Tau Henare and Gerry Brownlee to stand up in this House and do what their leader could not do—tell us exactly what happened. 
They could not bribe the people in the end because the people are too smart. They could not con the people in the end because the people are too smart. So they broke the rules they broke the law but thank goodness the one thing we can always count on from good fair-minded Kiwis is that they do not like to be conned. As the nameless pamphlets came through the boxes in the electorates and as the scales fell from the eyes of the Kiwi public when the scheme was revealed they reacted to that. So I say to the Exclusive Brethren: “Reflect. I respect your views but reflect.” I say to the National Party members that they should get off their hind legs and front up. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 If I were a media tycoon who owned newspapers or other media outlets in this country I would be wanting to know what on earth my money was being spent on. Journalism is a paid profession. Those people actually receive remuneration for what they do and that is quite staggering. The question is: are they paid to write fiction or fact? Well I believe they are supposed to write about facts but what we are seeing in this country of late is the worst kind of fiction. It is often vindictive lying erroneous deceitful baseless and devoid of any fact. One wonders if those people are in fact closet conspiracy-fantasy writers trying to manufacture some sort of pet blockbuster and if they would like to call their work of fiction  
The Clowns Who Tried to Bring Peters Down 
. 
Let me say that that is not a new story. Some journalists have been writing those chapters in that book for years. But I have a new story for them to tell and it is called  
Telling the Truth 
. In my view most of those journalists would not know the truth if it slapped them in the face and I will give them a few examples today of how they have engaged in deception. I take as an example the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article this morning alleging that I as the Minister of Foreign Affairs was left out of a dinner. It is totally false and the writer knew it because the paper called my office. My counterpart was not here. That is right—the Foreign Minister for Turkey did not come on that trip. Many other Ministers did and their counterparts met at the dinner. I had three other appointments; I was not left out. I covered all the issues in the Cabinet meeting that I did attend and they had a photograph to prove it but the journalist still wrote it and never seems to think there is anything wrong in that practice. 
We have a writer who said I travelled first class. I told him that that was a lie. He has never apologised for it. We had someone—and this someone is sitting up in the press gallery right now from the  
Dominion Post 
—who tried to make out that I was somehow erroneously seeing the Minister of Defence in Britain. Now for 165 years we have been seeing the Minister of Defence in Britain and it happened to be that Phil Goff had it organised all pre-planned when he was the Minister of Defence to do exactly what I was doing but that did not catch the journalist by any surprise at all. He thought there was something erroneous in that something worth making mention of—when it is total trash. 
But worst of all we had a person who wrote for the  
New Zealand Herald 
 named Fran O’Sullivan who reported a meeting between myself and Condoleezza Rice. She was told that the four witnesses myself included thought it was a load of inventive bovine scatology but she still stands by her words and so do the darned editorial writers for the  
New Zealand Herald 
. They are a disgrace to journalism. Fran O’Sullivan was told that none of the things she reported in fact took place. Do members know what she said to me? She said: “I have my sources.” What sort of arrogance is that! “I have my sources.” she said. Let me just say that what journalists wrote about Phil Goff over in the meeting in Korea was absolutely and totally false. They knew it they were told it but nevertheless they kept on writing it. And they go on interviewing each other with one tissue of lies after the other. Let me tell the  
New Zealand Herald 
 writers and other journalists: “If you think I’m going to go away because of your erroneous lies you are making one big mistake.” 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sue them. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yeah I will sue them. Unlike some members here I back up what I say. I have already got two defamation writs out. One is against Television New Zealand and one is against Radio New Zealand. Unlike those members over here—all talk—I back up what I say. 
I want to make it very clear that one European Green MP in all those Parliaments having been contacted by the New Zealand brotherhood asked Helen Clark— 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has just referred to the brotherhood. He should know that four out of six of the Green MPs are women. I think that that is an erroneous reference. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No he made no disparaging remark about another party in this House so that was not a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: In all those Parliaments throughout all of Europe one MP asked the question—having been jacked up from back home—and what did the paper say? It said that Peters was in trouble in Europe. That is a disgrace—a total disgrace. When I said it was a matter of treason I meant that someone was offshore lying about what was happening in our country and capable of harming our relations with other countries. It is what I saw when a journalist from this country approached the Foreign Minster for Thailand and tried to raise a whole lot of issues about Winston Peters’ past and Asian immigration. The fact is of course that Thailand has the same policy as I have—only it is a hundred times more strict. But that journalist was not there to find out about avian flu pandemics Third World debt or matters of development and cooperation. No—journalists went over there purely to make mischief. My invitation to them is this: stay home! I will deal with the foreign media and I will get a fair chance then. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a point of misrepresentation. Mr Peters just said then that there was some jack-up in relation to the Green MP in Europe he referred to. There is no Green MP here who even knew that this discussion was taking place at the European Parliament. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no— 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Mr Peters should actually read the papers to find out the situation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Locke you were able to get that point away but it was not a point of order. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to start by quoting the right honourable gentleman who has just resumed his seat who is now our Minister of Foreign Affairs. He backs up what he says. He said in Rotorua that he would not take the baubles of power. Oh yes we all believe Mr Peters! [ 
Interruption 
] He says: “Look who’s talking!”. Well at least we stuck around. 
At least we carried out every little bit of the contract we had with the then National Government. We did not get peed off because a change of leadership brought a woman into power. Mr Peters spat the dummy because he did not like working under women. He did not like working under a very very strong Prime Minister Jenny Shipley and just as we have seen in the House today he spat the dummy. 
Mr Peters spent 5 minutes having a go at our free democratic press. We may not agree with them but we should defend their right to report on things and they have done a wonderful job pointing out the scurrilous behaviour that that Minister has been up to. 
I turn now to David Benson-Pope and to Phil Goff’s comments about the party of self-abuse. I would rather be a self-abuser than use my position as a teacher to abuse a young person by forcing a tennis ball into the mouth of a young person who could not defend himself. Shame on that Minister! But he also went on to talk about it. He is one of the 19 people who cannot remember but he denies it ever happened. How the hell can he deny something ever happening when he cannot remember it ever happening? 
It has to be one the funniest things that one of the speakers today was Lianne Dalziel. I wonder how she feels about being sacked for lying. She lied and she got the sack. She took her punishment. But now another Minister has done basically the same thing and purely and simply because of a quirk of the Standing Orders the House or the Speaker cannot nail him even though every member of this House knows damn well that he should be gone. 
In the words of Trevor Mallard David Benson-Pope should go from this House. I remember that is what Mr Mallard said about somebody who paid for a pair of underpants. Well goodness gracious me the underpants are on the other backside now. David Benson-Pope should leave this House. He should go because he is the abuser. Every time there is a Cabinet meeting or a caucus meeting every one of those Labour members will be sitting with and be an accomplice of an abuser and everybody knows it. 
But something that really rankles with me is that in the “Peters-Clark” Government we have seen those New Zealand First members whom I actually thought had a bit of integrity—I always thought that the principles of Zealand First had a bit of integrity— 
Darren Hughes 
: Why did you walk out then? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Because it became the party of self-interest and now in 2005 it has turned out to be the party of baubles. There is even a new game coming out prior to Christmas called “Pocket Baubles”. That is all they have. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tahi rua toru wha—four parties. It is far far too many. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. New Zealand First Mauri Pacific National—three. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
SHANE JONES 
: I beg to differ with the member. I remember seeing a hitchhiker wandering the lonely roads of the Bay of Islands a distant relation lost in the Tai Tokerau looking for a ride to the meetings called by that esteemed kaumatua of both of ours Matiu Rata. Tahi rua toru wha—it is far too many. That reflects the bizarre situation my whanaunga finds himself in which is under the cloak of hypocrisy which we saw Mr Brownlee demonstrate with total accuracy— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I want to raise it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I heard it and I am entitled to make the ruling. The member shall not use that word in respect of any member or group in this House. He will please withdraw it. 
SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think he should also apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I made a determination that I wanted a withdrawal and that is where it rests. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps he could talk about his two jobs and how he is enjoying double-dipping on his salary. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
SHANE JONES 
: Let us talk about the brave Opposition leaders who wander up to Maniapoto country go inside for a hongi but then walk outside and try to talk tough and say they will put the Te Wananga o Aotearoa in a hangi. They wandered up there tried to be staunch tried to push the mission of accountability but were caught off guard then wandered out on to the public estate and talked tough. Fortunately the voters irrespective of their ethnic hue saw through that. 
Another thing the voters have seen through is that those members ran a campaign hounding the Maori personality stigmatising and demonising but the first thing they offered the Maori Party was to say: “We will do the Watusi with you over the takutai moana over the seabed and foreshore.” What on earth would possess our friends from the Maori Party to think for a moment that they could— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just trying to help the House. The member seems to be too close to the microphone and the sound is quite distorted for a number of our colleagues. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that technical issue Mr Henare. 
SHANE JONES 
: Those members having decided that they wanted no bar of a takutai moana could not wait for the opportunity to put together a deal that firstly demeaned and destroyed the expectations that our Maori voters had of the Maori Party and caused a whole host of people to accurately identify that they would say anything at any time to capture an opportunity to form a Government which will definitely elude them. 
What did that show? It showed how far National’s leadership had departed from Doug Kidd Doug Graham and Jim Bolger who knew that the way forward was to firstly treat people with respect and secondly to observe and uphold the Treaty. But no under the new recipe all we saw was destructiveness and a convenient denunciation of the Treaty. Deep down they knew that their pedigree was to be balanced but the pursuit and zeal for power caused them to abandon that. 
Bill English has actually identified that by courting and hopefully embracing the brown vote his party will have an opportunity to come on to this side of the House. Well rest assured National will need more than a “Tau” and a couple of brown baits to pull that off. I remind my whanaunga Tau Henare that I observed with great interest the time that he parted company with our matamua Winston Peters. I remember because we go back quite some time that he said he would never serve with Jenny Shipley Mr Birch or Mr Bolger but hello he now lies in the bed that they once made. What does that tell us about not so much his character but the selective memory of the individual? 
In addition to that it has come to our attention that in the pursuit of wanting to have it both ways with the Maori vote National members have decided to embark on a policy of pretending to be friendly to Rongo Wetere but being anti the wananga. They cannot have it both ways. The reality is that the wananga will survive and the reality is that the wananga is larger than one two three four five particular people. If they chose not to follow the policies and procedures then that is no reason why the wananga should be either destroyed or brought down. Those people are in regular contact. They regularly share information and avoid responsibility. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Today in the House during question time Mrs Judith Collins demonstrated the sheer deceit of the Minister for Social Development and Employment David Benson-Pope. She exposed how he has systematically manoeuvred to change his story which is involved in this case. She also laid before the House the series of events and the Minister’s involvement in the deceitful leaking of the police report associated with the David Benson-Pope case. 
I think that what Mrs Collins did is a service to the nation and a service to the people of this House. She laid out the case against David Benson-Pope and displayed to the nation the deceit that he bears sitting on the opposite side of the House. The Minister of Health Pete Hodgson who is also from Dunedin is also reported to be subject to a police investigation. It involves his alleged assault against a woman protestor during the election. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it was reported in the paper today. Now we have a situation where Mr Benson-Pope has come into this House over the last two days and under questioning from Mrs Collins has changed his story. 
Let us just go through exactly what Mr Benson-Pope said. When initially asked about the tennis ball allegations he replied: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.” He further repeated: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.” I was in the House that day and I must say that the impression was emphatic. It was a denial. There was no if there was no but and there was no maybe. It was an emphatic denial of the case. As we know the history has flowed and the case has been subject to a police investigation. We know that in that police investigation a senior and experienced police officer said that there were nine people who confirmed that the incident happened or an incident of that sort and that they were credible witnesses who could be relied upon in a court of law. They said there was a prima facie case that the Minister committed those offences of child abuse. 
The police report actually means that they did not believe David Benson-Pope because if they did they would not have said that the nine other witnesses were credible and could be relied upon. So that is the conclusion of the police case. Because they thought the case was old and because they thought there would be an undue and harsh focus due to the Minister’s position they decided not to proceed. They did not decide not to proceed because they thought they would lose in a court of law; they did not decide not to proceed because there was no foundation; it was because they thought that the case was old and that the effect on the Minister would be disproportionate. 
But under questioning from Judith Collins during question time yesterday Mr Benson-Pope changed his story. This is what he said: “I have said from the outset that I have no recollection of these events and I do not believe what was alleged happened.” Well that is just not true. He did not say that from the outset. From the outset he was emphatic: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.” It was not a case of: “Look it’s 23 years ago I can’t remember. I cannot believe that I would do such a thing and I refute it.” There was no sort of conditionality. It was absolutely clear: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them. 
Then under questioning from the National Opposition yesterday the story changed to: “I have said from the outset that I have no recollection of these events and I do not believe what was alleged happened.” Look at the words: “said from the outset” “no recollection” “do not believe” “alleged” and “happened”. I do not think those words would have been written by the Minister. They would have been written by a lawyer because they are very clear they are very detailed and it is very very clear that they conflict with the earlier comments. So Mrs Collins has outlined the fact that we have a Minister who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That was Tony Ryall whose speech was driven by a deep-seated bitterness because of having to spend 9 years in Opposition as a result of three elections. He thinks that the way back for the National Party is through character assassinations. My message to Mr Ryall is that he should look at Rodney Hide who has spent a number of years here making character assassinations and at the state of the ACT party in this Parliament. ACT is at 1.5 percent in the polls and falling. So my message to Mr Ryall is that he should stop being bitter and making character assassinations and start concentrating on policies and things that New Zealanders want to hear about. That is my advice to him. 
If we want to use the tennis analogy which is very popular at the moment then in the games between Labour and National the score is three sets to love. National has now lost three elections in a row. One could say it was understandable that it lost the first of the three because by that stage it was tired and worn out. Basically it had given it away. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it was understandable. I have talked to a number of people in the National Opposition who said that they were basically quite relieved to lose in 1999 because they could flag it away and not have to worry any more about Cabinet papers. As for the second time National lost well that is just getting plain old careless. To lose two elections in a row is not understandable; it is just careless. But to lose a third time in 2005 is actually unforgivable for a lot of the members who are in the back benches now. Of course Don Brash said: “Well I expect to go because leaders who lose shouldn’t be given a second chance.” But he is back there and that is why he is so equivocal about the leadership. Members opposite can smell the blood because they know that he will not be around for too long. They know that the numbers are working. We know about the closed doors and the private meetings. Gerry Brownlee sits there quietly. He sees the opportunity coming. He will be one of those who are behind the closed doors. The thing about Don Brash is that he must go and he will go; it is now just a matter of time. 
One of the things that happened to the National Party this week was that it was taken off to the Electoral Commission by the police because of breaking election rules. The National Party said that it was just a simple mistake: “Was it GST inclusive or GST exclusive? It was just a little mistake.” This was from the former Governor of the Reserve Bank. GST inclusive and GST exclusive are important issues when it comes down to the national economy—and Don Brash wants to be the Prime Minister! “What is a bit of GST between friends?” asks Don Brash. “Who cares about it; it doesn’t really matter—GST inclusive GST exclusive.” This cannot be the attitude of a person who wants to be the Prime Minister. Cabinets spend a lot of time on Budgets and when they do they look carefully at GST inclusive and GST exclusive. It is not simply a mistake; it is just absolute incompetence and of course the Leader of the Opposition is known for that. 
Then there was the Exclusive Brethren’s association with that. How does the Exclusive Brethren Church whose members do not take part in elections read newspapers watch TV or use the Internet know about the detail of Labour’s health policy? That is what I want to know. Either the leaders of that church are not being straight with the general rank and file or their church is telling porkies. It cannot be both; it has to be one or the other. I say that that church has been found out. It has betrayed ordinary God-fearing New Zealanders by trying to deceive them and its members need to sit down and think about what they have done. 
National does not deserve to be in Government. It actually does not really deserve to be in Opposition. That is how hopeless its members are. They do not deserve to be in Opposition. As a result of what we have seen this week the  
Press 
 headline is: “Opposition squanders embarrassment of riches” and that newspaper is right. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I begin this afternoon by offering my condolences to the New Zealand First Party. I have never seen a more pathetic effort in this House in all the 9 years that I have been here. The Hon Winston Peters stood up and in a most Uriah Heep - like way began to justify his position as Minister of Foreign Affairs. That tells me that he knows that he has set himself up as a joke and that his days as Minister in that portfolio are not going to be marked with great success. 
Mr Swain the speaker who preceded me made a suggestion that attacks this afternoon concerning the issues surrounding Mr Benson-Pope were about character assassination. They are not because this issue has now moved to a point where the question has to be whether anything this Government says or does can be believed. My colleagues have given a very lengthy list of Ministers who have gone west for so-called indiscretions and in some cases for misleading the public. Here is a perfect situation of a Minister trying to manipulate the media—trying to create an impression that was untrue and then denying it—of the Prime Minister then turning round and saying that it was a staff member who did it and of the poor old staff member being dragged before Ministerial Services to take the rap. 
We should not be surprised at the particular style of this exercise. Members will remember that shortly after the Prime Minister’s motorcade was sprung for speeding at 160-odd kilometres an hour across the Canterbury plains—a speeding motorcade that the Prime Minister although she was sitting in the back seat of one of the cars said she did not notice—one of her press secretaries went to a media outlet and tried to put across the story that the drivers had to speed because there were death threats against the Prime Minister. When the media outlet decided to check that out it discovered that the particular nutter who had made that threat had been arrested many hours before the convoy left Geraldine and that there was no need to speed for that reason. But that account is what Helen Clark’s office tried to put across. That is what David Lewis the press secretary tried to get out there. 
Was David Lewis punished for that? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Was he? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No he was promoted. For doing the Prime Minister’s bidding he was promoted to become her illustrious speech-writer and the person who constructed the words that she used throughout the last campaign. What is more it is rumoured that that fellow who did the Prime Minister’s bidding in lying to the media will become the next senior press secretary on the ninth floor as the replacement for the outgoing Mike Munro. 
So there is an interesting situation here. One press secretary who goes off and lies on behalf of the Prime Minister to the media is promoted but another press secretary told by Mr Benson-Pope to put this spin out all over the place ends up getting hung out to dry. I think that Mr Coleman needs to take some advice from someone like David Lewis in order to work out how to get on the better side of the Prime Minister and not have to take the rap for Mr Benson-Pope. 
Much has been said this afternoon by Labour members about how good they are how clever they are and how fantastic they are. The reality of course is that they are members of a party that is in extreme disarray. The party is suffering extreme disunity and severe embarrassment as was witnessed during question No. 11 today when the Rt Hon Winston Peters Government poodle Government lapdog would-be Minister of Foreign Affairs and recipient of all sorts of emails embarrassed it to bits. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Last week Meadow Fresh ended the supply of milk in glass and closed the last plant in the country capable of producing that. It was a decision opposed by a number of councils businesses community organisations and individuals yet within the present economic framework it was almost inevitable. Closing the bottling plant in Christchurch will cut costs and boost profits by externalising waste disposal costs on to local communities. And why in one sense should Meadow Fresh not do that? Every other milk producer did it years ago. 
The decision contravenes the New Zealand Packaging Accord 2004 and its objective of reducing packaging waste but that is a voluntary accord and is not intended to disrupt business. That is precisely the problem. This Government like Governments in the past is protecting corporate subsidies by failing to introduce legislation that makes businesses pay their way. That distorts the market and puts businesses that have an ecological ethic at an unfair disadvantage. Don Brash is trying to protect the same corporate subsidy with his campaign to axe the future by smothering the carbon tax. Let taxpayers pay the clean-up tab for big business he says. Let our young people and our environment carry the cost of the fossil fuels that we burn today. Forcing local bodies to pick up the tab for the collection compaction and disposal of single-use milk containers is nothing more than a corporate rort. Milk producers like so many others are forcing local communities to subsidise their shareholders. 
The cost to the community is not just economic but has significant environmental and social impacts as well. The loss of the glass milk bottle almost certainly means the loss of the home delivery service. When glass milk bottles were taken out of circulation in the North Island home delivery ceased in most places. Once loyalty to glass bottles was gone consumers bought milk at the supermarket. Those with limited mobility such as the elderly and those with disabilities who depended on the service simply did not represent a sufficient market to maintain the service. My conversations with vendors have indicated that despite the assurance by Meadow Fresh that it would support vendors the company’s treatment of them has in fact been a source of considerable ill feeling. The decision by Meadow Fresh to require bulk purchasing for other non-milk products has further undermined the viability of those independent operators. 
Meadow Fresh has claimed an environmental benefit from single-use Tetra Paks. It says that glass is heavy to transport around the South Island and that washing involves lots of caustic soda water and energy. But there is of course a simple reply. The caustic solution is reused many times. In addition it can be chemically neutralised in a simple process and be returned back into the environment. In comparison Tetra Paks are imported from Scandinavia. Trees For Canterbury reuses about 30 percent of the Tetra Paks coming through Christchurch but it cannot handle all the cartons now never mind another 25000 as a result of axing glass bottles. Tetra Paks cannot be recycled in New Zealand at all; they must be re-exported to Australia and then to Asia. The fusing of plastic tops on to card bases makes them even more difficult to recycle and not cost-effective for most operations. 
Last week I met with Ross Townshend the operations manager of Rank Group to discuss these matters. Meadow Fresh has to make business decisions within the prevailing economic framework and in his view the business case is compelling. That is why I say to this House that we need to change the framework and legislate for extended producer responsibility. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Manfeild Park Bill 
First Reading 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the Manfeild Park Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 27 March 2006. 
The Manfeild Park Bill a local bill has as its aim to facilitate the transfer of Manfeild Park in Feilding to the Manfeild Park Trust and to make other provisions in respect of that trust which I will come to shortly. Prior to giving a bit of background to the bill I take the opportunity to thank Steve Maharey who has in effect co-sponsored this bill with me. Had the Standing Orders allowed for two members to be responsible for a bill I am sure this would have been one of the instances where that would be the case. Feilding is the largest town in my electorate. As a result I am moving the reading of the bill and I have been nominated to do that in discussions with Mr Maharey. 
Historically Manfeild Park in Feilding has been owned by three separate entities: the Manawatu District Council the Feilding Industrial Agricultural and Pastoral Association and the Manawatu Car Club Inc. But in order to allow for future development and the expansion of Manfeild Park in what the trust has described as an integrated manner ownership of Manfeild Park is to be retained by the trust itself. The bill provides for the transfer of ownership by the association in particular for ongoing use of the land rights for the association and for other mechanical matters to do with the appointment and removal of trustees of the trust. The trust deed that associates itself with the industrial agricultural and pastoral association is the document that proves to have sufficient inflexibility to require a local bill to come to the House in order to facilitate those changes of ownership. 
The bill requires that the owners of the land comprising Manfeild Park transfer the land to the Manfeild Park Trust for the consideration specified in respect of each owner. The bill goes on to outline the different amounts concerned and then it also requires the three owners to apply the consideration received for the transfer by way of limited recourse loans back to the trust at the home-loan lending rate offered by the BNZ as at 24 September each year. The loans themselves are repayable only if the trust is placed into liquidation. The bill also provides for exclusive and non-exclusive use of parts of the park by the association to allow it to continue to hold the Feilding A and P show sheep and ram sales an open day for mohair producers shearing championships cattle shows and other events all of which form an historic part of the Feilding community. Members will be aware—in particular I see Jim Sutton is sitting in the House and he will certainly be aware—of the impact that the Feilding saleyards have on the Feilding community and those other events are closely associated with the agricultural basis Feilding provides for the wider rural hinterland. 
The bill also establishes interestingly an electoral college to appoint and remove trustees of the Manfeild Park Trust. The electoral college in general terms regulates its own procedure. 
Originally when I discussed this matter with the Labour Government we were keen to see the bill expedited through the select committee procedure swiftly with a report-back date of 27 February 2006. Since that time members of the local iwi have been in touch with both Mr Maharey and me and they have indicated that they are concerned about one or two outstanding issues relating to the land. Having discussed some of those points with Mr Dennis Emery on behalf of local iwi and having discussed the matter further with Mr Maharey it was considered that a report-back date of late March would allow a further month for the iwi representatives to be able to make submissions to the select committee in a considered and timely way and also to make any representations they may wish to make to Mr Maharey or me directly. I think that is absolutely fair and proper. 
It seems that the interest claim relates to some part of the Kawakawa Block which has been owned by the Ngati Kauwhata people. That is an issue that will need resolution as the bill progresses and I understand that the Maori Party has determined that it will vote against the bill on that basis. My understanding is that no other party in Parliament will be voting against the bill. The other parties will be voting for the bill which means that hopefully extending the time to the end of March will enable sufficient time for iwi to engage in a way that is productive. We hope that the outcome of those discussions submissions and the like proves to be satisfactory for all parties. 
I do not intend to say any more than that. I look forward to the swift and constructive contributions that will be made by other parties leading to my very short reply at the conclusion of this debate. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a very short call to support this bill. I am delighted that our two local members in the area Simon Power for Rangitikei and my colleague Steve Maharey from Palmerston North are supporting this bill and as I am a resident of Palmerston North I am delighted that I have this opportunity to support this bill. 
Mr Power has already explained the detail of the bill. It is a very short bill and it is really very difficult to add much more to what has been said before. I have known this park for many years myself because I have taken part in the A and P shows held there for many years. I have taken machinery and tractors particularly new machinery and technologies over to Feilding to promote them among the farming community. It is a great park which hosts many many different activities as Mr Power has just said. There is a sheep and ram saleyard open days for many things shearing championships and cattle shows. 
So this park is very essential to the people of Palmerston North and Feilding and it is very well-used. I am delighted that this bill provides for putting the ownership of the park into a trust which I think will be very useful in terms of managing the various functions and activities associated with the park. I am delighted to support this bill. I do not think there is a lot I can add but I am totally in favour of this bill. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First likewise is happy to support this bill which we think is good common sense. In doing so we would like to acknowledge the recognition of the local iwi concerned. It is good to see in this House that we are recognising things nowadays that we did not recognise previously and we have a far more unified society because of it. 
This bill is common sense and it is good to see the cooperation between the rural sector and the city environment. It is also good to see that a park such as this is enjoying multi-use. Too often around the country we see one-use facilities built by previous generations no longer fitting the use they were put aside for. Sometimes the wrangling that takes place on a change of use has to be seen to be believed and does not make any sense at all. 
In this case it appears that the multi-use includes the A and P show and motor racing. Motor racing is the one sport I follow because it does not require me to get my body knocked around too much and being a small man that is not something one wants to happen too often. So it is good to see that the motor racing girls and boys are being looked after and it is good to see that there is cooperation between the rural and the urban environments. It is also good to see a National Party member supporting these things in the community after some dreadful years when that party seemed intent on burning off every local community in the country—burning off local initiative burning off anybody who did not have a couple of million bucks to chuck around and looking after what it saw as the free market and private enterprise. 
In spite of that and out of the goodness of our hearts we are prepared to overlook all those things that have gone before. We are prepared to overlook the hurt the nasty gibes that have been flung at us and the personal attacks we have suffered. We are not only happy to support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee but also we are proud to do so. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 As was suggested at the beginning the Maori Party is going to oppose this bill. As long as Maori have a claim along traditional lines then we will support them and we would hope that others in the House might do so. 
I rise to speak to this bill because I am aware of the current Waitangi Tribunal claims in relation to the Kawakawa Block—the claim for and on behalf of Ngati Raukawa ki Te Tonga Wai 113. In 1989 Ngati Raukawa lodged a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal regarding Lake Koputara. This claim alleges breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi regarding environmental degradation loss of fisheries and loss of access. There is also another claim relating to the tribal area of Ngati Kauwhata ki Te Tonga submitted in the context of “surplus Crown and Local Government Lands”. 
I think all members of the House need to be cautious of and respectful about situations in which Treaty of Waitangi claims are in place. We need to consider what opportunity mana whenua have had to address and resolve their claims through the Waitangi Tribunal before any further decisions are made about Manfeild Park. 
Further questions also need to be raised about whether the land at Manfeild Park is indeed in private ownership. As members of this House will know private land is not generally available for use in Treaty settlements. Claimants and owners of private land are of course free to come to their own arrangements. However the Crown does not consider it appropriate that it play a role in such a transaction. I believe we need to ask some hard questions about ownership about the history of land alienation and about the basis for land transfer before we can even begin today to contemplate the issues affecting the Manfeild Park Trust. 
We also need to understand the history the utility and the management of Maori land and our experience of land development. Such an opportunity can occur only through robust consultation with mana whenua—in this case Ngati Kauwhata—before significant decisions are made about ancestral land resources and the subsequent well-being of the people. 
Mana whenua invest great meaning in the importance of ukaipo turangawaewae takiwa and rohe. These are traditional names for our relationship to the land. Twenty-five years ago the legislative review committee of the New Zealand Maori Council issued a statement that speaks of the importance and relevance of land to Maori. I quote: “Maori land has several cultural connotations for us. It provides us with a sense of identity belonging and continuity. It is proof of our continued existence not only as people but as tangata whenua. It is proof of our tribal and kin group ties … It is proof of our link with the ancestors of our past and with the generation yet to come. It is an assurance that we shall forever exist as a people for as long as the land shall last.” To Maori  the land is our mother. Our whenua is the afterbirth and is absolutely central to our sense of identity. It explains why we are determined and why we have the passion to maintain our connections between tangata whenua atua tipuna; between people land spirituality and our ancestors and their history. The significance of whenua is core to our culture to our mana to our belief system to our being. The land is both history and our future. 
In this matter then the question one keeps returning to is the question of history. Whose history preserves the value of the whenua on which the Manfeild Park Trust has come to rely? Most New Zealanders would know that the Manfeild Autocourse is one of New Zealand’s premier motor sport venues. How many would know it is also part of the Kawakawa Block which was last surveyed in the 1800s? The history of the Kawakawa Block is an interesting one worthy of discussion. From the accounts we have received earlier last century two Pakeha farmers raised a bank loan from the Bank of New Zealand to improve the land on the Kawakawa Block. However these two farmers encountered financial problems so the bank moved in to take the land to cover the debt. Since that time the land has been subject to a number of private sales with ownership now claimed by the three parties named in this bill. 
Nearly 75 years ago in 1932 a petition was brought here to Parliament by tribal elders outlining the alienation and unlawful taking of their land known as the Kawakawa Block in which Manfeild Park is situated. However due to a series of mishaps that petition was never tabled in Parliament. The building in which the petition was housed burnt down with all the documents being lost. What should not be lost is the memory that Ngati Kauwhata hold of that time. Although the fire may have destroyed the petition its flames did not destroy the oral histories passed down to their descendants today. This Parliament has a responsibility to consider that there are others who have a claim to the land. We must not let the efforts of those who petitioned this very Parliament last century be seen to have been in vain by those who petition this very Parliament in 2005. 
This bill is based on the post-colonial premise that ownership has been vested in only three separate entities: the Manawatu District Council the Feilding Industrial Agricultural and Pastoral Association and the Manawatu Car Club Inc. This is a view of history that is different from the view I articulated earlier. We need to be able to recognise that in Aotearoa a history existed before the arrival of Abel Tasman—in fact 1000 years of history. As we say: “Whatungarongaro te tangata toitu te whenua.”—“The people may come and go but the land will remain for ever in the memories and the minds of the people.” The tribal elders who were on their way here in 1932 are now represented in their descendants who have lodged the claim before the Waitangi Tribunal. These descendants are truly the living faces of their ancestors. Nga kanohi ora o ratou kua mene ki te po. It is for this reason that the Maori Party cannot support the Manfeild Park Bill 2005. No reira tena tatou. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the support of parties to seeing this bill through its first reading and in particular to a select committee; apart from the slightly bizarre outburst by Doug Woolerton over a misconstrued history of various political parties in this House I think the debate by and large has been pretty constructive. Could I just say to Dr Sharples that I completely acknowledge the issues that he raises and I raised those matters in my first reading speech. I must say though that I find it curious that the member and his party have chosen to make a decision to oppose the bill prior to any of the consultative submissions having occurred. I would have thought that the issues raised by Ngati Kauwhata will in the end be ones that need to have the committee turn its mind to them in a very serious way and I am sure it will—Dennis Emery and Mason Durie are very eminent Maori scholars and well-known identities in the Rangitikei area. 
But I think it odd that the Maori Party would vote against a bill prior to those submissions or consultations being carried out and I would ask the party when considering the bill to approach the select committee process with the same open mind as the rest of us will if indeed those concerns are brought to the committee by representatives of Ngati Kauwhata. 
Could I just conclude by thanking the House for its support for the bill and in particular as I said earlier my colleague Steve Maharey from the region who has worked with me to ensure that the best possible version of the bill is placed before the House. I await with interest the outcome of the vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manfeild Park Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a first time. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 27 March 2006. 
Motion agreed to. 
Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
It is with pleasure that I rise as the member for Manurewa to introduce this bill. The bill has been initiated and drafted by the Manukau City Council in response to what is acknowledged as a costly and an ongoing problem in the Manukau community. In the 2003 and 2004 surveys that measured the quality of life in New Zealand’s eight largest cities Manukau City ranked the lowest in residents’ ratings of a sense of pride in the way their city looks and feels. One of the main reasons for the low sense of pride is related to the graffiti problem in Manukau. Statistics indicate that over 1600 sites and over 3000 graffiti marks need to be cleaned off each month by the Manukau City Council. Over the last 3 years the council has annually spent more than $800000 on graffiti eradication and community education. 
The council has considered or undertaken a range of initiatives to deal with graffiti problems. Those include: quick removal in which any graffiti mark is removed within 24 hours of being reported; community education and empowerment schemes such as a volunteers programme; best street awards; best school and garden awards; murals; educational puppet shows; youth programmes such as the Vector Manukau Rangers Club; and a plan to design out graffiti. That is a crime prevention environmental design strategy and action plan aimed at minimising through environmental design the opportunity for people to commit crimes including graffiti and vandalism by having a different look on things. 
The council has also looked at overseas case studies and in particular at the South Australia Graffiti Control Act 2001. From the city of Phoenix the graffiti prevention and code enforcement policies have been closely examined. The council has also considered a by-law review. It has received legal advice that local authorities in New Zealand are not authorised to impose restrictions on acquiring substances used for graffiti by point-of-sale and age-limit restrictions despite those provisions having proved to be successful in overseas cities. 
The council has also advocated for legislative changes at the central government level. In 2003 Sir Barry Curtis the Mayor of Manukau submitted a graffiti remit to the Local Government New Zealand conference advocating it for adoption by local government in New Zealand. First it promotes zero tolerance towards unauthorised graffiti second it lobbies the Government for legislative changes to ban sales of paint spray-cans and broad-tipped markers to juveniles and third it lobbies the Government to ensure the police have sufficient powers to apprehend offenders and that penalties reflect the increasing seriousness with which the community views graffiti. The remit was accepted as a conference remit. However no real significant progress has thus far been made. 
The council has also considered the problem throughout the Auckland region. A region-wide officers meeting group sponsored by the city manager of Manukau City was established in 2004 to study how councils in Auckland could work together to deal with the graffiti problem. 
Despite the many resources committed and initiatives launched the Manukau City Council reports that the problem has been escalating. In addition to conventional spray-can graffiti the council is now trying to deal with newly invented types of graffiti such as ground marks and grass scratchings. That type of graffiti is more difficult and more costly to remove than conventional graffiti. Overseas experience suggests that enforcement is currently a weak link in the council’s anti-graffiti campaign. The council believes that without a legislative deterrent to offenders Manukau City is fighting a losing battle. 
The opportunity of introducing a local bill to help Manukau to combat the graffiti problem was raised and discussed in July 2004 with me as a member of Parliament with Sir Barry Curtis the mayor and with other elected members of the council. I have to say graffiti is a problem that has been going on for many years. I remember that when I became mayor of the adjoining Papakura City in 1983 it was one of the first things that Sir Barry and I discussed. The problem has been going on for a long while. 
The purpose of the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill is first to minimise the graffiti problem in Manukau City second to penalise graffiti offenders and third to provide the council and the police with additional powers to deal with graffiti-associated problems. The bill goes beyond the existing statutory provisions relating to graffiti by first regulating the display of spray-paint cans in retail premises and their sale to minors. Although that will be controversial people in Manukau think it is common sense. Second it creates offences of marking graffiti and carrying a graffiti implement in certain circumstances. Third it gives the council the power to remove graffiti on private property if it is visible from a public place. That is very very important because many people cannot afford to continually remove graffiti from the side of their house or fence when it is visible to the public. The bill also creates infringement offences relating to the display and storage of spray-paint in retail premises and the marking of graffiti and it provides the power for the police to require information from and to arrest a person suspected of committing an offence. 
The Manukau City Council believes this bill for graffiti control will provide the council with the authority that would not be achieved by a by-law. It will not only defer graffiti offenders but regulate the possession sale and display of the tools they use to deface properties. The council also contends that the bill together with the council’s education and prevention programmes to eliminate graffiti will help to establish a clean safe image for Manukau City. The level of graffiti damage varies from city to city and therefore although the need for legislative methods to help to curb the problem is seen by Manukau as important that will vary throughout the country. In that regard a local bill has been put forward as the most appropriate option to introduce legal methods to address the graffiti problem in Manakau. 
On behalf of the council and the people of Manakau I recommend the bill to members for further consideration. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Perhaps I should declare an interest in this bill because I am one of the ratepayers of the Manukau City Council. I am very pleased to be able to support this bill and to say to Mr Hawkins that I do not think it is so controversial; I think anybody with an ounce of common sense will support this bill. It is all about saying to people in local government: “Parliament gives you all these jobs to do and we’re going to give you the tools to do it.” I think it is a fabulous bill. I am very happy to support it. The National Party is happy to support it. I cannot imagine why anybody in this place would not support it because it is just so interesting— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Flog graffiti artists! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Is Mr Tanczos saying we should flog them? That is a terrible thing and I suggest that in the National Party we do not believe in beating children. No no we will not support the flogging of children. 
I will not go over all the details that Mr Hawkins has already given us because he has fully canvassed the bill and done a very good job. 
Hon David Carter 
: He could have been a bit more enthusiastic. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes he could have been more enthusiastic. But the important fact is that this is kids mostly although not always particularly in the Papakura area which I am also part of although I am a ratepayer in Manukau because the police pick up adults in their 20s defacing property with graffiti. Some are in their 20s and 30s—even grandparents apparently. It beggars belief that anyone of that age and therefore that responsibility could do this to other people’s property. Day in day out businesses home-owners and those who rent those properties have to clean the stuff up. 
Many of us—and Mr Hawkins as a local MP Mr Robertson who is the MP for Manukau East and who will have had exactly the same situation Mr Williamson who is the MP for Pakuranga and those in that particular area will know—have often tried to work with people who sell marker pens spray-paint cans and everything else to get them to put a limit on the age of those to whom they will sell these cans. The problem is that if they do not have the legal standing to do it those people then put themselves in the gun should they get some civil libertarian lawyer coming along saying: “I know best.” 
That is what happened in Papakura which is of course not part of Manukau City but has the same problems when the local police were very very diligent in getting people who had been caught vandalising property with graffiti to clean it up. The local police had them dressed up in little orange outfits required by Occupational Safety and Health which said things like “Police diversion”. I thought it was a very good scheme. But some visiting Queen’s Counsel came through the town saw this and got upset. Of course she does not have to live there work there or have anything to do with the ratepayers. She went to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 from memory and complained. So what happened? The police were told not to do that any more. So now they have them in orange outfits without “Police diversion”. I thought they looked so much better with “Police diversion” on them. 
That is the sort of thing that local people have to do and those of us who work and live in areas like that are sick of being told by central government: “You sort it out but we’ll give you no tools to deal with it.” It is a very very good initiative for Manukau City and I am sure should it pass successfully through Parliament—and I have a feeling it will—other councils will say that it is about time they had the same initiative or that they would like some of the same powers as well. 
I am not quite sure whether I heard the Minister say that the Government will be supporting it. 
George Hawkins 
: Yes. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is very good and of course with our numbers I am sure it will be just fine. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Tanczos who is trying to interject that sometimes it is sensible to have a grand coalition that is to the benefit of the people—the people in other words who pay our salaries and the salaries of everyone in this place. So we are very very keen to support the bill. We are very keen to support this local initiative and to give the powers to the people who actually have to live there. I am sick and tired of people in their ivory towers telling us in Manukau City what to do how to do it and where to do it and that we should be really inclusive to the point of being inclusive towards graffiti artists. I tell them to come and walk a mile in our shoes and they will find their tolerance will become zero because ours is. We have had enough. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Like the previous speaker I want to declare a vested interest in the bill being a resident and a ratepayer of Manukau City. So I would support any legislation that would ensure the ratepayers of Manukau City are not burdened by the costs associated with the problems that this bill intends to address. While I am speaking I want to remind the Manukau City Council that although it feels great about discussing such issues with elected members of Parliament it does have one or two list members resident in its city and it would not go amiss to have them considered in such deliberations. 
However putting that matter aside I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we will support this bill going to the select committee. I must say that this bill which I suspect will be passed will make Manukau City the first one in New Zealand to have strict anti-graffiti laws. But it also poses the question that if it is good for Manukau City then it should also be considered for other local bodies throughout the country. Perhaps during the process of this bill through the different processes that are available to the House submissions may be received from other local bodies that wish to do something similar for their city. 
 The bill raises one or two issues that I think ought to be considered during the select committee stage. Although it mentions crayons and spray-paints only several businesses in the local community of the part of Manukau City that I reside in recently had the windows to their shop fronts subjected to etching. Although reference to etching is made in passing in the bill I think that it ought to be given more prominence. 
It also raises another issue about how the agency that is charged with law enforcement decides intent. As we heard from the previous speaker the people who are committing those acts against their local community are quite clearly not just confined to the youth of our city but are also adults and those people whom one would consider to be of a mature age. If one is apprehended in Manukau City going about one’s own daily business while carrying a crayon a marker or even a spray-can how is intent to be measured? That is one of the issues that will need to be considered. 
Of course the bill recognises overseas evidence that suggests deterrent legislation is necessary to combat this problem. Enforcement is currently a weak link in the anti-graffiti campaign in Manukau. The bill is cognisant of the “broken windows” approach to crime introduced in New York City under the mayoralty of Mayor Giuliani in 1994 which was based on the theory that neighbourhoods that neglect minor signs of decay and disorder open the door to serious crime. That zero-tolerance approach to even low-level crime resulted in a dramatic drop in overall crime rates in New York especially serious crime. 
I say that notwithstanding the results the local area command is having in terms of law enforcement its task would be made much easier if the “broken windows” approach that I have alluded to is adopted in order to address this serious issue. Graffiti is seen as a huge ongoing antisocial problem in Manukau which has an adverse impact on the city’s image. The member in charge of this bill certainly alluded to that issue. He also alluded to the fact that it is costing the council hugely in terms of money and resources that it would prefer to direct towards positive community projects. 
This bill seeks to address the escalating nature of the problems associated with graffiti. Therefore on behalf of New Zealand First I stand to indicate our support for this bill being referred to the select committee. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to point out the numerous reasons why the Green Party will not support this bill going to a select committee. It does have a couple of provisions in it that are worth this House considering—and I will mention those as I talk my way through the bill—but the areas of the bill that are repugnant to basic principles of justice are so overwhelming that on balance we cannot support it. 
Mr Paraone said that if enacted this bill would mean that Manukau would have the first strict anti-graffiti laws in the country. Well actually what it will mean is that Manukau will be the only place in this country where the basic right to silence guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will no longer apply for certain offences. It will be the only place in the country where that has been enacted. Members of this House before they get too carried away about the fact that they do not like tagging on their garages and their walls need to think about what the bill actually does not just what they think it does. 
Let us go through the bill. Clause 6 is “Cans of spray paint to be secured”. I found that clause quite interesting. Normally we require shops to lock away guns and things that are dangerous to other people—things that can kill people and the like. Presumably the only reason behind the idea of requiring by law that cans of paint be locked away is to stop them from being stolen. I cannot see any other basis. That is pretty weird. I find it quite strange that this House is requiring businesses to lock away products in a locked cupboard so that they do not get stolen. 
Ron Mark 
: Pharmaceuticals. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Pharmaceuticals are a different thing because there is the possibility of overdose death and serious harm. This is about people not liking their fences being tagged. The other interesting thing in terms of locking cans away is that the legislation will not apply to all cans because the council can agree in writing that some kinds of cans can be stored openly. The council because it likes these cans but not those ones can suddenly decide that those cans have to be locked away and these ones do not. Will that apply in respect of shops? Will the council be able to send a letter to certain shops to say that some do not need to lock their cans away but others do? This bill opens a very interesting door to all kinds of weird and arbitrary powers that will now become available to the Manukau City Council. 
The bill introduces an age restriction. Both George Hawkins and Judith Collins talked about the fact that an age restriction cannot be enacted by a by-law and I accept that. I think there are arguments for introducing an age-limit but the point is that we do not need to enact this extraordinary legislation in order to put in an age limit. We can do that without bringing with it all these other breaches of basic rights that are guaranteed to us in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Clause 9 states that an authorised person who is given a warrant by the council can enter premises and investigate whether the provisions are being complied with and can take photographs or make films or other recordings. It does not in any way indicate what “investigate” might mean. Does it mean that people could go in and start searching through computer files check customer databases and do those kinds of things? Again that is a pretty broad scope to give to people just because they have a letter from a council saying that they can investigate whether businesses are selling spray cans to 16-year-olds. 
Clause 10(1) “Marking of graffiti” states: “Every person commits an offence who without lawful authority marks graffiti.” which the interpretation defines as “to deface property in any way”. The really interesting stuff comes in clause 11 “Carrying graffiti implement”: “(1) Every person commits an offence who—(a) carries a graffiti implement with the intention of using it to mark graffiti without lawful authority;”. Mr Paraone raised the very important question of how we decide whether someone has an intention to mark graffiti. That is already covered because clause 11(1)(b) states that every person commits an offence who “carries a graffiti implement of a prescribed class without lawful excuse …”. So there does not even need to be an intention to mark graffiti; all a person needs to do is carry a spray can to commit an offence under this bill. Of course we know that not everyone will be done for carrying a spray can. Only the young and the poor—probably young Maori poor—will be stung by this. We know that that is how these things get enforced on the street. 
What is meant by a “prescribed class” of graffiti implement? Let us have a look at that. What does the bill say? Well one would think the bill would be quite specific. One would think it would lay out quite clearly the kinds of prescribed implements that a person can be found guilty of simply possessing never mind whether he or she has an intention to use them to mark graffiti. One would think it would be specific. But no graffiti implements are: “capable of spraying paint or a similar substance:”. Clearly this is aimed at spray cans but it can include spray guns and all kinds of things like that. As I said people do not have to have an intention to mark graffiti with the implement; they just have to have it on their person. “Prescribed class” includes “graffiti implements designed or modified to produce a mark that—(i) is not readily removable by wiping or by use of water or detergent; and (iii) is more than 15 millimetres wide. So if a person has a marker pen with a tip that is more than 1½ centimetres wide:” that person would be committing an offence under this Act. People do not have to have an intention to tag to graffiti or to do anything; they just have to have such implements in their pockets and under this Act they would be committing an offence. I find that absolutely extraordinary. I notice that members of the National Party have suddenly buried their heads under their desks very quickly now. 
The other concern is paragraph (c) of clause 11(3): “graffiti implements capable of etching glass.” That means that if a person is wearing a diamond ring he or she is committing an offence under this bill because the ring is capable of etching glass. The person does not need to have an intention to mark graffiti; he or she just needs to be carrying something “capable of etching glass.” [ 
Interruption 
] I invite the honourable member to read the bill before he starts scoffing. He should read the bill and see what it says. Those are exactly its words. But we know that if a rich lawyer with a diamond ring is walking down the road in Manukau he or she is unlikely to have any police officer try to take it and charge him or her. The provision is clearly aimed at one section of our society and at one age demographic and I think that is repugnant. 
Part 4 details “Council powers in relation to graffiti” and clause 12 provides that a council may remove or obliterate graffiti on private property. It is a very good part and that is a very good provision. It makes absolute sense. Some people do not have the time money or inclination to clean up the graffiti on their property but they are quite happy for the council to come and do it. If the council thinks it can afford it and if the council is so inclined we should let it do that—absolutely. We have no problem with that. There is an interesting little subclause though—clause 12(5): “No civil liability attaches to the Council an employee of the Council or a person acting under the authority of the Council for anything done by the Council employee or person under this section.” So if the council says it will clean up the graffiti on someone’s garage door but accidentally drives a truck through the garage demolishes it and writes off the car there is no civil liability attached. Well that is a nice little out for Manukau City Council is it not? 
Part 5 talks about infringement notices. It allows for infringement notices to be given and that is something we support. Currently sanctions already apply in relation to graffiti under wilful damage bill sticking defacing and such provisions in the Summary Proceedings Act and in section 269 of the Crimes Act under “Intentional damage”. But those are all criminal sanctions so I think it is very good that the bill might introduce infringement notices instead. That is a good thing; it is a part the Greens support. 
I am a little bit concerned that the serving of a notice will simply include posting it to the person’s last known place of residence or business and that it is treated as having been served when it is posted. A lot of the people this bill is specifically designed to target are young people and highly mobile and the last place the council knows of for where they live could have been three four or five addresses ago. So I am a little bit concerned that we will end up with people having increased costs because their cases will go to court as they never got their infringement notices in the first place. 
The last thing I would like to touch on in the brief moment I have left is Part 6 which is the really serious part. If a police officer or authorised person—that is a person authorised by the council—believes on reasonable grounds that a person is committing or has committed an offence under this Act the authorised person can direct that person to give his or her name and address. Well that is pretty standard. But that authorised person can also direct him or her to give to the extent known the name address and whereabouts of any other person connected in any way with the alleged offence. If he or she refuses to do so he or she is committing an offence under this part. Well that goes far beyond the normal rights of questioning that the police have. It is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and a breach of the basic right to silence. It is interesting that the Local Government Act requires by-laws to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but of course that does not apply to this Parliament—so is that why Manukau has brought legislation to this House? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is to provide for local control over the graffiti problem in Manukau. It is that word “control” that encapsulates the range of issues the Maori Party has with this bill. I will return to that later. 
I want first to look at the problem of graffiti. I am aware of the concerns that have prompted the Manukau City Council to take up this matter in the House. Indeed as a local member I am aware that there are concerns shared by constituents across Tamaki Makaurau that demand our attention. In the 2003 survey on the quality of life in New Zealand’s eight largest cities Manukau featured as one of the five cities that perceived graffiti as being problematic. The big-city survey described graffiti as impacting on the way people feel about where they live contributing to people feeling unsafe in their neighbourhood. Over half of the residents surveyed in Manukau and Auckland—62 percent and 52 percent respectively—stated that graffiti was a big problem in their neighbourhood. 
When I hear the honourable Minister talk of zero tolerance for graffiti writers I wonder about the direction in which our society is going. I would have thought that zero tolerance would be reserved for serious crime. We need fresh ideas creative courage and passion for our people. It should not be for us in Wellington to determine a set of solutions that we consider would suit the streets of Manukau. We must turn to the people of Manukau for that leadership—I emphasise: the people of Manukau not just the Manukau City Council. The Maori Party believes that people have the solutions. Solutions do not reside in the halls of bureaucracy whether that bureaucracy is in the debating chamber of Parliament or in the council chamber of Manukau City. Our responsibility as central or local agents of government should be to look for ways to support local solutions to locally determined problems. 
The solutions proposed in this bill consist of fines and wide-ranging powers for the council and police to get tough—and to get even. Such solutions are Draconian and overly punitive introducing a level of power and control coming up that responds to the issue of graffiti in a way that can only have serious consequences for the individuals involved. Are these the solutions that the people of Manukau want? When did they speak up to call for increased power for the police and council authorities? It sounds like a solution I heard that was promulgated to solve the problem of youth gangs: round them up and lock them up. I have been to community meetings in Mangere Otara Manukau Manurewa and Papatoetoe and I have seen concerned citizens being really creative in dealing with the gang problem in a healing manner and with long-term solutions in mind. 
Pita Paraone 
: Did it work? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: It is working. I have spoken in this House before about the appalling increase in incarceration rates in this country. Let me remind members that there has been a 51 percent increase in less than 9 years from 4988 people in jail in April 1997 to a staggering 7545 inmates a couple of weeks ago. When we think about who our youth population is particularly in Manukau it will not take much imagination for us to work out who will be first to be convicted. It is rangatahi the youth. Why do the city mothers and fathers of Manukau want to incarcerate their young? Who will be the next to annoy them? Why is it the case that the only answers being created by central and local government seem to be the ones that lead down a justice trajectory? 
The Maori Party believes that people must determine their own solutions. That applies as much to the issue of graffiti as it does to other issues like that of youth street gangs fighting. We should not fear letting go of central control and providing space for citizens to shape our thinking in that regard. I asked around about different ideas from people outside of Manukau—about what they had considered in facing this problem of graffiti. The responses were overwhelming in their commitment to local innovation. In my colleague Hone Harawira’s town of Kaitaia I heard about Project Wipeout which involves the Community Probation Service the police and local businesses. The safer community council supplies brushes and equipment Kaitaia businesses supply paint to match their buildings and a backpack is provided to the offender for the prompt removal of graffiti. 
 I move south now to Te Uruora Flavell’s electorate of Waiariki and mention that the Tauranga City Council has established an 0800 SPEAK UP line for giving confidential information to police whilst also supporting the immediate removal of graffiti in all public places and visible private property through contracting removal services. Across the straits to Te Wai Pounamu the Kahurangi Employment Trust initiative helps keep Nelson graffiti-free and litter-free through a community project that encourages so-called alienated youth to receive mentoring and to learn working skills. These are all ways to tackle the issue of graffiti in a way that serves the community introduces an element of rehabilitation to the offender and avoids adding another statistic to our rates of arrest and conviction. 
This House must not set in place legislation that stifles creativity. Creativity is particularly important when considering the art of graffiti. The word “graffiti” simply means words or drawings scratched or scribbled on a wall. The word comes from the Greek term “graphein” meaning “to write” and the word “graffiti” is the plural of the Italian word “graffito”. Art in the form of graffiti originated in the late 1960s but graffiti in terms of public and unsolicited markings has been around forever. For those of us in this House who remember the 1960s we may remember the words of musicians Simon and Garfunkel in their classic hit “The Sound of Silence” which are: “The words of the prophets were written on the subway walls and the tenement halls”. Back in Aotearoa the words of the prophets were given status in June 1986 when a Wellington building from the 1900s was covered in graffiti by up to 2000 people. What criminal sanctioned this appalling act of vandalism? It was none other that the New Zealand Historic Places Trust which encouraged the graffiti to save the Missions to Seamen building. The graffiti included such messages as: “Don’t leave us with no yesterday” and “Save me”. Graffiti was called upon as a desperate public action to save the building. The “Sign It to Save It” campaign was ultimately successful as the Missions to Seamen building became a landmark of public significance. Earlier this year the graffiti exhibition Love Letters was an ambitious art exhibition that was part of AK05 the Auckland festival. The heart of the city exhibition gave prominence to Bucklands Building in Takutai Square and was also seen as art not crime. 
So what is different about Manukau? The act of graffiti can be seen as a defiant act of vandalism or it can be seen as a statement of identity a social commentary or an art form. The graffiti art that emerged in New York in the 1970s became associated with the explosion of hip-hop culture in the 1980s. Inevitably here in Aotearoa the influence of Maori and Pasifika taggers gave it a local edge. The Disrupt Gallery in Karangahape Road could be one site visit that I would recommend every member of Parliament having a look at. The gallery displays the talents of the graffiti art collective Disruptiv and the works in that gallery are a celebration of identity. Indeed even to the novice the distinctive art of an individually styled name is the focal point in the majority of graffiti paintings. 
We in this House need to be brave with our decisions and not reduce every problem to a quick fix fine or arrest. The problem of graffiti is one of arrested creativity and it is with creativity that we should respond. All that increasing the capacity of the police and the city council officials to surveil arrest and fine offenders will do is to add to our justice hall of shame. We could instead look to create a hall of fame through encouraging communities and individuals to consider alternatives for the creativity and talent of the taggers to be put to constructive means. It may well mean that we reduce and minimise the risk for graffiti to be an act of vandalism and in the process create opportunities for the growth of art and culture celebrate identities and build community spirit and in doing so create solutions that we can all sign up to. No reira tena koutou. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. I say at the outset that we will be supporting the first reading of this bill in response to the request of the city council involved which obviously feels it has a problem it wants to deal with. 
The very first thing that occurred to me when I read this bill was the Broken Windows project in New York. It was interesting to grab some literature on that project and some of the research that has come even from within New Zealand shores in that regard and read the thinking behind it. The concern that many authors who write on this problem have is that if we decriminalise disreputable behaviour that “harms no one” and thus remove the ultimate sanction the police can employ to maintain neighbourhood order we are making a mistake. For instance arresting a drunk or a vagrant who has not harmed anybody in an identifiable way can seem unjust but failing to do anything about a score of drunks or 100 vagrants can actually destroy an entire community. Small things do matter. However I do share some concerns that have been expressed by the Green member about how we should respond to this. Although we have some concerns with the bill as proposed our reason for supporting it is the opportunity to iron out its wrinkles in the select committee process. We believe that that opportunity should be afforded Manukau City because it is obviously facing some huge issues. 
Although in certain contexts graffiti is an art form that can and should be celebrated I believe that graffiti painted on my fence without my permission is an act of vandalism and it should be seen as such. We should not try to confuse the two. My own personal feeling about graffiti is that when I see it particularly in urban areas the message conveyed to me is: “Nobody cares about this place”. When people are led to believe that the environment they live in and connect with is not worth caring about then—as is well documented—there is a deterioration in society’s behaviour in general. A thesis  
Broken Windows 
 written back in 1986 linked behavioural decline in communities to what happens in a neighbourhood when a building has a broken window that is not repaired. The simple conclusion of that simple observation was that one broken window left broken resulted in a lot of broken windows in the same building and in the same neighbourhood. People in that neighbourhood began to feel unsafe in their own streets and moved out the criminal element moved in and an unsafe environment was created. The police in New York in particular started to take a harder line on what we would refer to as petty crime—like tagging like jumping over the barrier to get into the subway without paying like begging—and decided to make some real inroads into the area of petty crimes. As a consequence they saw a decline in the more concerning areas of crime. 
We are all aware of the recent publicity in Manukau about gangs and about some of the concerns that community has. So with the reservations that have been well clarified by other parties I think that this bill is worthy of consideration. Untied Future is very happy to support its first reading. We look forward to seeing the submissions on it. We would like to encourage the select committee as it considers the bill to look also at some of the projects dealing with the problem of graffiti. For instance Hamilton’s safer communities project has done some really interesting things regarding graffiti. Also Dr Pita Sharples mentioned some other initiatives up and down the country that he is aware of where a different and less punitive approach has been tried and has had some success. 
It may be that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to this problem and the suggestion that the Manukau City Council has put forward may be the solution for that community but I am not prepared to make a judgment on that right now. I think we need to be aware that when we enshrine in law initiatives of this kind a precedent is set and we could expect other councils to take action if this bill passes in its current form. We need to make sure that the consequences and the flow-on effect from that is what we are looking for. But United Future is happy to support the first reading and to see the work progressed. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I start by thanking members for their contributions. I do not agree with all of them but I think the vast majority of them believe that the Manukau City Council should have its day before the select committee and I think that is very important. I know that there are concerns in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the select committee is the place to thrash that out. I think that a select committee examining things carefully—many heads together—will ensure that this legislation eventually becomes law. 
Many people in Manukau City have for a long while tried to overcome the problem of graffiti. They have been doing so for many years. I do not see graffiti sprayed on someone’s garage or wall as creative. I see it as a mess and I am a former art teacher who encouraged people to be creative. I see graffiti as being a wee bit like a bird crapping in its own nest. It spoils the community. The people of Manukau want a better community—one that is respected by all the people who live in it. We have good people like the Rev. Mark Beale out on Saturdays with a group of people cleaning up graffiti as are Bill Marshall and plenty of other people. 
Hon David Carter 
: Name one. 
GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have often cleaned up graffiti. I do not mind going down and cleaning something off a building for people if it means cleaning up graffiti. If it means slapping on a paint brush good on them. 
I think the time has come when people are starting to take back their community and they are bringing back some pride. It is about time that those who have concerns bring them to the select committee have them examined and make this bill even better. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 45; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although the member has mentioned which committee is there any necessity to have a report-back date on this? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I think the committee has only 6 months before it has to be reported back. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee 
Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Let me begin by explaining to those members unfamiliar with the Counties-Manukau region of Auckland that it is unique in New Zealand both in its diversity and in some of the problems it faces. It has over 160 different ethnic groups living in it and it has some very large problems. However Manukau is also New Zealand’s second-largest city and its most culturally diverse. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: Hookers’ capital! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Unfortunately my colleague says that it is the hookers’ capital. Many people who go around Manukau at night would probably agree with him that that is absolutely true. 
Manukau is a very young city. About 40 percent of its population is under 25 years of age. Since its appearance in the late 1990s street prostitution has become a significant and ongoing community concern. It has become established in suburban town centres that are now surrounded by traditional residential housing. Those areas include Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe Otara Town Centre and the Great South Road in Manurewa. There is a particular concern that the number of sex workers appears to be rising. 
Hon David Carter 
: Don’t advertise George. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: We do not need to advertise; they are out there every night mate! In June 2003 the police established that there were 326 sex workers in the Counties-Manukau area of whom 150 were street workers. There is anecdotal evidence that young people are increasingly being drawn into the world of street prostitution and that was highlighted in a recent television investigation. The Manukau City Council contends that such soliciting makes people feel uncomfortable and unsafe creates unwanted attention and is a general nuisance to the population. The council says that street prostitution also encourages gangs and criminal behaviour illicit drugs substance abuse and intimidating behaviour in areas where sex workers are present. What really annoys a lot of people is that those involved in prostitution have a huge impact on the community. Condoms have been left in school grounds and shop doorways and of course someone has to clean them up. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Manukau City Council has committed itself to trying to do something about the problem of street prostitution. It has already invested considerable time and resources. Residents’ concerns have been incorporated into the council’s strategic policy documents including its long-term council community plan. The council community plan is more than just a pile of words. The Manukau City Council itself of course has been acting. It has been lobbying for increased police involvement the installation of additional street lighting the rescheduling of times for street cleaning and the closing of public toilets and car parks to make sure that it has done everything it can do to eliminate street prostitution as far as possible. However the problem still exists. The council has installed CCTV and used environmental design guidelines yet in the end the problem remains. 
Those who have been to Manukau and seen the problem for themselves will know just how ghastly it is. I know that my colleague Dover Samuels visited Manukau to see it for himself and my colleague Tim Barnett met with the council to try to find ways to help it. 
I think this Parliament took a big step forward when it legalised prostitution so that sex workers were generally able to operate from safe regulated and legal brothels. However in Manukau there is a situation where street prostitution remains. This bill will of course be contentious but I ask the House to send it off to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration. Yes there are Bill of Rights considerations to be explored. The council does not intend nor does it want to re-criminalise prostitution in the whole of the city but it wants legal brothels which this Parliament has provided for—although some people want to remain outside that provision. 
It is not just the street prostitutes who are the problem; it is also the men who use the services of those prostitutes. Some of them are married some of them are reasonably well-known— 
Peter Brown 
: Name them! 
GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I was not going to name anyone at all but the problem is I think that people have been attempting to do so by photographing the cars and the curb crawling that has been going on. The council says that it is doing what it can but that it now wants some help from Parliament. 
Given the unique nature of Manukau and the unique problems it is facing this bill is a way forward for its people. On behalf of the council and the people of Manukau I recommend this bill for further consideration. I have to say that Manukau has a council that works with its community. If it could have solved this problem easily by itself it would have done so but for years it has been trying to overcome the problem—where condoms have to be cleaned up out of school playgrounds before the kids get to school and where shopkeepers have to get rid of condoms before they open for business each day. That is not a fair go. The community realises that it is not the council’s fault that the problem exists. 
This Parliament not so long ago tried to do something about the problem but the people involved have remained outside that attempt and now we have to look at the overall problem. I ask members in the House tonight to vote for the bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee so that it can be closely examined. When a council is prepared to face up to a problem I think that that council deserves to have the support of Parliament. There are problems in terms of Bill of Rights considerations but that should not make people vote against the bill going to a select committee. So I ask all members here tonight to ensure that they do the right thing by a council that is trying to do the right thing by its citizens. Let us help to clean up a problem. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The National Party will support the referral of the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I fully agree with the words just uttered by my parliamentary colleague George Hawkins that there is a problem. I congratulate Sir Barry Curtis and his council on this innovative way of coming up with a solution to their particular problem. But Parliament needs to discuss how the problem arose in the first place. 
The very interesting thing that I managed to get from the Parliamentary Library was the voting record of one Hon George Hawkins when the Prostitution Reform Bill was before Parliament. Here we have a piece of legislation—a local bill—introduced by the Hon George Hawkins to tidy up a mess created by this Parliament when it passed the Prostitution Reform Bill. How did George Hawkins vote on that legislation? Members will be surprised to know that lo and behold on the first reading there is no record of his vote. [ 
Interruption 
] Well we had a few abstentions on that bill. I remember one Mr Choudhary who sat in the back corner after he slunk into Parliament to cast an abstention vote. But on the first reading of the Prostitution Reform Bill no vote was recorded by George Hawkins. 
The new members of Parliament should not be surprised by that because George Hawkins spent an extraordinary amount of time out of the House. He is the former Minister of Police. In question time we regularly had questions for the Minister of Police and they were frequently answered by everybody other than the then Minister of Police George Hawkins because he was a complete embarrassment. But then I looked at how he voted in the second reading of the Prostitution Reform Bill and—surprise surprise—he voted for it. When we came to the third reading he voted for the Prostitution Reform Bill. Here we are about 12 months later with the first initiative by a local council that says that that legislation was a total disaster. 
I am pleased that the architect of the Prostitution Reform Bill Tim Barnett is in the House tonight. However he was not the real architect. That bill was prepared and put into Parliament at the instruction of Helen Clark. Tim Barnett was the sucker—the name—who came forward and put his name to the bill. I remember debating it in the House. I said to him: “Two things will happen. There will be far more prostitution on the streets.” Tim Barnett said that there would not be and here we are with the Manukau City Council telling us that it wants a local bill passed because of that. The other thing many local Aucklanders have told me is that the reason this matter is such a problem is the number of young kids—18 years and younger—who are standing on the street corners of Manukau selling themselves. Again Tim Barnett argued that that would not happen. It just goes to show how naive he and everybody else in this Parliament was in voting for the legislation. Of course we were going to see under 18-year-olds standing on the street corners selling themselves. We made it a legitimate profession in this country for people to be able to leave school and choose to be a prostitute. 
Sue Bradford 
: Not under 18. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Sue Bradford is absolutely right. They cannot be under 18. She thought that because the law says “not under 18” it would not happen. That is how naive Sue Bradford was with this legislation. Of course it was going to happen! And now Sir Barry Curtis comes along. He is a great mate of the Labour Party but his is the very first council that has come up with an innovative solution to a disastrous piece of social legislation. So National will support the bill’s referral to the select committee. 
It will be interesting to see when the other councils come up with a similar solution. Parliament passes a stupid law and straight away councils are having to come back and ask for a solution to it. I think that this bill should go to a select committee and I also invite other city councils all around New Zealand that are striking similar problems to those recognised by Manukau City Council to come forward with local bills. I invite Ashraf Choudhary to cast a vote this time. Members should not be pressured by Helen Clark who knew the numbers were so tight and actually started to instruct people within her caucus how to vote. [ 
Interruption 
] She did not instruct me I can assure that man. I do not take instruction from Helen Clark. Peter Brown might Winston Peters definitely does—we know that; we have seen it all day today in the House—but I do not take instruction from Helen Clark. I decided how I would vote on my conscience and I am quite proud of the way I voted. I think my vote was correct and I think the very fact we have got this sort of legislation— 
Peter Brown 
: Which way did your leader go? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I cannot remember how my leader voted. That does not matter. He made up his own mind and cast his vote. He was not like Ashraf Choudhary who had to get an instruction and then sat in the back corner and abstained. He would not be prepared to come into Parliament because the votes were that close. If my memory serves me right the bill passed by one vote. In fact Ashraf Choudhary could have stopped that legislation from passing and we would not be facing the first local bill introduced by the Hon George Hawkins on behalf of Sir Barry Curtis because that legislation was disastrous. 
George Hawkins came into the House after voting for that legislation after sitting through hours of debate—certainly for the second and third readings—and after being told by people who opposed the legislation that there would be more prostitutes on the street corners more condoms in the school yards and more under-18-year olds and he did not believe that. 
Sue Bradford 
: Where’s your proof of that? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I ask members to listen to what the promoter of the bill said. Only 5 minutes ago the Hon George Hawkins who was supporting this legislation’s referral to the select committee went as far as to name the street corners that were causing problems. That is my proof. He is the local member. He knows the problem is occurring so my question is: why does he not admit he was wrong in voting for the legislation in the first place? That is the real issue. We have similar problems in Christchurch City Council. I can name the street corners where there this has been a problem. I know that there has been a lot of media coverage in the paper about the young kids under 18 years of age. [ 
Interruption 
] Peter Brown seems to think it is funny. I do not. I say to Peter Brown that I have young children and I do not want them to take on a career of prostitution. 
Peter Brown 
: Excellent! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Right—so it is not a joke. Anybody who voted for that legislation and stupidly said that because we legalise prostitution we will not have a problem with under-age people taking up prostitution was frankly either naive or stupid or both. 
Peter Brown 
: The member is exactly right! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am pleased the member agrees with me on this occasion. 
So I say to George Hawkins that I look forward to the submissions received before the select committee and I look forward to other councils taking the initiative that Sir Barry Curtis has taken. Shortly we will have this sort of legislation being debated before many select committees and we will have a chance to revisit that original legislation. It will be interesting to see how Tim Barnett votes for this legislation. I suspect he will probably go through the Ayes lobby with the Labour caucus. I hope he takes a call. George Hawkins and Tim Barnett should stand in Parliament and admit they got it wrong like many many New Zealanders said at the last election. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you are aware that New Zealand First will be taking a split call? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will give you a bell at 4 minutes. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Thank you. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say right from the outset that we will support this bill going to a select committee. Again I will comment on the original legislation that has led to this bill coming before the House at this time. I can recall that three New Zealand First MPs two of whom were list MPs from South Auckland stood in this House to oppose that legislation for the very reasons that previous speakers have talked about. Although I commend the Manukau City Council for sponsoring this bill I find it very ironical that it asked one of the very members who supported the original legislation to bring this bill to the House on its behalf. The three New Zealand First MPs who opposed the legislation at the time were not even asked to consider this bill. 
In spite of that as a ratepayer and resident of Manukau City I support the bill. It is certainly a reflection of just how wrong the original legislation was. I can recall speakers who supported the original legislation saying that it would bring safety to those who chose to enter that particular industry. I ask those members just how much safety the legislation brought to the two young ladies who since its passing have lost their lives. I think this bill will certainly go some way towards addressing that issue. 
The bill recognises that street prostitution is not conducive to any of the aims of the Prostitution Reform Act which was sold and debated on the basis of safeguarding the health and safety of sex workers and of limiting the age of sex workers to 18 years and over. This bill recognises the impact of street prostitution on local residents and business owners and the negative effect it has on the community. 
Each community and local body has the responsibility of ensuring that the terms of the Act are implemented. I believe that this bill signals the difficulty that all local bodies—not only Manukau City—have in ensuring that the terms and intent of the Act are met. Although some of us have some concerns about parts of the bill we believe that by referring it to a select committee we will give the opportunity to members of the wider community to make a contribution. It will also provide the opportunity for other local bodies to express their views if they share a concern about this issue with Manukau City. 
The Act has clearly failed to control street prostitution and it provides no legal mechanism to do so. Manukau City should be applauded for taking the initiative to control behaviour that is having an adverse impact on the people of that city. The bill also provides the police with powers to request information to issue instant fines and to arrest and prosecute suspected offenders. Sadly a lot of my relatives reside in the part of Manukau City that has been identified in some of the summaries of this bill and I am sad to say that unfortunately some of my relatives are actually involved. It will be interesting to see the stance the Maori Party will take if we take into consideration that its leader supported the original Prostitution Reform Bill. I will be very interested to see those members’ response to this particular bill. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I find myself in a somewhat unusual position at this moment. I have to congratulate the Hon David Carter on the speech he gave a few moments ago. He was absolutely correct; the Prostitution Reform Act is a disastrous piece of social legislation. That is what he said and I agree with him one hundred percent. He went on to say that it is stupid law and I agree with him one hundred percent. He then went on to blame the abstention of Mr Choudhary I believe for the law being passed. But the actual facts of the matter are that six out of the 27 National MPs voted for the Prostitution Reform Act—six out of 27. Over 10 percent of the total vote cast in this House for that legislation was cast by National MPs—and now they have a guilt complex. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Get on to the subject; talk about now. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh the new boys on the block are saying that it is nothing to do with them. Well I tell those honourable members that their leader voted for the Prostitution Reform Act. Now they sit there and through David Carter they say that it is disastrous legislation. Six out of 27 National MPs voted for the legislation they are now complaining about but from the word go they were told that the Prostitution Reform Act would expand the industry legally and illegally. They were told there would be more street prostitution as a result of that Act and that there would be more children involved. It is a sad testimony for this country that we have child prostitutes right now as we speak—and there has not been one arrest. We have taken the police out of the equation and now it is open slather. I say to those members that it is no good sitting here. As the honourable member David Carter has said it was naive of six National members to have voted for the bill—including the honourable Don Brash. 
I have some sympathy for the National Party I have to be honest. First of all I do not know how Winston Peters convinced its members to ask all those patsy questions when in return he has smashed them round the block. It is really quite unfair. I will have to talk to my leader and tell him he should not take patsy questions and knock them to all and sundry. But when those members show such naivety as they have shown here in saying that this legislation is needed because the principal Act was disastrous I have to tell them to think again. They should think who the dickens they represent when they come to this Parliament. They represent law-abiding decent people. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: About time you retired. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is no good Tau Henare’s shouting his head off. He knows two-thirds of nothing. What he knows about this legislation we could write in block capitals on a postage stamp. 
Mr Choudhary abstained from voting—and it is unfortunate he did—on the principal legislation; otherwise we would not have to be dealing with this bill tonight I suspect. But we are dealing with it and I compliment the Manukau City Council on saying that it has a problem and that it wants to address it. I say to members that sooner rather than later this sort of legislation—assuming it is passed and I think it will be—will be taken up by other local authorities elsewhere in this country. That cannot come before time because people involved in the prostitution industry are destroying their lives. 
I know that the Greens look at me in disgust as I speak but if the Greens could have their way they would have people referred to a brothel-owner from Work and Income. They will oppose this legislation. They see prostitution as a legitimate job for young women to go into. If the Greens had their way they would have Work and Income refer— 
Sue Bradford 
: No way! 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh “No way!” the member yells. Yet she says that she wants to legitimise prostitution— 
Sue Bradford 
: Decriminalise it. 
PETER BROWN 
:—or rather decriminalise it. I can say that the day of the passing of the Prostitution Reform Act was a sad day for New Zealand. In that legislation as I recall there is provision for a review in 5 years. I say to the honourable Tim Barnett and I know he is an honourable man that he should bring that review forward. He has the clout to do it. He should bring it forward. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh United Future wants to bring it forward. There we are; the member has been listening to New Zealand First. We want to bring the review forward now. Let us have the whole thing thrashed out and looked at because 5 years is too long to wait. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Right from the outset I want to make it very clear that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. We think it is a disgrace that the Manukau City Council which is often socially progressive on other issues should scapegoat sex workers in this way and try to unilaterally reverse the intention of legislation passed in this House. In 2003 the Prostitution Reform Act was brought into being with solid support from the Green Party. We believed and we still do believe that it was completely wrong to go on living with an archaic law that criminalised generations of sex workers mainly women for a victimless so-called crime in the name of an antique morality shared by only some of the population. The Prostitution Reform Act decriminalised prostitution in this country and although I recognise that both Parliament and the broader community are deeply divided on this issue I believe that Manukau City Council needs to realise that the offence of soliciting is no longer on our law books. 
I do not understand why Mayor Barry Curtis who has been around the political world for quite some time and others involved with putting this bill forward think that it is legally viable for a local authority to create its own criminal law for one small part of New Zealand. I guess at one level I would have to say “Good on you!” to Manukau City Council for being a legal rebel and trying to take this step towards establishing the independent republic of Manukau but on every other count I think that the council is heading completely down the wrong track and I do not think it will ever be really viable or desirable for Manukau City to go it alone as a sovereign entity. 
Instead of putting forward this ill-advised bill Manukau City should be looking at some of the reasons it continues to face perceived problems with street prostitution. Following the introduction of the Prostitution Reform Act the council along with councils in places like Christchurch and Hamilton took the unfortunate step of passing a by-law that effectively prohibited small owner-operated brothels from functioning—again flying in the face of the provisions of the Act itself. That unlawful by-law places extreme restrictions on the location of small brothels in Manukau thereby undermining one of the key objectives of the Prostitution Reform Act which was to reduce street prostitution by encouraging sex workers to operate in the safety and discretion of brothels rather than out in public. Manukau City’s restrictions mean that many prostitutes have been unable to establish safe locations from which to work. Its by-law only keeps sex workers visible on the street and away from the increased health and security of brothels. If Manukau City Council thinks it has a problem with street prostitution it is hoist on its own petard and I hope that the court action that is coming up will mean that its dubious by-law on brothel location will bite the legal dust before long. 
As I said earlier the council’s latest legislative effort before us today also flies in the face of the original Prostitution Reform Act because it is not just about controlling street prostitution but also aims to prohibit soliciting in all public places except brothels—which would impose severe criminal sanctions on both sex workers and their clients. For example a sex worker and a potential customer arranging a transaction in a pub would be rendered criminal by the bill. As if that is not bad enough clause 8 of the bill if enacted would also give the police authority to engage in entrapment exercises—for example by having officers pose as prostitutes and effectively entice members of the public into what would be a criminal offence under this bill. 
It is outrageous that the council has even conceived of this giant step backwards not just in terms of prostitution law reform but also with regard to basic civil rights. Indeed the bill overall offends against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as I think even the Hon George Hawkins has acknowledged. Not only clause 8 but also clause 12 proposes unreasonably to restrict within Manukau City the rights to freedom of association freedom of expression and freedom of assembly that are all affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Through clause 12 the police are given the power to require a person suspected of an offence under the bill to provide the name address and whereabouts of anyone else connected in any way with an alleged offence. That falls foul of section 23 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which gives people suspected of an offence the right to refrain from making a statement—one of the most fundamental safeguards of individual rights within our country’s criminal justice system. 
Beyond all the legal problems with the bill before us tonight there is also the question of what is actually going on on the streets of Manukau City. It is apparent from recent media and police reports that youth gang violence is seen as a much bigger problem at the moment than street prostitution. Will councils suddenly produce a bill to try to deal with that problem in a similar way rather than deal with the real causes like poverty poor health poor education and social alienation? Manukau has far bigger issues at the moment than the offence caused to some citizens by the presence of visible sex workers on the streets. Assaults on shop owners serious domestic violence theft of all sorts and assault are far more prevalent and serious crimes than those associated with a prostitute seeking and gaining customers. The police and social agencies already have their hands more than full in South Auckland. Recently there were an estimated 900 unallocated police files. I would question whether the hard-pressed force actually wants to spend its time chasing people down for soliciting or prostitution-related offences when they are already totally unable to keep up with the existing workload. 
Even if this bill somehow did get through in the end it is unlikely to have any effect on street workers anyway. Opponents of prostitution reform seem to forget that sex work has been around pretty much as long as humans have been and that people worked the streets just as visibly and in similar numbers before decriminalisation ever happened. I would hate to see Manukau going back to the situation where not only street workers were subject to arrest and prosecution on a daily basis but also health workers for example could be prosecuted for giving out condoms or for facilitating other health and safety initiatives with local prostitutes. 
And just what is the situation at Hunters Corner which is the area Manukau City Council usually talks about in relation to the impact of street prostitution? The Prostitutes Collective in Auckland which deals with sex workers all the time believes that workers have become the scapegoat for a whole lot of other problems in that part of town and for problems not of their making—for example a drop in property values. In fact the council needs to consider that other market forces may be driving property values down in relation to a changing demographic of who is living in the area and to the building of new shopping centres in South Auckland that has led to a decline in strip retail with the subsequently empty shops being replaced with bars and gambling venues. 
Who are the street workers at Hunters Corner? The latest figures show they comprise about 70 prostitutes 60 of whom are Maori  nine Pasifika and one Pakeha. That tells us quite a lot. On top of that 50 percent of them roughly are transgender. I wonder how MPs here tonight—at least those from parties like Labour the Maori Party and others who believe in supporting the needs and rights of those most marginalised by reason of race class and gender—feel about supporting a law that proposes to harass and recriminalise that particular very small group of people. 
This Parliament changed the law on prostitution for good reason. Those of us who support reform do not want to see Manukau or any part of Aotearoa return to the inequities and dangers of the bad old days just because some councillors are responding to a moral panic. This bill is a gross overreaction to a problem that the Manukau City Council has partly created for itself. I urge the council to embrace the spirit of the Prostitution Reform Act review its restrictive by-law on brothel location and involve itself in the review process established under Part 4 of the Prostitution Reform Act. We wrote those review procedures into the legislation at the select committee because we wanted all interested groups to be able to evaluate the effects of decriminalisation and to develop positive responses to any problems that might become apparent. If Manukau City Council were serious about wanting to deal with the plight of Maori and Pasifika street workers it would not be doing it through oppressive and legally dodgy bills like this; it would be proactively involved with the Prostitution Reform Act review and it would work alongside relevant community groups like the Prostitutes Collective to resolve problems. I hope other MPs and parties here tonight will join the Green Party in consigning this reactionary ill-judged bill to the dustbin of history where it so rightly belongs. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Kia ora Pita Paraone! Hoi ano hei timata korero me korero au ki taku whanaunga nei. 
[ 
Thank you Madam Speaker and greetings to us all. And so as a starter I should begin by addressing Peter Paraone my relation before me. 
] 
I would first like to pick up on a point made by Pita Paraone who asked what our line on this bill was to be because Tariana Turia voted for the Prostitution Reform Bill. Tariana Turia voted for that bill because she believed there was a need to try to provide some kind of safety and security for those on the street. However we do not support this bill for a whole lot of other reasons. 
I am amazed at both the tenor and intent of the bill which seems to be an extreme response in a very small area of the country to groups and individuals who are both small in number and very marginalised in our society. It targets the vulnerable and is a metaphorical pile-driver sent to crack a walnut. The bill makes it an offence to solicit for prostitution in a public place. It creates new infringement offences and most important it provides the police with powers that no police force anywhere in a civilised society should have. 
Prior to the Prostitution Reform Act street-based sex workers were subject to soliciting laws under the Summary Offences Act the maximum penalty for which was a fine of $200. The reality was that they were shunted through the courts and they quickly returned to the streets in order to make money to pay their fines. The convictions for soliciting made no impact whatsoever on the numbers of people working on the street. People just shifted to different doorways and waited for the police to calm down before moving back to their previous sites. 
Enforcement has dropped significantly over the last 10 years but when the police did one final raid while the Prostitution Reform Bill was before this House most of those arrested were Maori and transgender sex workers. Street-based sex workers throughout New Zealand are mainly Maori and working-class mothers and transgender and we want to ensure that they are not subjected to the punitive measures outlined in this bill. 
We know that during the course of their work Prostitutes Collective workers encountered on average 25 of these sex workers throughout South Auckland on mainly Thursday Friday and Saturday nights. The Prostitutes Collective tells us that the actual numbers of street-based sex workers overall are very very small not only in Manukau but throughout the country. To bring in a bill to try to crush just those in Manukau simply ain’t going to do the business. 
Most street-based sex workers are over the age of 25 although a study made in Christchurch suggests that most of them started at a relatively young age. Many of those people have worked the streets for a number of years and are very stable and unlikely to create problems in respect of public nuisance etc. Reintroducing penalties in relation to street-based sex workers will not make any difference whatsoever and the statistics prove this in respect of the numbers of people engaged in sex work. It will though result in those sex workers being fined large amounts of money—money that they will simply be unable to pay. That of course will result in their being further punished and criminalised for unpaid fines which will only result in them getting community service or ending up in jail. Punitive actions are not the solution. They never have been. 
Furthermore the Maori Party is concerned that the definition of soliciting is very wide—that it will enable the police to act on a “perception from afar” basis that a person is actually soliciting and those decisions will be subjective. Historically sex workers have been inclined to plead guilty when confronted with charges even when they are just passing through known street sites and the Maori Party is worried that anyone who even looks the part or who fits the profile is likely to be implicated under the terms of this bill. 
Furthermore if the bill is passed because condoms and other safer-sex gear can be listed as evidence of soliciting sex workers will stop carrying them. That is really dumb because the police actually tell sex workers that they are happy they are carrying them because it means safe sex is going on between them and their clients. 
Street-based sex workers will be less likely to report crimes against themselves for fear of prosecution under this legislation so this bill will only drive street workers into situations where they lose contact with those who can help them such as outreach workers. We do not deny that there are issues with noise litter arguments and abuse but laws already exist to control that kind of behaviour. 
As for the police issue we are also very concerned that under clause 8 police are exempt from prosecution where the officer is acting under written instructions from a senior officer. That means in simple terms that if a cop has a note from a sergeant he or she can break the law to make an arrest. This is a dangerous precedent. While everybody may have all these other ideas about prostitution sex work etc. the clauses giving police wider powers will lead to sanctioning the commissioning of crimes to solve a crime. That is a very very dangerous precedent and that is another reason why this bill should not go through. 
The powers of the police under this bill are like those the United States is using to apprehend and jail suspects in Afghanistan and Iraq—on the basis that they have reasonable grounds to do so. Is Manukau City to become the new Guantanamo Bay? When the police cells in Manukau City fill and we have all heard about the renditioning that goes on—the United States flies suspects all around the world to put them into its own private jails—will New Zealand’s version of renditioning mean that those picked up in Manukau City will be shunted off to other towns and cities in Aotearoa as the United States does with suspects all over Europe? Will Manukau City lead the moral local body charge against a group in our society that is both vulnerable and small in number? 
We have had advice from the streets that many positives have come from the Prostitution Reform Act but we fail to see anything positive at all coming out of this bill. In conclusion I just note how tolerant this House has been of the high level of soliciting and related nuisance-type behaviour carried out by those seeking support for this bill. The Maori Party opposes this bill. No reira tena koe tena koutou katoa. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will be voting in favour of this bill at least for its first reading. I want to begin by extending my congratulations to Sir Barry Curtis and the members of the Manukau City Council for actually sitting down and asking some serious questions about the problem of soliciting for prostitution that is occurring on a wide scale within that city involving many people under 18 years of age. The council has I think at least partly come up with the right solution to that problem—namely that the best way to eliminate soliciting on the streets of Manukau City or of any other city is to fine the client of the prostitute. That is one of the things this bill provides. 
People’s memories are very very short when it comes to the Prostitution Reform Act which United Future opposed and in the course of that legislation through the House predicted it would not work and would result in exploitation on our streets with the kind of unseemly activity that prostitution involves. During the election campaign for example in one of the leaders’ debates between Helen Clark and Don Brash Don Brash was asked the direct question: “Why did you vote for the Prostitution Reform Act?”. His response was that when he learnt that under the old law of New Zealand a prostitute who solicited on the streets got fined but the client of the prostitute escaped scot-free he decided that that was fundamentally unjust sexist and discriminatory and that he would therefore vote for the bill. 
He conveniently or otherwise forgot that Dianne Yates of the Labour Party had introduced an amendment during the course of that legislation proposing to do what Sweden has done. In Sweden it was the Swedish women—45 percent of the Swedish Parliament—who came up with the idea and said: “Why don’t we just reverse that? Why don’t we let the prostitute who is normally a woman do her bit. Furthermore why don’t we get some financial assistance to her so that she can get out of this industry and into something more wholesome and safe. And why don’t we actually put a fine on the client who is normally a male?” Dianne Yates proposed that amendment here. I would have thought that that was the true feminist position one that would be truly in the interests of the women of this country. But no apart from United Future members and literally two or three others Dianne Yates’ amendment was voted down—and most of the women in this Parliament joined in voting it down. People have very short memories because that actually was the answer to the dilemma that Don Brash had proposed in his own mind. 
So I think that we should pass the first reading of this bill tonight and let it go off to the select committee and I suggest when it gets there that the committee once again looks at what has happened in Sweden followed by Denmark followed by Norway and now followed by France. All of those countries have adopted the Swedish model. As a result they have no street soliciting. Those societies—again particularly led by the women—have made up their minds to say: “Can’t we have a vision for a nation that has no prostitutes on the streets? How do we get rid of them? We actually criminalise the client.” I think with respect that Hone Harawira completely missed this point in his speech. The solution that Sir Barry Curtis and his councillors have come up with is partly right. We want to actually see the end of soliciting. Why do we not fine the client? 
I want to make a couple of other comments. Somebody said that the Prostitution Reform Act was passed by this Parliament to improve the safety of sex workers. Yeah right! By definition prostitution is unsafe. No bill passed by this Parliament can sanitise or remove that reality. To prove the point since that Act was passed two young prostitutes are dead. I think it is time we faced up to this problem honestly and said: “Let’s actually bring it to an end; this is not something that our country needs. We can do without it and our society can do without it.” 
I mention one other point. In the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and United Future provision has been made for a review to be undertaken of the Prostitution Reform Act to address three issues that are of great concern in Manukau in Christchurch and in a number of other places throughout the country. The first issue in that Act is street soliciting. The second issue is the question of under-age sex. From memory two or three brothel owners have been prosecuted in our courts for employing prostitutes who are under 18 years of age. But do members know that since that Act was passed not one single prosecution has been taken to our courts of the hundreds of people to whom who those under-age prostitutes provided their services? All of those hundreds of people broke the law of this land—every single one of them. Not one of them has been prosecuted. No questions have been asked. We are continuing down the same old blind bigoted way of always blaming the prostitute and always letting the client off. We need to stop that. We need to get real and say that we do not want people selling sex on our streets. Let us fix that by saying: “If you want to go on the streets and buy sex then you’re going to face a fine.” Under the bill by the way it can be as much as 10 grand—and boy I tell members that this bill will actually fix soliciting in Manukau City! 
The bill may not be perfect—bills on their first reading seldom are—but let it at least go through to a select committee so we can actually deal with the issues with I hope some sanity balance and fairness and try to come up with something that will improve the situation in Manukau City for the people of Manukau City. It is their bill and I tell Sue Bradford that there is nothing unilateral about this bill. Manukau City is asking Parliament to pass a law. It is for us to decide whether we want to come to the assistance of the people of Manukau or simply as it were turn cross the street and go past on the other side. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to take a brief call on the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave of the House to have a call. Is there any objection? There is not. Is this a 5-minute call? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: Yes but it will not be as long as that. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and I thank my colleagues for their generosity. I want to make a few brief comments. 
I have grave concerns about the content of the bill. I respect the intent and the sincerity genuine I believe of Sir Barry Curtis and the people of Manukau City whom he represents as mayor in seeking to have this matter dealt with. However I believe that some of what is in the bill is completely erroneous. The hysteria that has gone on this evening in some of the speeches regarding the Prostitution Reform Act is just that—hysteria. Some of those issues would not have come to light if we had not gone down that track. I believe we are able to chuck out or address many if not all of the issues in this bill because of what is happening already—for example the review that is already occurring of the Prostitution Reform Act as a result of it and other such matters. 
I should declare that I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I almost welcome the opportunity to rubbish a lot of what is in the bill. However I do maintain that I uphold the right of Manukau City and of Sir Barry in generously bringing the bill forward and using a parliamentary process—almost mischievously in a sense but nevertheless it is a right and correct use of the process. So I look forward to the bill coming before the select committee. I will give the bill extraordinarily close scrutiny and very deep questioning for I as most members of this Parliament know have a very close association with the sex industry. 
I do believe that street soliciting is the more dangerous of the prostitution activities that occur and I would like nothing more than to see people not necessarily need to be in the situation of street work. That is why I wonder where that council has been. This has not been a problem of recent occurrence but one of some history. So where are the initiatives to get those people into more desirable work and the opportunities for it perhaps so as to get them out of the horrible rut they can sometimes be in? 
I ask members not to remain ignorant to the goodness of what the Prostitution Reform Act provided for this country. Yes the matters are distasteful but we should face them as we are responsibly. I do believe that is what the Act provided. 
This bill is a local bill. My colleague George Hawkins has quite rightly as a local member brought it forward on behalf of the Manukau City Council. That is why I am happy to support the referral of the bill to the select committee. I certainly cannot promise that I will support it beyond there. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I thank all members here tonight for what has been a very interesting debate. There are strongly held views on this matter just as there were a few years ago when the original legislation came before the House. I must say and I concede straight away that David Carter seemed to blame me for the bill although he is far more expert on the matter of prostitution than I am. However— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Spell it out! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member may also be more expert than me; I do not know about that. 
I have not heard anyone tonight invite these street workers into his or her town. I have not heard people say that that is a great idea and they should have them in their towns. Manukau is a young city. It has many problems and it tries to deal with them. It tries to deal with ill health and with the problems associated with growing up in such a young city. It does some tremendous work for its citizens. The city’s motivation is good. 
I ask everyone to vote for the bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee so that these things can be questioned. I know that some people may vote for the referral of the bill to the committee and that their support may end there. However many Government members are supporting its referral to the select committee to enable wider public debate to inform the work of the Prostitution Law Review Committee. 
It does not matter that the Manukau City Council’s motivation may in the eyes of some people be wrong. What is important is that the council has its day before the select committee. I dare say there will be other councils appearing at the committee. If Manukau City Council has a fault it is that it cares too much; it is a city council that is concerned about all its citizens. Earlier tonight we sent a bill that deals with graffiti to a select committee. What we are really hearing tonight is that a council is turning to its Parliament and saying that it wants to be given some help. I do not think there is anything wrong in doing that. In fact I am quite keen to see the bill go to the select committee. I may not be a person who thinks this bill is perhaps the best solution to the problem but it is Manukau City’s solution and the council wants it to be tested by this Parliament. 
This issue may be offensive to many people. It may be undesirable that condoms are being left in school grounds. I think that is deplorable; I think it is dangerous for young kids. I think about the people who have to clean away condoms from their shopfronts before opening for business. That is not desirable. No one likes that. Manukau is responding to the call of its population. I hope that people will vote for the bill to go to the select committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee 
Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration. 
I hope every member of Parliament will support this bill on its first reading. I say that because the bill simply clarifies and codifies in New Zealand law marriage as it has always been traditionally understood not only in New Zealand but throughout the world not only in our culture but in every culture not only in the Christian religion but in every religion. In 2005 some people express surprise that the definition of marriage proposed in the bill—namely that “For the avoidance of doubt marriage may only occur between one man and one woman.”—is not already in the Marriage Act 1955. However for someone of my generation that really is no surprise at all. On the contrary I am quite certain that in 1955 it would never have occurred to any member of the then New Zealand Parliament that it was necessary to define the word “marriage.” Those members were simply putting into legislative form what people had understood for millennia—namely that marriage is between one man and one woman. That reality would have been patently obvious to everyone as our society had never contemplated any other arrangement or interpretation. That of course is because marriage is the oldest institution known to the human race. It goes back to the beginning because at the beginning there was one man and one woman. 
However for the record let us look at the dictionary definition of the word “marriage”. That definition reads: “state or relationship of being husband and wife. … the legal union or contract made by a man and woman to live as husband and wife.” All this bill does is to codify that definition in New Zealand law. As I have already said it was simply unnecessary to do so in 1955 but it is now necessary for a number of reasons. The first reason is the well-known 1996 court case  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General 
. The applicants in that case went to the High Court by way of a test case seeking a decision as to whether same-sex couples could lawfully obtain a marriage licence. The Court of Appeal eventually in 1998 ruled that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. 
However as the Ministry of Justice has made clear in its advice to the Attorney-General although the Court of Appeal ruling upholds the common law understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman this could be overturned because of overseas decisions. That is the critical issue that Parliament needs to determine today. The traditional common law position could be overturned because that has happened in Canada in the state of Massachusetts in the USA and now in South Africa where marriage has been reinterpreted by the courts to include two people of the same gender—in other words a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Canada the state of Massachusetts and South Africa all have common law traditions; accordingly if a couple of the same sex were to approach the New Zealand courts again for the right to marry then of course decisions in those jurisdictions could be cited as creating a precedent. I am asking Parliament tonight to pre-empt that possibility to put the matter beyond doubt—members should note the words of the bill: “For the avoidance of doubt”. 
Interestingly the Court of Appeal in delivering the court’s decision expressed the view that the question of whether the law should be changed to authorise marriage between gays and between lesbians should be decided by Parliament. So this bill is actually if you like a reaction to the Court of Appeal’s comment in that regard exactly in the way that in different circumstances Parliament reacted when the same Court of Appeal ruled that Maori might have access to private ownership of the foreshore and seabed. This bill actually tries to reverse that progress by ensuring that Parliament speaks first. 
That is actually the principal issue that is involved in my bill. In addition however it specifies that same-sex marriages registered in foreign countries such as Canada and now South Africa are not recognised as marriages in New Zealand. Such a provision of course is necessary now only because as I mentioned the word “marriage” in those countries has been extended to include same-sex couples. 
Also the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should be amended to ensure that measures intended to promote or advance marriage—for example pre-marriage counselling—are not considered discriminatory. Obviously only those who intended to marry would wish to go to a pre-marriage course. It would be quite ridiculous to say that such measures somehow discriminated against people who did not wish to marry. Such logic is deeply flawed. I think in fact it is patently obvious that such courses should be open just to married couples; that requires little further argument from me. It would be ridiculous for example to argue that a marriage enrichment course is discriminatory because it excludes single people or de facto couples. It would be a bit like saying that Victoria University by having an entrance standard thereby discriminated against people who did not meet the entrance standard. In order to be married under our present law one has to find a partner whom one wishes to marry has to decide to marry that person has to be accepted etc. When we think about it it is actually a conditional situation that is very much akin to an entrance qualification to university. 
I will mention in conclusion another couple of matters. A DigiPoll on this issue was conducted earlier this year and it indicated that 57 percent of New Zealanders believe that our law should state clearly that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I speak here tonight for those 57 percent of people. Secondly I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Australian Parliament passed last year with the support of all the parties in the Australian Parliament legislation that covers the same ground as this bill. Accordingly this bill’s passage tonight would serve to harmonise the law concerning marriage in both Australia and New Zealand—something we like to do. 
I very much hope that this first reading of my bill will following the Australian example attract the support of all parties. No fewer than 19 states in the United States of America have also passed similar legislation to safeguard the institution of marriage. Some may argue—and I am sure they will in this debate from what I have so far heard informally from other parties—that the chances of our courts overturning the Quilter decision are remote. Well maybe but the question for Parliament is whether we should take that risk. Should we take a risk like that with the most basic the oldest and the most important institution in our society? It is an institution that is indeed the cornerstone and foundation of our society and the fundamental rock upon which the strongest families in our society are built now and have been built for many many generations. 
Some may argue—I have heard already from the Minister of Justice in question time yesterday—that it is a waste of Parliament’s time to debate this matter. I in contrast say that there is nothing more vital to our society and its future than for Parliament to take the time to send a clear signal to the people of this country that the Parliament of New Zealand confirms and affirms the traditional meaning of the word “marriage”—namely that it is between a man and a woman. But for those who want to make this an argument about parliamentary time I would not object to a motion that asked that the House extend its time tonight so that we could pass the bill through its first second and third readings this evening. I would be absolutely happy about that. If that would save Parliament’s time then if it were moved I certainly would not object. That would deal with that issue. 
I will note with interest tonight as will the people of New Zealand the way that parties vote on this legislation. We have just had an election. It is well known—it has actually been referred to indirectly by the Prime Minister herself—that it was the social engineering agenda of the last Government that produced the election results we saw just a little while ago. Labour had its worst result in 11 provincial seats in that party’s history. I think some people from the National Party will vote tonight with the Labour Party on this issue and if they do that they will deeply disappoint the hundreds of thousands of people who cast their votes for National at the last election. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Every single New Zealander who was polled in the DigiPoll referred to by Mr Copeland will be pleased to know that the present law in New Zealand as it stands is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I repeat: the present law states that marriage is between a man and woman. This bill adds nothing to the law—the law is already settled on this matter. If people do not believe me then I ask them to read  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General  
1998 and I ask them to read various papers put out by the Ministry of Justice by Crown Law by Chapman Tripp and by members of the legal fraternity like my learned colleague and friend here Chris Finlayson. The law is very clear. 
Let us see the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill for what it is. It is a cheap political stunt put up by a party that wants to pretend it has a monopoly on having an interest in long-term relationships and that it has a monopoly on concern for New Zealand families. I look around the House tonight. Most members here if not all of them believe that long-term relationships are the glue that keeps this community together. But this bill would add nothing to the present legal position—nothing at all. We hear rhetoric in this House about members not taking up Parliament’s time and about our not wanting to create bills that add nothing to the law and do not make a difference but this bill is one of those that would do nothing but restate the status quo. The purpose of this bill is so that United Future can stand up and say that it has a monopoly on believing that marriage is important and that long-term relationships are important—but United Future simply does not. 
This bill is a cheap political stunt and will be used as a platform for every banjo-playing redneck homophobe who wants to stand up and make comments about the way other people lead their lives. I have referred to the impression that United Future wants to create but this bill will add nothing to the body of law we now have. United Future wants to create the impression that we have hordes of gay and lesbian couples around the world focusing on New Zealand as their destination of choice. Again the law is quite clear on that point. If New Zealand gay couples travel and marry somewhere else their relationship will still be dealt with under the civil union legislation and regulations. If foreign people in some other kind of relationship want to come to New Zealand the law is pretty clear about their status as well. So if we look at this bill we see that it will do absolutely nothing to change the present situation. 
We often stand in the House and say we want to create bills that will make a difference and will stand for something so why are we standing here debating something that is already extremely clear in the law? My great-grandmother used to have a pub years ago called The Live and Let Live and I think that that is a very good saying. United Future members should take a look at themselves introduce some common sense to their own views and see that the legal situation as it is is quite clear. 
Marriage in this country is between a man and a woman and many in this House believe in that and support that. Many people who voted for the Civil Union Bill supported that which is why we had that bill in this country. Once again we see that party stand up and pretend it is the only party in this Parliament that is concerned about long-term relationships. We all know that long-term relationships remain the glue that keeps our community together but when I look at this legislation I am concerned about the sort of debate it will unleash on our communities. It will be used by many as a platform to say all sorts of things that will offend and to make statements about other people’s lives. 
In my view this bill does nothing more than state a situation we already have. Those DigiPoll respondents will be pleased to know that the law is extremely clear. We have not had a single lawyer stand in this House and say that the law is not clear. Every law we pass in this Parliament is potentially open to challenge but I tell members that if we put this law in place it will be challenged by those within the community and in particular it will be challenged under the Human Rights Act. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 It is seldom I disagree with Katherine Rich but on issues like these where effectively we are confronting a conscience vote I simply cannot agree. The proposition being advanced to members of this House is an assumption that the law is unchanging. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. The law is constantly changing sometimes incrementally and sometimes in dramatic advances. It is changing both as a result of decisions made by judges and also of course by decisions made in this House. 
It is right to say that judge-made law is settled by the Quilter decision but in principle there is nothing to say that the Supreme Court now our highest court could not review that decision in an appropriate factual matrix. It is also absolutely clear that this Parliament could make substantial change as Parliaments around the world have done—in some cases in short order. So the position that I adopt in speaking to members of the House tonight is that this bill should be supported. I do not for a moment buy into an argument that just because it reflects codification of the common law then somehow it is a waste of time to have it referred to a select committee. 
I plan to vote in favour of this bill for a number of reasons and I encourage colleagues in the House who are listening to these arguments to reflect on whether their arguments are right if it is their plan to vote against this legislation. I would say these things. First of all I say that passing this bill will provide a significant hurdle to the introduction of same-sex marriage in this country. It will be more difficult for Parliament to introduce same-sex marriage if it first has to repeal the Marriage Act—or sections of it—and then pass further legislation. Second I say that without this bill the Civil Union Act paves the way for same-sex marriage. That is because it would be much easier for a Parliament to introduce same-sex marriage by passing a minor amendment to the existing Civil Union Act and leaving the Marriage Act untouched. The Civil Union Act currently provides that a civil union couple can convert their civil union to a marriage as long as they are able to marry anyway. I think we have also seen—and this is the third point—how easy it is in the context of what has been going on in a number of countries to change the law to sanction same-sex marriage in short order. The latest illustration of that would be in South Africa where there is not a definition of marriage in the legislation. 
It is not the role of Parliament to dictate moral habit or moral custom but as a legislator I believe it is important that we send signals to the community as to what is or what is not acceptable behaviour. I think it is appropriate that this Parliament does send a message to New Zealand families that marriage is important. We have suffered 6 years in this Parliament of quite dramatic social engineering. It is appropriate to send signals that reverse that trend. 
I am not sure how relevant it is that we follow patterns of conduct advanced by those across the Tasman but the reality is that this issue has been looked at very determinedly in the context of the Australian Federal Parliament and that this bill is virtually identical to legislation that was passed by the Australian Liberal National and Labor parties. 
Finally I conclude by noting what the Attorney General of Australia Philip Ruddock said during the second reading of the Australian bill: “The bill is necessary because there is a significant community concern about the possible erosion of the institution of marriage. The Government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the place of marriage in our society. It is a central and fundamental institution. It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment for the raising of children.” 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 This bill purports first to clarify that the parties to a marriage must be one man and one woman and as has been said by at least one of the contributors to the debate tonight the bill is completely unnecessary as it merely seeks to confirm the law as it already stands. To vote in favour of the bill would constitute a poor process and be a waste of Parliament’s time. Second the bill also seeks to prevent overseas civil unions or gay marriages from being recognised as marriages in New Zealand. Again that is completely unnecessary as our existing legislation is clear that such relationships cannot be recognised as marriages in New Zealand. The third aim of the bill is to ensure that active promotion of marriage is not discriminatory. That part of the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which is another reason to vote the bill down. 
I turn first to clauses 4 and 6. I am not aware of any confusion over the existing law in relation to what constitutes a marriage. The Court of Appeal in the case of  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 has very clearly ruled that the Marriage Act 1955 applies to marriage between a man and a woman only. It is interesting that the Opposition member says that the Supreme Court may overturn that. I think he will find that the make-up of the Court of Appeal and of the present Supreme Court are somewhat similar. Under the Marriage Act as it stands people of the same gender are unable to obtain a marriage licence and any such purported marriage would not be recognised or would be declared void. There is no confusion about the law. In light of that clauses 4 and 6 are unnecessary and consideration of them would not be a productive use of this House’s time or of that of a select committee. 
Equally unnecessary is clause 5 of the bill which seeks to prevent overseas civil unions or gay marriages from being recognised in New Zealand as marriages. Again our existing law is very clear. No overseas marriage or civil union between two people of the same gender can be recognised in New Zealand as a marriage. The Civil Union Act 2004 passed by this House makes provision for regulations to be made to prescribe the types of overseas relationships that are recognised in New Zealand as civil unions but not as marriages. Consideration of clause 5 would again be a waste of Parliament’s time. 
Clause 7 proposes that measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing marriage do not constitute discrimination. In his letter to MPs Mr Gordon Copeland states that his intention is simply to allow faith communities and others to run marriage preparation and marriage enrichment courses. Unfortunately the amendment he proposes has far wider consequences than that. I note that the Attorney-General’s report on clause 7 concludes that it unjustifiably limits the rights affirmed in section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: the right to freedom from discrimination. 
Clause 7 would actually allow private individuals to impose arbitrary and exclusionary policies in the field of employment and in the area of goods and services. Such provision would discriminate not just against people in civil unions and de facto relationships but also against single people and people who are widowed or divorced. Such discrimination would flow down to affect the children of such relationships. It is unacceptable that children could be treated differently because of the nature of their parents’ relationships. The previous Parliament passed legislation that removed unjustifiable discrimination on the basis of relationship status. I believe that it would reflect badly on us if we were to turn back the clock by voting in favour of this bill. To do so would run contrary to a range of international and domestic human rights obligations. 
My opposition to the bill is not a criticism of marriage. I am married myself. Marriage has an important place in our society. However our laws need to be appropriately framed to recognise all the relationships that provide a supportive environment for the raising of children and the building blocks of strong families. Although marriage may be my preferred form of relationship marriage does not have a monopoly on providing that. The strength of the relationship between the parents and the strength of their relationship with their children are absolutely fundamental. There is ample research to show that it is the way individuals in relationships and families interact not the status of the relationship that leads to successful outcomes for those families and for society at large. A man who beats his wife inflicts as much damage on her and their children as a man who beats his de facto partner. A loving committed relationship between adults is what matters to children. As in all matters it is the substance not the form that counts. The Government has committed to supporting families regardless of the legal status of the parents in the family and they are entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance from any Parliament. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 If I had any doubts about supporting this bill the honourable member who has just resumed her seat certainly has squashed them all. I think it is absolute arrogance to stand in this House and say that clause 5 or clause 6 or whatever is a waste of Parliament’s time. We are here elected by the people of New Zealand to listen from time to time to the people of New Zealand and if they want this sort of legislation debated then it is our task to address it. I can tell members that from the feedback I have had personally there are many many New Zealanders who want this bill at least sent to a select committee and I would say that the vast majority of them want it passed. We need in my view to strengthen marriage in this country and to strengthen it by ensuring that it is confined to being a union between a man and a woman a husband and wife. If the family unit is the backbone of this country marriage is the backbone of the family unit. It has served this country well and it will serve this country well for a lot longer. 
I want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First has made this issue a conscience vote and we are not all of the same mind. Some of my colleagues would agree that the current legislation is strong enough and adequate enough but that is not to say that we all agree with that view. The majority of New Zealand First MPs want this bill referred to a select committee. 
I heard Katherine Rich describe a supporter of this bill as—and I thought it was quite funny—a redneck banjo-playing homophobic or something along those lines. I thought that was good. I do not play the banjo but I do not know whether I might qualify on the other score. When Katherine Rich sat down she said she wanted to hear a lawyer’s opinion and of course the No. 1 redneck banjo-playing homophobic in the National Party lawyer Mr Richard Worth stood up and actually said exactly the opposite of what Katherine Rich said. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been misrepresented by the use of those epithets. Banjo playing has never been a strength of mine. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Worth. 
PETER BROWN 
: I actually thought that that would be the case because I know that the member is a sailor exactly the same as myself—well not exactly the same; in my day at sea I was a real sailor; he just played at the game. 
The majority of New Zealanders I suggest want to see this legislation at least get to the select committee stage. That is the view that the majority of New Zealand First MPs share. I can tell members that a number of Christian people church people believe absolutely that this bill is essential to the family unit in the long-term future. I know that the Brethren financed—somewhat unwittingly if we believe the National Party—many pamphlets to support National members and get them here. They want to a man and a woman this bill to go before a select committee. They financed pamphlets in support of the National Party getting here. Many of those members would not be here but for the actions of the Brethren. [ 
Interruption 
] 
They would not be here but for what the Brethren did and they should in fact listen to them. They wanted those members here. Those members were prepared to listen to them when they came out with pamphlets. If the National Party MPs vote against this bill going to the select committee they are letting down some of their core supporters. [ 
Interruption 
] It does not take much to rile these guys does it? Why can they not behave like that when Winston Peters is here and show a bit of strength? Why are they all like little mice when Winston Peters is here? 
 In my view and in the view of many New Zealanders it is possible to see the state of marriage between a man and a woman challenged. The Civil Union Act is an Act for civil unionists but it is possible that in the not too distant future— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I thought you were a “simple sailor”. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am just a “simple sailor” and I see things in black and white. It is possible that two people of the same gender married in some foreign place may come here and challenge our system. I would not like them to succeed. I am totally supportive of this bill going to a select committee. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is opposed to this bill and we will vote against it as a party. Our party policy requires us to support the extension of all legal partnership arrangements and rights to same-sex couples as are afforded heterosexual couples. That includes not just eligibility in relation to parenting for example but also to marriage. We are very proud to stand here as a party and say that we support the elimination of discrimination in this country and we will not support legislation to impose even more discrimination than we already have. 
This legislation is entirely unnecessary as my colleagues have expressed so far and I certainly hope that at some point a man will stand up and defend same-sex couples in some form because at this point only women have made any sense whatsoever in this House. Most important this legislation is utterly discriminatory whether or not we consider it unnecessary and even the Attorney-General has said that the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and is an unjustified breach of the freedom from discrimination afforded to all New Zealand citizens. 
Sadly but probably not surprisingly I received today a piece of paper entitled: “Urgent Appeal to all MPs” distributed by members of the Brethren. In fact it is a flyer that sets out a whole lot of religious reasons why we should be legislating for discrimination in this country. I know that many Christians in New Zealand would be appalled to see this information being distributed to MPs. It is worthwhile noting that four members of the Brethren who are listed on this pamphlet—Andrew Simmons Phil Win Tim Lough and Doug Watt—were members of the “secret seven” who produced a pamphlet attacking the Green Party before the election. They were four members of the “secret seven” who sent out a pamphlet containing lies and half-truths about Green Party policy. They distributed it around the country and hid their culpability and responsibility until they were finally exposed to the country by the Green Party. How disgraceful that United Future is promoting legislation to discriminate against New Zealanders on the back of this kind of support! It is very very shameful indeed. 
This bill is obviously a clear example of an expression of malice and prejudice against gay lesbian transgender and transsexual people. Without a doubt it is malice and prejudice. The bill extends beyond just asking that there be no valid legal recognition of marriage. By using the word “recognition” in the legislation it undermines all forms of recognition of the validity of same-sex relationships in the nature of marriage in all sorts of areas other than legal marriage. For example in respect of income support and in respect of wills it would mean that same-sex couples would not be entitled to the same recognition that other couples have. That means for example that if someone’s will described his or her partner using the terms of marriage say “husband” or “wife” that person would not be able to obtain the benefits of that will because this bill would stop that person from doing so. So this bill goes way beyond just legal recognition of marriage in lawful terms but right into other areas where this country by its legislation and policy has indicated it will not support that discrimination. 
The bill legally broadens the discrimination against same-sex couples. The Greens will have no part of a bill that legislates for discrimination and hate in this country against a vulnerable and valuable sector of our community that deserves this Parliament’s protection not its prejudice. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 My name is Hone Harawira and I am married to Hilda Halkyard-Harawira. Although I did not know it at the time I now know that our marriage was conducted under the Marriage Act of 1955 which was reinforced by the  
Quilter  
v 
 Attorney-General 
 Court of Appeal decision that confirmed that the Act and status of marriage is between a man and a woman. So that is my own personal situation. 
To clarify us as a party the Maori Party parliamentary caucus is 100 percent married under the terms of the Marriage Act of 1955. In fact one of our members so much believes in marriage that he has done it more than once. So I am hardly about to question the Act and the status of marriage within our own caucus. We are a man married to a woman a man married to a woman a man married to a woman and a woman married to a man. That is our position as party. 
From a Maori point of view I am obviously here because my tupuna pretty much have the same points of view. Ever since coming here from Hawaiki those relationships thankfully have continued right down to where we are today. The Civil Union Bill which caused a lot of angst when it was going through the House and out there in the boonies is what provides the framework and the mechanism for other relationships to be confirmed and given formal value. As Katherine Rich said overseas people may make the decisions that are appropriate for them as we have with the Marriage Act and the Civil Union Act. They are structures that validate the relationships that people wish to enjoy here but under the terms of the Marriage Act 1955 marriage is to be consummated only between a man and a woman. 
I am also a father. I am the father of seven children and the grandfather I am embarrassed to say of only two. I do not ask my children what their sexual orientation is going to be but whatever it is going to be it is not going to change in any way shape or form the love I have for them or for my grandchildren. The party does not think that bringing in another bill will make any difference whatsoever to the status I already have or to the status my children may wish to enjoy should they choose another lifestyle. That is important. 
We discussed this issue in caucus and we were not all of the same point of view. I said to my caucus that as a father I want my sons and my daughters to grow up to realise what a marriage is which is the relationship that I have with their mother. I want my grandchildren to grow up and have that same understanding. We have discussed it at depth. I am happy to say that I was considering tonight split-voting with my party on exactly what the position would be with us and I cleared it with my co-leader but I am more than happy to say that after discussing it with him and others I stand in support of the Maori Party position in opposition to this bill. We are who we are. We have an Act that confirms that validity of our relationships and we have a Civil Union Act that recognises those others. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Like Mr Copeland I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and I could not support any attempt to amend the Marriage Act to accommodate marriages between persons of the same sex. Unlike Mr Copeland however I cannot support the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill. The reason is that it is misconceived. First there is nothing to clarify—as the title states—because the law is clear. Same-sex marriages are not permitted under the Marriage Act. This has been clear since the decision of the Court of Appeal in  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 not of the High Court as the explanatory note to the bill mistakenly states. That case held that the wording and the scheme of the Act could not accommodate marriages between persons of the same sex. The passage of the Civil Union Act has further clarified the position. That Act was a response to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Quilter case. In those circumstances the law is clear not uncertain. As the Greeks would say why pile Pelion on Ossa? 
Clause 5 is flawed. I think it draws on section 88EA of the Australian Marriage Act. The section states that a union solemnised in a foreign country must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia. Clause 5 of this bill impacts on conflict of laws rules on recognition of overseas marriages. The reason that we and other countries have such rules is to respect comity between nations. Under the Marriage Act certain formalised foreign marriages are deemed to have been as valid in New Zealand as marriages that are solemnised in New Zealand in accordance with the Act. In common law other foreign unions will also be accepted as valid in New Zealand subject to any public policy against such acceptance. Given the decision in the Quilter case and the application of conflict of laws principles to validation of foreign marriages a formal foreign same-sex union is most unlikely to be accepted as a valid marriage in New Zealand. 
Clause 5 does not deal with issues of validity but it denies recognition to foreign same-sex unions. Mr Copeland has not explained to the House what “recognition” means. There are examples in the common law where a relationship may be recognised as conferring some incident of marital status without validating the underlying relationship itself as a marriage. So the clause has a longer reach than is necessary merely to avoid validation of foreign same-sex unions and it may undo other recognition of such unions. For those reasons the Australian precedent should not be followed in this country. This is a difficult area of law—one that I think in due course will need to be dealt with at the international level. I think the Hague Conference on Private International Law where New Zealand is represented will need to address this issue. It is not an area where countries should move unilaterally for domestic political reasons. 
Mr Copeland contends that the Quilter decision could be overturned as a result of foreign decisions that permit same-sex marriage. I do not think he is right for the reasons I have given. He fails to understand that any challenge would have to be commenced in the High Court then go to the Court of Appeal and thence to the Supreme Court. To get a case through the system could take anything up to 2½ years. That would provide Parliament with plenty of time to legislate if it was felt necessary. Some people like my friend Mr Worth say that the bill sends an important message to New Zealand families that marriage is important. With respect I would have thought New Zealanders would know that without the need for Parliament to start sending legislative messages. In any event I have an innate distaste for feel-good legislation. Messages of that kind should be left to priests and pastors. Some people contend that there is no harm in codification of the law. I have always thought it would be desirable to have a marriage and relationships code that brings together all statutes that deal with families and relationships but I do not think piecemeal codification works—a point illustrated by this bill. 
Finally I want to say to Mr Copeland that we have all received correspondence in recent days from people who genuinely believe that same-sex marriage is just around the corner. In promoting this bill Mr Copeland has mistaken the true legal position. As a consequence he has caused many New Zealanders unnecessary distress. Same-sex marriage is not around the corner for the reasons I have given and relitigating issues that the House dealt with last year is not in the public interest. I oppose the bill. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the first reading of the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill. When I was preparing for this speech I was reminded strangely enough of a conversation I had with Dianne Yates about the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill that she had sponsored. She explained to me that when researching the practice of docking dogs’ tails she discovered that an old attempt at tax evasion was the reason that dogs’ tails were docked—dogs were taxed and they were counted by their tails. Over time that practice has become a preference for those who breed dogs for showing. I mention that because it is the historical context of marriage that motivates me to support the codification of the Marriage Act. 
When one strips away the modern constructs of Hollywood the baubles associated with wedding days and even the addition of religious involvement in the valuing of marriage by religious organisations one comes up with the way societies originally managed and protected the human breeding pool and protected the natural family environment for the nurture and raising of offspring. The current legal constraints around marriage still reflect this which is why currently marriage firstly is between two people; secondly is heterosexual; and thirdly is not allowed to be incestuous. 
Prior to the advances in birth control getting married was all about having children. It was not just about consenting adults but about the beginning of a family. Marriage and parenthood traditionally were inseparable concepts. Both my mother’s and grandmother’s generation referred to “honeymoon babies” who were born 9 months after the wedding. So marriage was an arrangement between breeding-capable couples. Even as recently as 50 years ago the need to codify the Marriage Act would have been considered nonsense because the link between breeding and marriage was an automatic assumption. 
Today with the advances of medical science—with contraception and new birth technology developments—the traditional boundaries of marriage have been challenged and in some jurisdictions have been redefined. Single-sex couples are now able to employ these more recent technologies to construct new types of social parenting arrangements. Sperm and egg donors are now no longer just helping heterosexual couples with fertility challenges but are providing the means by which both un-partnered women and gay and lesbian couples can have children. 
Social parenting arrangements were traditionally resorted to when natural parenting arrangements had fallen over for some reason and they took the form of kinship care and adoption. Today social parenting arrangements are many and varied and it is not my intention in the time I have left to make comments on the desirability of those new trends. But I want to suggest that the medical and scientific climate around the provisions of marriage have changed considerably and other jurisdictions are responding in a variety of ways to those changes. Members of this House as elected representatives need to decide tonight whether the voters who put them here want marriage preserved as tradition makes clear as a social convention for a man and a woman with the natural breeding potential that they represent or whether their voters want them to leave open the options so that marriage can be applied to non-breeding arrangements. 
The chance to publicly declare and celebrate commitment and to afford legal protection is now available through civil unions. Marriage no longer enjoys any form of elitist status but it does still represent a distinctiveness that the voters who sent me to this House want to see preserved. So I will support the first reading and any consecutive readings of this bill. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I take a call to state a few concerns I have and why I will be supporting the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill. 
As a first principle I say that this is members’ day. It is members’ opportunity to seek to enshrine in legislation things for which they are representing a constituency—or certainly that they have the impression they are representing. So I think this House has a responsibility to consider very seriously whether a bill such as this should at least pass its first reading to give members of the public an opportunity to state their preference. We have heard from the member in charge of the bill Mr Copeland that 57 percent of New Zealanders would support this bill. I have no doubt that the figure is somewhere near that whatever the exact nature of it. So I believe we do have a responsibility to give the public an opportunity to comment by passing this bill in its first reading. 
I make no claims to have any great knowledge of the law and I listened with interest to both Katherine Rich and Chris Finlayson. They may well be right. So why would the public wish to see the Quilter 
decision codified? I will summarise some of the comments that have been made in this debate. The Hon Lianne Dalziel stated that she would not be supporting the bill. One of the reasons she gave was that it could be discriminatory against the children of parents in a variety of relationships outside the norm. If in fact the Quilter decision stands there will be no married same-sex couples upon which that discrimination will fall so there is some confusion about that particular item. The Quilter decision is enshrined in a law report and it will not be changed. We had some contradictory or at least ambiguous comments from Lianne Dalziel. Then the Green Party member Metiria Turei got up and said she would not be supporting the bill because she has a definite programme to ensure no discrimination in relationships. So it is exactly her plan to see marriage for same-sex couples. Is there any reason why then the public at large wants to see this matter codified? 
I say that this bill is not wasting time despite the claims of members. This is members’ day and we are not wasting the Government’s or Parliament’s time. I have to say that having being in this House for more than three terms I have noted on the odd occasion behaviour that could be termed as wasting Parliament’s time. When we have a significant proportion of the public saying that we need actually to codify this matter in legislation and that it needs an opportunity to speak to it in a submission process at a select committee then this bill is certainly not wasting time. 
Mr Copeland the promoter of the bill also mentioned situations where law reports in various countries had been overturned. I repeat that certainly the situations in Canada South Africa and the state of Massachusetts saw the expected outcome of law reports turned over. In times gone by this Parliament has codified law reports to take all possible ambiguity out of a situation. I say that this is an opportunity for members to listen to what the public are saying and if we are wrong if the submissions overwhelmingly condemn this legislation then what harm is done? We will have listened to what I believe a majority of New Zealanders are saying. I support the bill. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise as a member of Parliament who has a very conservative voting record on these kinds of issues as evidenced by my opposition to the Prostitution Reform Bill to the Death with Dignity Bill and to attempts to bring in Easter Friday and Easter Sunday trading and by my recently taking over sponsorship of a bill to raise the drinking age. It is fair to say that like a fellow conservative MP such as your good self Mr Deputy Speaker I supported the Civil Union Bill on the basis of compassion and fairness. 
I also acknowledge and compliment the very fine contributions made by the senior National Party front-bencher Katherine Rich and her colleague Chris Finlayson who I believe made very considered and worthy contributions to the debate tonight. I particularly reflect on the very wise words of the front-bencher Katherine Rich in terms of some of the debate around the Civil Union Bill and the effects of that debate which certainly caused much pain and anguish to many New Zealanders and their families. 
As a conservative I am opposing this bill for the simple reason that there is an old saying “If it’s not broken don’t fix it”. Since the formation of a nation State in New Zealand all legal forms of marriage have been between a man and a woman. I certainly agree that marriage is a bedrock relationship in our society but I do not intend to support the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill because I do not consider it to be a good use of Parliament’s time to restate what actually is when so much new legislation needs to be dealt with. 
This bill proposes to amend the Marriage Act 1955 by stating that parties to a marriage must be one man and one woman and by forbidding marriage between persons of the same gender. The legal position the facts and the reality—what is—were clearly stated by the Court of Appeal in  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General  
in 1998. The Court of Appeal held that the Marriage Act 1955 applies to marriage between a man and a woman only and that that restriction does not constitute discrimination. Therefore I repeat that under the current law two people of the same gender cannot obtain a marriage licence and any such purported marriage would not be recognised in law and would be declared void. 
The bill proposes to amend the Marriage Act to state that a union solemnised in a foreign country between two people of the same gender is not recognised as a marriage in New Zealand. No overseas marriage or civil union between two people of the same gender can be recognised as a marriage under New Zealand law. However some of those overseas relationships may be recognised as civil unions under the civil union legislation. 
As a conservative member of Parliament I will also make a personal statement to this House—and I think my sentiment is shared by many others who are opposing this bill—that in the highly unlikely event that there was ever a successful legal challenge to the current law then I certainly would support an appropriate amendment to the Marriage Act to reinforce the fact that the Act is solely intended for a male and a female in a committed relationship. I think it is highly unlikely that we will ever see that day and I cannot see the point of changing or interfering with what is. 
I simply restate: it is what is. Under the current law and dare I say it since time immemorial—since the formation of legal systems in this country—the Marriage Act has been intended for a man and a woman. That is the current state. I see no reason whatsoever to change it. I compliment as I said before some very considered and worthwhile contributions to this debate. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I begin my wrap-up in terms of the debate on this bill by paying tribute to my former colleague Larry Baldock. It was Larry Baldock who drafted this bill and submitted it to the ballot. It was drawn from the ballot in his name and but for the want of what turned out to be about another 50 minutes it would have been voted on in the last Parliament. I want to say that as far as the people of New Zealand are concerned—and Larry Baldock listened very carefully to their voices as I and others have—the reality is that tonight they are interested in only one thing which is whether members of this House are prepared to affirm and confirm traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. People will make their judgment in terms of that reality depending on the way members of this Parliament vote tonight. 
The fine legal arguments that were voiced here tonight which sometimes were quite sophisticated or which sometimes had a degree of sophistry are not necessary on a first reading; that is why we have a select committee process. Yes there are issues in the wording of some of the subsidiary clauses of the bill that might need to be revisited in the select committee deliberation. But the big picture—the true intent and heart of this bill—is a very simple proposition: do people believe that marriage in New Zealand should continue for future generations to be strictly and only between one man and one woman? Once all the rhetoric that has been spoken here tonight has faded and once all the bluff and bluster has finished the people of New Zealand will remember one thing and one thing only from tonight: how members of this Parliament voted on this bill. Were they for marriage or were they against marriage? That factor will form the judgment the electors of this country will come to. 
I believe firmly that marriage should for all future generations of this country remain a relationship between a man and a woman. Why do I say that? The reason is that marriage is a solid rock. It is a tradition that as I mentioned earlier has endured for generations. It is in the interests of creating stable beautiful adult relationships between a man and a woman. It safeguards the interests of children particularly the right of the child—the right of every child—to have both a mum and a dad. Of course there are many situations in life where that is not so. For example solo mothers tell me to keep saying what I am saying because their circumstances are not ideal and not the circumstances they wanted. They say that it is not great being poor or bringing up kids on their own. It is difficult and tough and they only wish that their lives could have been different. 
We need to continue to put that reality before this nation—that marriage is the best model. It is the best model for spouses for children and for society. If members in this House were serious about our appalling social statistics in terms of child violence imprisonment rates and fatherless families then we—like people in Australia—would have no hesitation in saying that marriage was important. I believe that it is important that Parliament this House speaks with a clear voice. To those who say that Parliament should not have any say in this matter I would ask them what on earth leadership is about. Is Parliament to give a lead on this matter or not? 
Tomorrow once the people of this nation know the names of members of this Parliament who voted for and against this bill they will make their own judgment. They will express that judgment as we all know in the reality of the 2008 election. To those members who tonight decide to second-guess the many many hundreds of thousands of people who specifically voted for their parties on the basis that those members would bring social engineering to an end—and I am particularly speaking now of the National Party which has even appointed an eradicator of political correctness—I say that those people will find that disappointing in the extreme and I believe that as a consequence we will see a great change. 
We have not heard the last of this matter by any means. This issue will not go away because the people of New Zealand want members to speak clearly. I appeal to Parliament once again tonight to speak with a clear voice and support this legislation. 
ANNE TOLLEY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. National will be voting on this bill by way of a split party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for informing me of that. That is a way we can proceed and those parties that are voting by means of a split party vote will recall Standing Order 144(2) and deliver the names to the Table immediately after. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand Labour 1 (Field); New Zealand National 36 (Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Bennett P Blue Borrows Brash Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Dean English Foss Goodhew Goudie Guy Hayes Heatley Hutchison KingC Mapp McCully Peachey Roy E Ryall Smith L Smith N Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Worth); New Zealand First 5 (Brown Paraone Peters Stewart Woolerton); United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2 
Noes 73 
New Zealand Labour 49 (Barker Barnett Benson-Pope Beyer Burton Carter C Chadwick Choudhary Clark Cosgrove Cullen Cunliffe Dalziel Duynhoven Dyson Fairbrother Fenton Gallagher Goff Gosche Hartley Hawkins Hereora Hobbs Hodgson Horomia Hughes Jones King A Laban Mackey Maharey Mahuta Mallard Moroney O’Connor Okeroa Parker Pettis Pillay Ririnui Robertson Samuels Street Sutton Swain Tizard Wilson Yates); New Zealand National 12 (Blumsky Connell Finlayson Groser Henare Key Power Rich Simich te Heuheu Williamson Wong); New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Mark); Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1 
Motion not agreed to. 
Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to have the bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee with a standard 6-month report-back time. 
This bill has been a long time in coming to its first reading. I managed to find in my files a press release dated Thursday 19 October 2000 when the bill was first suggested by myself. That just goes to show that we have now been on this matter for over 5 years. Darren Hughes the junior Government whip would do well to show such tenacity towards a piece of legislation that he cares about and brings by way of a member’s bill to this House. 
This bill allows law firms which must currently practise as sole practitioners or in partnerships to have the option of practising as a company under the Companies Act 1993. It seems that in contemporary circumstances where liability is effectively limited in many partnerships and law firms require equity capital for their expansion it is important to provide options for greater flexibility in structure and ownership consistent with the maintenance of the professional standards that have always applied to the legal profession. Accounting firms currently have the ability to practise in a corporate structure and it is my contention through this bill that law firms should also enjoy such flexibility. 
The bill makes amendments to the Law Practitioners Act 1982 that will permit lawyers to operate legal companies. As I said earlier the bill is neutral as to the model that lawyers elect to use; it simply provides lawyers with another option as to the way they structure their affairs. It puts lawyers operating as companies on the same footing as lawyers practising alone or in law firms operating under the Partnership Act 1908 and it is important to note that there is no change in the ability of lawyers to continue to operate on the traditional basis. I want to make two or three points very clear about that. The first is that the directors of legal companies but not their shareholders will be required to hold current practising certificates and will be subject like partners in law firms to requirements under the Law Practitioners Act relating to matters such as trust account maintenance professional discipline and contributions to the solicitors fidelity guarantee fund. 
The Minister of Justice Mark Burton has indicated to me that the Labour Party will support the referral of this matter to the select committee in the first instance and I am grateful for that opportunity. I understand that pieces of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill may well supersede parts of this bill although my view is that some of the emphasis is slightly different in that bill. I have explained to the Minister that if indeed the select committee makes a determination that one bill renders the other redundant then at that point there would be no point in continuing with the progress of this particular bill. However that is not a decision for me to make. Neither is it a decision quite frankly for the Minister to make. It is a decision for the select committee to make as it begins its deliberations hopefully after the bill makes it to a select committee. 
All the parties I have spoken to in the Chamber tonight—I have not had an opportunity to speak to representatives of the Maori Party—have indicated that they will support the passage of the bill to a select committee. Hone Harawira is now indicating that the Maori Party will also do so. That is very helpful and I thank him. So with that unanimous support this bill will be rushing to a select committee on a members’ evening. After only 5 years in the making it will now speedily make its way to a select committee for a swift resolution and return to the Chamber—by which time Clayton Cosgrove will probably be 65 or 70. Let us hope that the matter moves more swiftly in the select committee than it has in my short time in politics over the 5 years since I issued the first press release on this matter. 
At the time the bill was drafted I wrote to a large number of firms and law societies large small metropolitan and provincial to seek their views on the legislation. The result was from memory quite overwhelmingly supportive of this option being made available to practising law firms. On that basis I will resume my seat and wait for the contributions from other parties in the House which no doubt—like the passage of this bill—will be swift from this point on. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I am pleased to confirm on behalf of the Minister of Justice that the Labour caucus will support the referral of the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. However I am hopeful that the bill will not be required to be progressed beyond the passage of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill which is No. 16 on the Order Paper. The member may not have been aware that that bill has been reported back from the select committee. I had the privilege of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee and having a little bit to do with the detail and some of the amendments that went through it. 
I am certainly looking forward to the passage of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill because it contains some very important amendments to the law that a number of people are waiting for rather impatiently—like the Council of Legal Education and various others who have a great interest in progress being made—and I do hope that those who have been somewhat dilatory in their attitude towards the passage of the bill might well rethink that. 
In the meantime because there is no provision in the current law to allow for incorporation—so this is not a position that is inconsistent with our previous decision; the law does not provide for law firms to incorporate—we will enable a bill that would allow for incorporation to proceed to select committee. But again I am very hopeful that by the time the select committee has considered this bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill will have passed through all its remaining stages. 
The Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill itself deals with a workable regime for incorporated law firms. Maybe the member might like to clarify this in his right of reply but I understand that there are two differences between his bill and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill—that is lawyers actively involved in the provision of regulated services are the only ones who can be directors of the company or hold voting shares under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Now that is not a limitation that the member would impose. The holding of non-voting shares under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill extends to the relatives of those who provide regulated services as well. So there is quite a distinction and maybe there is room to consider those issues. 
But the other issue that is probably of more concern to me as I come from a legal background is that as I understand it the member’s bill would allow multidisciplinary law firms which is contrary to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. But again it would be good to have a clarification in the response from the member. I have been concerned for a long time that multidisciplinary practices compose risks as some types of occupations are quite incompatible with the professional standards that lawyers and conveyancers must comply with. I had quite a lengthy discussion about this in the select committee over the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. When qualified lawyers are actually operating without a practising certificate as employment consultants or immigration consultants and they describe themselves as employment law specialists or immigration law specialists they acquire the standing amongst their client base who are in fact totally unprotected. 
We have strengthened the provisions in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill—which is why I would encourage the National Party to get on with supporting us in getting that through the House—around those who hold themselves out to have particular standards in order to comply with certain professional bodies’ requirements but do so by the nature of their description rather than the actuality. They certainly do not have practising certificates. 
Maintaining legal professional privilege in a multidisciplinary environment is also another problem. If the member could clarify that that certainly would be of great comfort. So the Government will support the bill’s referral to the select committee consistent with its objective of enabling law firms to incorporate but we do anticipate that the bill will not need to progress once the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill is enacted—something that we urge the National Party to assist us with. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 We are going to support this bill. It makes sense to me and my colleagues that lawyers should be able to form a company and operate as a company under the Companies Act 1993. We are told by people who are more acquainted with the legal profession than certainly I am that that could be a significant advantage. I have no doubt that the select committee will examine the bill in detail. It is a little sad that this bill is likely to be overtaken by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. If I heard correctly from the honourable member who has just resumed her seat it is likely to be overtaken in a matter of weeks by the sounds of it. I have some sympathy for Simon Power who has waited 5 years for this bill to get here and now it will last only about 10 minutes. But New Zealand First will certainly support the referral of this bill to the select committee. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Truly this is magic legislation—magnificent in content well typed and not provoking much debate in this House because of its undoubted and intrinsic merit. But I would say this. This bill is necessary because of gross Government neglect and delay with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Those of us who have been on the Justice and Electoral Committee have suffered the tedium of sitting on that committee doing our work and watching the snail-pace progress of that legislation. 
I see on today’s Order Paper in the Government orders of the day that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill sits at position 16. It is stalled by the Government with the Committee stage yet to come. It is interesting to reflect on why that is. My own theory is that it is because it is useful for the Government to hold that legislation over the Law Society by dint of saying in effect that if the Law Society is quiet the Government will give further consideration to the advancement of that legislation. 
What Mr Power proposes in his Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill is eminently sensible because for a considerable period of time law firms have not had the ability to operate within a corporate model. Other stratagems have had to be resorted to such as trading trusts and the like. Just as other professions have moved to adopt vehicles appropriate for the delivery of professional services so too should lawyers have that opportunity. In every respect Mr Power is to be commended for this fine piece of work. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This bill is very important legislation and my colleague Simon Power has spent a lot of time on its preparation. As he said the bill had its genesis some time ago. My colleague Dr Richard Worth has articulated a very full understanding of the bill given his expertise and knowledge of such legal matters. Another learned colleague Chris Finlayson has decided not to take a call so as to enable me to speak and I certainly acknowledge that and thank him. We would like to see this bill passed before 10 o’clock. Therefore I will conclude so that the architect of the bill can have his right of reply. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Simon Power has a 5-minute right of reply. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It will not be 5 minutes. I thank the House for its support for passing this bill. I have to say it is good to have it off my shoulders; it has been a burden actually for 5 years! 
I want to assure the Hon Lianne Dalziel that the issue she raises about multidisciplinary practices and about others holding themselves out under legal practice umbrellas as specialising in areas of law without practising certificates is not an intended provision of the bill. The House can rest assured that in the event I am required to appear before the select committee I will certainly be making the point that there is no intention in the bill to allow that to occur. The bill is very definite about the fact that the same professional standards would apply as they currently do in a partnership or sole practitioner’s environment. I thank the House for its support on this bill. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
The House adjourned at 9.54 p.m.