Volume 607 Week 21 - Thursday 10 April 2003 
Volume 607 Week 21 - Thursday 10 April 2003 
[Volume:607;Page:5033] 
Thursday 10 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following the House rising today it will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 29 April it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) The Consumer Protection (Definition of Goods and Services) Bill and on Thursday 1 May the third reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday 30 April will be a members’ day. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 This is a little out of the ordinary but I wonder whether the Leader of the House might comment on the next members’ day and the discussion about the Prostitution Reform Bill. Does he have any thoughts about how the House might handle that legislation ? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes. The Committee has taken leave to take the bill in two questions: the title and the remainder of the bill. It is really in the hands of the House or the Committee as to how it proceeds on that matter but clearly debate has been going on for some time on the title of the bill. I think there was a feeling in the Business Committee—amongst a number of members anyway—that it might be useful to move on reasonably soon to the consideration of the details of the bill and the amendments that have been moved as people seem to be making up their minds fairly clearly on which way they will vote. 
Motions 
Motion on Iraq 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to move without notice a non-debatable motion congratulating our former allies in the coalition of the willing on the liberation of the people of Baghdad. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Food Labelling—Country of Origin 
1. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Did New Zealand support mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food at this week’s Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meeting and will she be implementing this policy direction in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 The Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council did not vote on the implementation of a mandatory country-of-origin labelling regime for food. The council agreed on the development of policy guidelines for Australia and from that policy a standard may be developed in the future. New Zealand does not support mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food as we already have policies in place to address that issue. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When the Government has meekly gone along with more than 59 joint Australia - New Zealand food standards including ones that allow more than 20 genetically engineered commodities and irradiated tropical fruit into our food chain why is it vehemently opposing a simple standard that will enable consumers to know where their food has come from—even to the point of threatening to pull out or to opt out of any joint standard that might be developed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: New Zealand does not support mandatory country-of-origin labelling because we have in place other legislation that covers that issue. I have to say to the member that New Zealand has not gone “meekly” along in agreeing with other food standards. We are an active part of the organisation and it is interesting to note that it was New Zealand that led the initiative for food labelling for genetically modified food. That member opposed it at the time; I gather she supports it now. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What recent reports has the Minister received regarding New Zealand producers’ view of country-of-origin labelling? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have received a letter from Meat New Zealand in which it states that mandatory country-of-origin labelling is unnecessary difficult to implement and police and costly to administer and that it will make food for New Zealand consumers more expensive. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why did the ministerial council then issue a joint communique stating: “The council’s support for country-of-origin labelling is on the grounds of enabling consumers to make informed choices.” if she is not going to follow through on that statement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It was the view of Ministers that for them for Australia they wanted mandatory country-of-origin labelling. This country has not supported that. We believe voluntary country-of-origin labelling is better and I understand that has been the position of the National Party for many years. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does the Government support mandatory country-of-origin labelling for wine and cheese but not for any other food; does that mean that consumers’ right to know what is in the food we eat is entirely subordinate to trade interests? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There has been a requirement for wine in particular to be labelled. That has come from overseas requirements not from New Zealand’s view on whether we should have mandatory or voluntary labelling. 
Judy Turner 
: Could the Minister let us know of any advice she has received on the cost to New Zealand business if we were to go that way? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is the view of those who manufacture food that the cost of compliance is very heavy indeed in that the labelling of food in a mandatory way requires that everything in the food that is from another country be labelled. Maybe a food could be made up of many different elements. That is difficult to identify so it becomes very costly and it is much better to ensure that food is safe by using good food regulations. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does New Zealand oppose this country-of-origin labelling when Australians such as the Queensland Premier argue that it protects public health and safety makes it easier to recall potentially contaminated food helps to prevent bioterrorism helps consumers to make informed choices about the foods they purchase and promotes trade and when even the Americans are introducing mandatory country-of-origin labelling for fruit fish vegetables and so forth? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I have told that member we do not support it because we have other mechanisms for ensuring that people know where their food comes from. The member believes in what we already have in place because I have a copy of her letter in which she is already using the mechanisms that are in place—that is the Fair Trading Act—because she believes a manufacturer has not labelled correctly. She is using the very mechanisms that are in place to get some recourse for that. 
Iraq—Apology to United States 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will she retract and apologise for her comments about the United States and the war in Iraq; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government has expressed a principled and consistent position on the war and is backed by most New Zealanders in so doing. With regard to comments of mine to which offence has been taken I have apologised for the offence that was taken. I am moving on and I suggest the member do likewise—as most of his caucus would like him to do. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the United States administration accepted her apology for her inappropriate comments; if so how was that conveyed to the New Zealand Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not asked anybody to accept anything. I have had a message conveyed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister in respect of her remarks yesterday when she said “I meant what I said” what did she mean? Was it first that September 11 under Democrat Al Gore would not have had this consequence for Iraq or second “I leave it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to convey it”—that is the apology—“as they see fit” or third in respect of whether she stood by her comments on 1 April “Yes my comments about a Gore presidency were appropriate and neither here nor there.”; in which of those three statements is she standing by what she said? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat: my statements were matters of opinion which were interpreted by some as offensive and I have apologised for the offence that was taken. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the real reason that the Prime Minister feels she cannot retract her present inadequate apology that it has already been reported by the  
CBS News 
 the New York  
Newsday 
 Asia Pacific Media Services the  
South China Morning Post 
 Brunei online  
The Statesman 
 the 
 Guardian 
 the  
Sydney Morning Herald 
 Agence France-Presse and the Pakistan paper  
The Nation; 
 and has she ever been so well reported before? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It sounds like far more profile than the member will ever have. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of an apology from the German President Johannes Rau after he attacked George Bush for claiming in Mr Rau’s words “a sign from God to liberate another people” and Mr Rau continued “Nowhere does the Bible call for crusades.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I am not. But I am aware that in recent weeks many harsh things have been said. I think it is important now that everybody moves on and looks to the rebuilding of Iraq. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she issued the instructions to apologise for the offence taken because John Wood and/or Fred Benson told her that the US required her to apologise? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Absolutely not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Whilst fully understanding her desire to “move on” as she puts it why does she not in the interests of a fulsome apology admit that she was plain wrong about her statements? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said the statements were matters of opinion. I regret that offence was taken from them. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would it not help us all to move on if the Prime Minister was to now admit that the reality is that there are two apologies: the apology she gives in this House apologising if others are offended and the second apology her grovelling abasement apology in Washington; and if she was to table that apology would that not enable us all to move on? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There was no “if” about it. Offence was taken and I apologised for the fact that it was. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask a question about whether offence had been taken. The question I asked was whether there were two apologies and would it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister were to admit that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That may have been the question asked and if it was the Prime Minister addressed it in her answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of her remarks about the war not going according to plan and the comments about Al Gore and whether he should have been the President could she tell us now whether she is still of the same opinion—yes or no? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Those are matters of opinion that I will not be repeating. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the only warning today and the member is very lucky—very lucky. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement “I’m really quite puzzled as to why offence would be taken”; and if she stands by that statement why does she stand by it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I was puzzled but on reflection I accept that in the middle of a war with feelings running high something said somewhere some time is almost bound to cause offence. 
Tertiary Education—Medical Training 
3.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to ensure the tertiary education system can meet the needs of the medical workforce? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 The cap on funded medical students will increase from 285 full-time students to 325 per year coming into effect in the next academic year. That will significantly boost New Zealand’s medical practitioner workforce. In particular we intend to promote the areas of general practice and mental health. We need more people in those two areas as we implement the primary health-care strategy and continue implementing the Mental Health Commission’s blueprint. The increase will cost the Government about $4.8 million per annum when it is fully implemented and the extra places will be shared equally between Otago and Auckland. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What previous consideration has been given to raising the cap on funded medical students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The enrolment cap has not changed since 1981. The Health Workforce Advisory Committee recently noted that in 1991 reforms had rejected a developmental approach to the health workforce as “being an aspect of provider capture and an unnecessary interference by the State in the marketplace.” A request was made to the then Minister of Health to raise the cap on funded medical students in 1997. It was however considered as premature to raise the cap according to Mr Bill English—perhaps another example of his inaction for which he is in trouble with his own caucus. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Given that New Zealand is competing in an international market for medical graduates how will primary health organisations which take away clinical governance from general practitioners and cap the co-payments they can charge attract trained general practitioners to bother to stay in New Zealand—they will not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that the member is wrong on both counts. But as the person responsible for tertiary education I applaud the Minister of Health for having a development plan for the health workforce. That was not there in the 1990s and the problems we face now are a result of the previous National Government. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked in respect of competing in the international marketplace how that would help doctors to remain here— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister started off by saying that the member was wrong on both counts. That was in my view a direct answer to the question. The member might not agree with it but that is how questions go. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When will the Government reduce the $9000-a-year fees that medical students currently pay which result in an astonishing high average cost of $70000 for graduating medical students and is driving them to seek higher-paying positions overseas? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: For all students of course costs are lower because of such policies as paying no interest on loans. But I think the member obviously has a point that is shared across Parliament. There are some students—vets doctors and perhaps dentists as well—for whom we have halved the fees that were set by the previous National Government. So in addition to the measures we have already taken we will look at the issues of scholarships and bonding around this particular Budget and will be reviewing student support. We will have a discussion paper out around the middle of the year to look at those issues. 
Immigration Service—Activities Abroad 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: With respect to her answer to question number 10 on Tuesday 8 April expressing her confidence in the Minister of Immigration what inquiries if any had she personally made regarding New Zealand Immigration Service activities abroad over the last 3 years before she gave her answer? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have no need to make such inquiries as I have confidence that the Minister deals capably with the detail of issues in her portfolio. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is that so? Well how come her Minister was advised last year that New Delhi officials within the high commission are allowing directions to be given outside the high commission by an Indian chap wishing to become an instant millionaire by selling visas at $250 a pop to all and sundry—a complaint made to her Minister about which she has done nothing like everything else she has been asked to look into?  
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This Government does not tolerate corruption. Any allegations are investigated. 
Pansy Wong 
: How can she claim that the Minister is capable when the solution offered by her Minister of Immigration to the embarrassing situation of students queuing up overnight to get their student permits reviewed is to withdraw that same-day service when many students who are enrolling for 4 to 6 week courses would not be able to do so in future because it takes 5 weeks to do it by post? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I imagine that the Minister and her officials would take whatever steps they deemed necessary to deal with the demand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Prime Minister tell me whether she thinks it fit that a Minister of Immigration who has been advised of this in respect of immigration officials allowing—and I read from a letter here—someone to sit under a tree outside immigration offices on the street leading to the railway museum in New Delhi to sell visas on their behalf and take instructions from him; if the Minister heard this and has done nothing should that Minister not simply be fired? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat: this Government does not tolerate corruption nor has any New Zealand Government ever tolerated corruption. All allegations will be investigated. 
Economy Research Fund—Investment 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: How much does the Government invest through the New Zealand Economy Research Fund and how has the level of this investment changed in recent years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Since assuming office this Government has strongly supported this excellent fund established by my excellent predecessor Maurice Williamson. New funding has more than trebled over that time and some existing funding has been shifted across. In all the fund has grown from $5 million to $55 million in 3 short years. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What are some tangible results from this investment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are many and they are coming thick and fast. In the last 3 years for example New Zealand science has made huge strides in identifying how genes control heart-muscle growth how chemical technology can improve the properties of paint and how we recognise speech. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Given that  
Forced 
 told the  
New Zealand Herald  
in January: “There is little hard evidence that the public investment in RST is driving high and sustainable economic growth.” what hard and objective evidence can he give that his Government’s nerve for investment will drive high and sustainable economic growth? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One answer is international comparisons. It is very clear that those countries that invest in research and development put themselves on to a growth path better than those that do not. The second answer is the foundation’s own progress and achievement reports which have been instituted since I have been the Minister and which are progressively showing firmer and firmer—but still not firm enough—data on the linkages. 
Rod Donald 
: How much of the fund has been allocated to date to support the development of renewable energy technologies and if none has been will any funds be made available for this purpose in the near future to help address New Zealand’s energy problems? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not know the answer to the first question. The answer to the second is that the new Economy Research Fund is given out on the basis of the quality and relevance of the bid not on some predetermined predilection for some technology. 
Points of OrderQuestion No. 4 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter of 14 February written to the general manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service and counter-copied to Phil Goff MP for Mt Roskill setting out six cases of fraudulent activities relating to the New Delhi embassy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Iraq—Apology to United States 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she or her Government receive a message from the New Zealand Ambassador to Washington that a two-pronged strategy was necessary to repair the damage caused by her comments about the war in Iraq; if so what were the two prongs of the strategy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am certainly not aware of the ambassador delivering such a message. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Government make a commitment to the coalition to send peacekeepers to Iraq when that would be a strong signal that she genuinely did want to fix the damage done by her ill-judged comments? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No peacekeepers have been asked for but I can advise the member that the Government is active in talking with Washington and other capitals and the UN about what kind of assistance can be rendered. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Is New Zealand making plans to contribute to humanitarian and reconstruction relief in post-conflict Iraq? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes. As I just advised diplomatic discussions have been going on for some weeks between New Zealand and a number of Governments including the American one and with the UN and they are continuing. We want to see humanitarian concerns addressed as soon as possible and for the international community to now pull together to help the people of Iraq. We also want that to be done in a way that involves the UN to the maximum extent possible. I repeat: we have been expressing those sentiments for many weeks. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the importance of this matter to her fellow countrymen and women and to this country’s economy does she think it right and proper that she should give a total and fulsome apology and admit that her focus group - oriented comment with regard to Al Gore was plain wrong; in the interests of this nation are we not all owed that now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have answered that and similar questions many times and I stand absolutely by the position this Government has taken which is that participation in this war was wrong. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to the Prime Minister’s answer I never asked her anything to do with the involvement of New Zealand or otherwise in the war in Iraq. I asked her whether she was prepared to humble herself for the first time for a long time and make a fulsome apology to the President of the United States. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point not a point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will she clarify her denial of any knowledge of a two-pronged strategy against the front-page story in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 which stated: “The US message—conveyed separately through New Zealand’s Washington Ambassador John Wood and United States - New Zealand Council President Fred Benson—was that a two-pronged strategy was necessary to repair the damage. First New Zealand needed to set the record straight over Helen Clark’s statements. Second New Zealand needed to give a clear undertaking to the United States to assist in post-war reconstruction.”; so is the Prime Minister telling us that everything in that statement is not true? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I am saying is that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 is often wrong. I have received no communication whatsoever from Mr Benson. I am not aware of any communication received in Wellington from Mr Benson. I know that that was not the communication Mr Wood sent. What happened was that I spoke to Mr Wood after he had reported that offence had been taken and I gave him a verbal authorisation to convey my regrets sorrow and apology. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister still stand by the policy statement of her Government that New Zealand will take no part in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq unless the UN is in control of Iraq and has she given any undertakings to take part while the US remains in control? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government is having discussions in a number of capitals and with the UN about the legal basis for providing assistance. We are very keen to help the people of Iraq. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Prime Minister given any undertaking in the last 2 weeks that New Zealand will take part in post-war reconstruction in Iraq while the US is in charge? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Like most countries we are talking with many capitals and the UN about how we can provide assistance. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a direct question to which the Prime Minister could have said yes or no and she did not answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course the Prime Minister could have said yes or no but she chose not to. She addressed the question. I am not here to judge the quality of the answer in any way at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are quite right to say that except that in most Parliaments the kind of answer given by the Prime Minister would be simply unacceptable. The Speaker would find it unacceptable as would the press gallery and every parliamentarian. If we are to go on with answers that are totally evasive and rely on the Standing Order that allows a member to give any old answer he or she likes provided an answer is given then frankly this House is being gravely— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members cannot— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I haven’t finished yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I have. I want the member to sit down. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will be up again when you have finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members will— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We have a right to make a point of order in this House haven’t we? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members do not have a right to go on and on. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I haven’t finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say something first. Members cannot prescribe how Ministers answer questions by saying that they should answer yes or no. I know of no Parliament in the world that acts in the way that the member says. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is obvious to a lot of New Zealanders—even if it is not apparent to you—that that form of answering is the lowest this House has ever been in my time in Parliament. I have been here long enough to know that when the Prime Minister rose she was required to answer for her Government. We are now putting up with evasive answers for the first time and are still being told to refer to ministries ambassadors high commissioners and other people within the Prime Minister’s control. If we are to go on like that then it is pointless to have any question time at all. We are coming to the end of a long week. We have had some serious issues to do with our foreign policy and long-term economic interests and we have had no answers at all today as we go to a break. The Prime Minister can laugh but I am giving my view and the view of my party which I believe is the view of a lot of people both within this House and around this country. We deserve better and I am asking you to ensure that that happens. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot do that because I cannot prescribe how Ministers will answer questions. However I can say that as far as I am concerned everything the member said is the sort of thing he can comment on outside the House or in debate. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect there is something you can do. You are not responsible for Ministers’ answers but someone has just drawn Speaker’s ruling 128/4 to my attention which was made by Speaker Gray in 1992. It states: “If the Speaker feels that a Minister is trifling with the House the Chair can permit a further question or questions to be asked.” I just want to let you know that when that question was asked I was thinking about asking a supplementary question about it. Mr English asked a very important question. He asked whether the New Zealand Government was prepared to give aid to Iraq while the coalition of the willing was in charge or whether it will wait in the hope that the UN will take charge. The Prime Minister did not have to give a yes or no answer to that but she should have answered it. It is quite obvious to me that she was trifling with the House. She knew what the question was but she would not answer it. If I were to ask a supplementary question I would be using up the quota that you have given me but if you were to allow some extra questions on this matter I would most certainly ask that question again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that I stand by what Speaker Gray said. If there is a distinct trifling with the House then of course I am going to allow questions. I had to judge the Prime Minister’s answer. I judged that she was addressing the question. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The difficulty we run into now is that if we look at the ruling that Speaker Gray gave in 1992 we see that he is suggesting that if the questioner—the Opposition or whoever might be asking the question—is not satisfied there is an opportunity for further questions to be permitted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On certain grounds. 
John Carter 
: Yes on certain grounds. The problem is that under the system we have now of permitting only so many questions per question and so many questions per question time we are limited to the questions that we can ask because we run out of supplementary questions. In circumstances like that where we are not satisfied I think it would be appropriate for you as the Speaker to allow further supplementary questions to be asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will look at that particular point but the very important issue is this: if I judge that Speaker Gray’s ruling stands on a particular answer then of course I can allow other questions. On this occasion I do not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Then I seek leave to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s question again without it being taken away from the Opposition’s quota. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of your statement when this issue first became the matter of inquiry. I think I heard you say that you do not judge the reply in any way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I did not quite say that. 
Stephen Franks 
: Then I think it requires clarification. It would be helpful because it is impossible to apply Speaker Gray’s ruling if you are not judging whether a reply addresses the question. Further—like I am sure many New Zealanders—I have been watching the performance of Tony Blair in the British Parliament and members of the Australian House. I am quite satisfied that question time in this House would be a matter of derision for people making comparisons. They are required to address questions and this House is reaching a stage where question time is becoming something to be embarrassed about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say that in no Parliament can the Speaker answer questions for Ministers or tell Ministers that they must answer in a certain way. The Speaker can let questions continue—notwithstanding any other rule—if a Minister trifles with the House. But just because members are not satisfied is not a reason for allowing further questions. I might point out that when I watched question time in the House of Commons there was I think just one point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Speaker’s ruling—and just to make sure that we all understand what she has said—can I ask the Prime Minister whether her Government intends to be involved in respect of the reconstruction of Iraq under the aegis of the United States and the coalition of the willing or is it her intention to wait until the United Nations is involved? Which is it to be? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has taken a decision to be helpful. It is exploring how it can be helpful. It has already committed $3.3 million. That will presumably be spent while the US is in Iraq. We are continuing to develop a response on the issue as most countries are. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the New Zealand Government made any undertakings to the coalition of the willing or to the United States Government that it will take part in post-war reconstruction while the coalition of the willing is in charge of Iraq? Has she made any undertakings in that respect? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I thought that my last answer was very clear. The money we have committed to the UN humanitarian agencies will obviously be spent while the US is in Iraq itself. We are continuing to talk with Governments including the American one. As the member knows well New Zealand was not a member of the coalition of the willing. He was a member of the coalition of the barely willing. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Every time the Leader of the Opposition asks a question he interjects continuously throughout the answer. I do not even think he knows he is doing it. I suggest to you Mr Speaker that following the previous points of order if there are to be penalty points on this side then frequent useless points of order and interjections should lead to fewer questions. Contrary to what Mr Peters says in Australia there are no supplementary questions at all during question time. Members get to ask one question and the Minister kicks the hell out of them for 5 minutes—if they are lucky. 
John Carter 
: The reason that there are interjections and endless points of order as claimed by the Deputy Prime Minister is because the Opposition is not satisfied with the Prime Minister’s answer. As a consequence she is likely to bring disorder to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that as long as I have been here I do not know when an Opposition has ever been completely satisfied with any Minister’s answers. 
Electricity—Thermal Stations 
7.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he agree that although New Zealand has enough back-up generation capacity at its thermal power stations to meet electricity demand this winter the depletion of Maui means there may not be enough fuel available to run them? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I agree with the view expressed by electricity industry spokesperson Dr Patrick Strange yesterday that we cannot yet be certain that there will be enough thermal electricity generation if the winter is dry and cold but that generators are working very hard to improve the thermal fuel situation by sourcing additional coal and other fuel supplies. 
Gordon Copeland 
: In order to address the potential thermal generation fuel shortage what action if any will he take to assist New Zealand’s thermal electricity generators to acquire extra fuel such as coal in sufficient quantities and within the increasingly tight time frame needed to avert electricity shortages this winter. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member might not be aware that Genesis Energy Solid Energy New Zealand Tranz Rail the Government the port of Tauranga and a lot of other people have been working very seriously on the issue and are starting to make some progress. 
Mark Peck 
: What information does the Minister have on generators’ progress in sourcing further fuel supplies for thermal generation this winter? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: My advice is that Contact Energy is on track to switch its New Plymouth station from gas to fuel oil by June—or at least the first of those stations will be switched by 1 June—and that Genesis has contracted with Solid Energy for a significant increase in coal supplies for Huntly. Genesis is also making plans to import extra coal to meet winter peak demands. I am pleased that generators have agreed to update the Winter Power Taskforce every week on progress in securing thermal supplies so that that information is made public regularly. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister clarify that he is absolutely certain that in the short term there will be an actual shortage of gas and not—as rumour is suggesting—a reduced amount because of contractual difficulties? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The amount of gas available that is economically recoverable has been determined by an independent expert. That amount of gas differs from the total amount that is recoverable at some other price. 
Stephen Franks 
: What is the Minister doing to stop the Department of Conservation blocking the mining of huge new West Coast coal deposits so that next year we do not have to import 600000 tonnes of coal from our environmentally sensitive friends in Indonesia? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Importing coal from Australia is cheaper than importing it from the West Coast of the South Island. 
Gordon Copeland 
: In order to address the potential electricity supply shortfall this winter does he have any immediate plans to instigate further electricity conservation measures such as endorsing the Winter Power Taskforce call for voluntary electricity savings of 5 percent or encouraging the uptake of alternative energy sources such as solar-powered water heating systems? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am of course working closely with that group as it comes to that figure of 5 percent and I am delighted that it is showing the leadership that it is. Of course I endorse that call as I did roundly yesterday. As for solar water heaters there may or may not be some announcements before the Budget. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wanted to raise this point at the end of this question because yesterday I asked you for a considered ruling—which you will no doubt give us when the House resumes after the adjournment—on the issue of the time that the House spent on Tuesday in relation to the answers given by the Prime Minister. Today we have ended up in a similar situation whereby our leader and others have asked a number of questions because they were not satisfied with the answers given by the Prime Minister. The end result is that we lose the opportunity to ask supplementary questions on other questions. In those circumstances I wonder whether there is the opportunity for you to permit extra supplementary questions to be asked. Otherwise we will be cut out of our opportunity to ask a supplementary question on this energy question for example. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can seek leave and I presume he is doing so. Is there any objection? There is. 
Iraq—Prime Minister's View 
8.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What advice if any did she take before stating it was “bleedingly obvious” that the war in Iraq was not going to plan and does she still hold this view? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I did not need specific advice. There was ample public comment to that effect including that from a US Army ground commander. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister not accept that her decisions and statements about Iraq have resulted in New Zealand for the first time ever being opposed to our traditional allies Australia the United States and the UK and that there will be long-term adverse consequences to New Zealand from her misjudgments? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I do not accept any of that. There were many countries in this sad affair that took a different view from a traditional friend and ally. The obvious examples are Canada—a country also very close to us—and many countries in Europe. What I believe that most New Zealanders feel is what the dean of Auckland cathedral wrote today: that New Zealand retained its integrity as a nation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Prime Minister admit that she took the advice of a few armchair generals on CNN that that is hardly the advice structure that the New Zealand Government and Prime Minister should be following and that as a result she was plain wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Perhaps the member would like to hear from Lieutenant-General William Wallace the head of the US fifth corps now who said: “The enemy we’re fighting is a bit different from the one we war-gamed against.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Prebble’s question is set down to the Prime Minister not to a military official from the United States. If she cannot hack it why does she not give up the job? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed the question. I call the Hon Bill English to ask a supplementary question. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Here today gone tomorrow. 
Hon Bill English 
: No here tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Fortunately that comment was made before the Leader of the Opposition started to ask the question. If there is any other comment the member will leave. I am very displeased; the member is a senior whip. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am still waiting for the answer to my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not a matter for a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a supplementary question. I am contesting the Prime Minister’s right to answer it in the way that she sought to by quoting from a military official. I asked her whether she had an advice structure upon which she as the Prime Minister the leading Minister of this country relied. I am waiting for my answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She used the example of a fighting officer in the field to address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is the American fighting officer in the field a New Zealand official? Is he part of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade? Is he part of our Ministry of Defence? If the answer is no then the Prime Minister’s answer is wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. The Prime Minister’s answer was not what the member wanted to hear but the Prime Minister addressed the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that her comments damaged our national interests; if not why did she apologise? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I place great value on the friendship with the United States. I was concerned that offence had been taken and that is why I moved quickly to rectify it. 
Keith Locke 
: Did the Prime Minister receive advice on whether George Bush’s plan anticipated such strong initial resistance in southern Iraq American bombs falling on marketplaces and residential areas many friendly fire incidents the killing of several journalists and anarchy in the major cities when the awesome American firepower finally prevailed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member’s question reminds us of the terrible human toll on all sides when war actually occurs. I have had my attention drawn by many people to many comments about the state of readiness. I do not wish to add further to the debate. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that the Prime Minister once thought the war was not going to plan will she tell this House now whether she thinks it has gone to plan? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am very pleased that the war appears to be virtually at an end. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that she has every single issue over the Iraq war wrong so that today as the people of Baghdad celebrate their liberation New Zealand finds itself on the wrong side; if so in the Westminster tradition should the Prime Minister not take responsibility and resign and then we could all move on? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When the dean of Auckland writes that New Zealand has retained its integrity as a nation I know that we have done just about everything right. The only resignation being called for is the Leader of the Opposition’s. 
Economy—Information and Communications Technology 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Information Technology 
: What reports has he received on the potential of the information and communications technology sector to assist with New Zealand’s economic growth? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister for Information Technology) 
: 
 The information and communications technology task force set up under the growth and innovation framework has delivered an excellent draft report to the Government entitled  
Breaking Through the Barriers 
. It has identified practical ways by which the information and communications technology sector could contribute to economic growth in New Zealand and the importance of the partnership between the Government and the information and communications technology sector to achieve that growth. I have welcomed the report. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other initiatives in the area of information and communications technology has the Government introduced over the past 3 years? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are far too many to mention so I will just touch on a couple. The Government is funding the roll-out of high-speed Internet to all regions it is implementing the e-government strategy and it has improved the telecommunications regulatory regime in New Zealand. This is a visionary proactive 21st century kind of Government. 
Free-Trade Agreement—United States 
10.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: What does the United States trade policy agenda for 2003 say about the possibility of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand and when does he expect such an agreement to be negotiated? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 The US trade policy agenda focuses on initiatives that the office of the US Trade Representative currently has under way. It therefore does not mention a trade agreement with New Zealand. That possibility was explicitly mentioned by Ambassador Zoellick last November when he said: “We will be soliciting the views of Congress on this matter as we move forward with the Australian FTA.” Those negotiations with Australia have just commenced. The possibility of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand was also raised with the US Trade Representative during testimony in the US Congress Ways and Means Committee meeting on the US trade policy agenda. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the reason New Zealand is not included among the countries with which the United States is proposing to negotiate free-trade agreements in the future—countries including Australia Morocco Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Botswana Lesotho Namibia and Swaziland—that we are now less relevant or is there some other reason; if so what? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: As the largest marketplace in the world the US was always going to have a busy dance card. Aside from the North America Free Trade Agreement the US has only recently become interested in what Bob Zoellick calls competitive liberalisation. The US clearly has a broad range of reasons for initiating negotiations with many countries from South Africa to Vietnam—most of which have disagreed with US policies on occasion. We are actively working to encourage the United States to add New Zealand to that dance card. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Specifically what has the Government been doing to advance the case for a trade agreement in Washington? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: We have attracted encouraging support amongst the US business community and in Congress for a trade agreement with New Zealand. Over 250 US businesses have signed a letter to the US administration. Fifty members of the House of Representatives signed a letter prepared by Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn and 20 senators signed letters to the US President in support of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why does the Minister for Trade Negotiations not admit to this House that since the armchair generalship of the Prime Minister there is no possibility of a free-trade agreement between New Zealand and the United States of America while Helen Clark is Prime Minister? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I do not believe that the member’s comments are true at all. It is the Government’s hope and expectation that the relationship with the United States will stay strong despite our differences over the war in Iraq. If there were any damage I know that the honourable members of the Opposition would do their level best to maximise it. 
Rod Donald 
: Would this Government ever adopt a trade policy that sacrificed fundamental New Zealand principles such as a multilateral world order and the right and responsibility of the Government to protect New Zealand’s sovereignty and foster our identity just so that it could get a free-trade deal with the United States? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: This Government has clearly decided it will not sacrifice our integrity and our right to make principled decisions on foreign policy that serve the interests of our people. 
Larry Baldock 
: Given that the US trade policy agenda in 2003 mentions that the US has concerns over New Zealand’s genetic modification (GM) moratorium as one of the roadblocks to free-trade negotiations is the Minister confident of New Zealand’s improved ranking when the moratorium is lifted this October? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: New Zealand has discussed our approach to GM issues extensively with the United States—an information exchange that has greatly assisted it to understand better the approach we have taken. New Zealand can be proud of our robust common-sense decision on GM and of the democratic and open process by which it has been developed. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: In what way does the Minister think the Prime Minister’s “bleedingly obvious” comments about what an Al Gore administration might have done differently in Iraq—comments that she has claimed “were measured and acceptable”—and her limited apology for them have assisted in getting New Zealand on to the US free-trade negotiations agenda which includes 100 countries but not New Zealand? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Apart from noting that the member double-counts quite a number of those countries I simply reinforce what I said earlier. If there were any damage from those alarms and discursive events I know I could rely on the honourable member of the Opposition to try to maximise that. 
Points of OrderQuestion No. 11 to Minister 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to give a considered ruling on a matter that I want to draw to the attention of the House. We have a question that is unusual. It has been put down by a member on a local issue within the member’s electorate. The questioner asks the Minister of Land Information for information on what is happening with the Alexandra Holiday Park. I want to raise two points with you. It seems that the House will spend some time discussing this matter when yesterday the member announced what was to happen as published in today’s  
Otago Daily Times 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The second point that I want to raise with you is given that he made the announcement how was the question authenticated? Was it by his own statement because that is the only statement that is around at the moment? One wonders whether that means that anybody can put out a statement on any particular point and then say that this is authentication for a question in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see any statement of fact in there. 
Alexandra Holiday Park—Camping Ground 
11.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What action is the Government taking to ensure that the Alexandra Holiday Park will continue to be a camping ground? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Land Information 
: The Government has decided to make a lease available for the property on the strict condition that it must continue to be used as a camping ground. This decision responds to local wishes as opposed to selling it freeholding it and having it not as a camping ground. This decision responds to local wishes to retain the site as a holiday park—articulated strongly repeatedly and with unassailable logic by the member for Otago Mr Parker. 
David Parker 
: What impact will this decision have on the sale price the Government will obtain for the property? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Surprisingly very little. The value of the long-term lease will be only marginally less than that of the freehold title. Again the member for Otago was instrumental in drawing this important consideration to the Government’s attention. 
John Carter 
: I seek leave of the House to table the  
Otago Daily Times 
 of today in which Mr David Parker announced the decision yesterday. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Literacy—Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why does he describe the results of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study released yesterday as “very pleasing” when New Zealand primary schools are ranked second-worst at reading among English-speaking countries and fall behind the Czech Republic Hungary and Lithuania? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education))  
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Education 
: The study undertaken in 2001 shows that New Zealand primary school students’ overall performance in reading is virtually the same as it was in 1990. However the results also indicate that far more work could have been done during the 1990s to further improve the reading literacy levels of all primary school students. This is why the Government has focused on literacy. For example this year we are investing nearly $12 million to lift teacher professional capability in literacy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the National Party has used up its supplementary questions. Are there any further supplementary questions? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Mr Speaker you have effectively eliminated my opportunity to have my first supplementary question. I seek leave of the House to ask a further supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a perfectly reasonable request. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What initiatives have the Government put in place to raise the literacy rate of school students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The initiatives include the literacy leadership programme assisting principals and school literacy leaders to improve literacy levels; the recently released Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning helping schools identify specific areas of reading writing and innumeracy where students are having difficulty so problems can be picked up and dealt with early; and finally better support and resources for teachers to enhance their classroom programmes and practice. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How bad would the reading ability of New Zealand children have to be for this Minister not to be pleased especially since he thinks being second-worst in the English-speaking world is very pleasing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Part of the pleasure that the Minister of Education has is in the assurance that we are maintaining ourselves in terms of comparisons but I do say to the member that what we are comparing here is not quite what it seems. For example Dr Smith has put out a release today that compared us back to 1970 until this report. In 1970 the assessment was of fourth-form or 14-year-old students; the 2001 report is of 9-year-old students. For this country by the time students reach 15 years of age we are third in the world. I think the Minister of Education takes some pleasure from that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The acting Minister of Education could get a job as the Information Minister for Iraq. We are the second-worst country in the English language we are behind the Czech Republic and Lithuania and he gets up and tells us that everything is OK. That cannot be a satisfactory answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very interesting comment for Thursday afternoon. As the member knows that is not a point of order. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister accept that the report’s finding of reading literacy rates in New Zealand remaining stagnant over the last 10 years is really an appalling indictment of two consecutive Governments’ 10-year failure in tackling our woeful literacy rates? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is an indictment of the National Government during the 1990s which is why of course we have made literacy such a high priority for this Government. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we should allow the Minister to finish. He was asked about two Governments. He has told us about the National Government. Can he tell us now what he thinks of the Labour Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is trifling with the Chair because the member did address that part of the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can it be acceptable in this House that now in three answers the Minister has given he has made reference to National’s period of administration and there has been no step-in by yourself—and that is all OK—yet you are blocking the opportunity for this side of the House to ask supplementary questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not blocking the opportunity at all. I have allocated a number at the start of this session and that is it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is certainly within your discretion as pointed out by the Hon Richard Prebble under Speaker Gray’s ruling where the Prime Minister early in the day evaded questions so as not to include those in the allocation granted to National. That assumption was clearly made earlier in question time and quite rightly given the Prime Minister’s answers. I am simply asking you to use the discretion that Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders give to allow a perfectly reasonable question on a critical issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members have to make their own choices as to where their questions lie and where their priorities lie. In asking supplementary questions this Parliament spends more time on questions than any other Parliament I know of. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister accept that until we make improvements in the basics of education such as ensuring that all New Zealanders learn to read adequately we cannot even begin to expect to regain our place in the top 10 of the OECD? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the first education announcement of the Labour Government to cancel National’s literacy testing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the previous Government’s strategy that every 9-year-old should be able to read by 2005 abandoned by this Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the 2001 select committee report on reading where there are 51 recommendations that the Government has ignored. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is now getting to the point where the member can have his last one. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the report that shows that New Zealand has the second-lowest literacy levels of any English-speaking country in the survey. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We just saw what I think is an extraordinary event. Every member in this House has a right to seek leave to table documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and I just want to say to the member that I made a mistake. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 The primary purpose of this bill is to establish an Accident Compensation Corporation petrol levy. I intend to refer it at the appropriate time to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Previously an Accident Compensation Corporation amount was collected alongside the petrol excise duty but this was not an Accident Compensation Corporation levy. It was also not possible to change the petrol amount without either making legislative amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 or affecting Crown revenue. This bill will enable changes to the rate of the petrol levy without legislative amendment. The Accident Compensation Corporation motor vehicle account covers the costs of all motor vehicle - related injuries. The motor vehicle account has recently faced a significant increase in costs. There is a legal requirement to collect enough levy to fully fund the motor vehicle account. 
The increases have resulted primarily from improved estimates of long-term rehabilitation costs for seriously injured claimants and underlying cost increases. The estimates were improved as a result of isolating and better understanding the rehabilitation costs for seriously injured claimants. The motor vehicle account has the highest proportion of serious injuries of all the Accident Compensation Corporation accounts. The improved estimates and underlying cost increases therefore affect the motor vehicle account disproportionately more than the other Accident Compensation Corporation accounts. 
The Act focuses on rehabilitation it aims to restore to the maximum extent practicable the health independence and participation of claimants including those who are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Increasing costs in the account particularly in relation to rehabilitation means that the motor vehicle account is in deficit in relation to future liabilities from past injuries. 
Our Government is working towards keeping costs of motor vehicle accidents down. We have developed the New Zealand injury prevention strategy which includes reducing motor vehicle injuries as a priority. We have also developed the New Zealand transport strategy which again has safety as a focus. 
The Government considered options of the best way of funding the Accident Compensation Corporation motor vehicle account. In recent years most increases in the motor vehicle account costs have been absorbed into the annual vehicle-licensing fee. The cost of vehicle licensing has increased to a point where there may be adverse social impacts. Some people had difficulty paying the licensing fee because it was a high one-off cost. A small number of people have not been licensing their vehicles at all. Having unlicensed vehicles on the road is not consistent with decreasing motor vehicle accident rates. 
 The Government wants transport to be affordable for all New Zealanders and we want vehicles to be safe on our roads. The Accident Compensation Corporation consulted widely on the options for Accident Compensation Corporation motor vehicle account funding. Many New Zealanders indicated they would prefer to absorb the increases in the accident compensation motor vehicle account as part of the petrol amount rather than as an addition to the annual vehicle-licensing fee. The Government agreed with this approach. Absorbing the increase as a petrol amount is seen to be fairer and avoids some adverse social impacts of increasing the annual vehicle-licensing fee. 
Petrol usage is broadly correlated to risk in terms of distance travelled on the road. In December last year following public consultation the Government announced that for the 2004-05 levy year the petrol amount will be raised from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre. This bill brings into effect those changes and establishes the petrol amount as a petrol levy. 
Given that the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act provides for refunds for overpayments of levies the bill also provides for regulation to refund the petrol levy for commercial uses of petrol off-road such as for farming vehicles marine vessels and other machinery. It also provides flexibility for future options for an Accident Compensation Corporation levy to be placed on other fuels. 
There are no plans at this stage to place an Accident Compensation Corporation levy on any fuel other than petrol. In fact there are several barriers to placing an accident compensation levy on such fuels. For example diesel is not subject to an excise duty and much of the uses for diesel are for purposes other than powering motor vehicles. 
This change is purely to future-proof the Act should these barriers be removed and should it be appropriate to apply an Accident Compensation Corporation levy to other fuels. Further work is being undertaken on long-term funding of the Accident Compensation Corporation motor vehicle account in the light of the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
. There will be full public consultation on any further changes to the way the motor vehicle account is funded. 
There is a second function of the bill unrelated to the Accident Compensation Corporation motor vehicle account. The bill also reverses undesirable changes to the Accident Compensation Corporation appeal regime which was introduced by way of the Statutes Amendment Bill last year. Section 162 requires that appeals to the High Court are either by leave to appeal being granted by the District Court or special leave being granted by the High Court. Section 162 was repealed and now accident compensation appeals to the High Court can proceed as of right. The District Court Amendment Act will remove the requirement that leave be sought so people would be able to appeal to the High Court regardless of circumstances. 
The effect is that a significant filtering mechanism has been removed. For example 25 of 40 attempts to appeal accident compensation decisions to the High Court were refused leave. The High Court Rules committee is concerned at the potential impact on the High Court’s workload. I am concerned at the potential cost implications for accident compensation. The Minister of Justice agrees that the amendments should be reversed. 
I believe that this is a practical way to manage costs of the appeals process. The bill therefore reinstates the previous Section 162 of the Act. The Department of Justice intends for the District Court Amendment Act to come into force by Order in Council later this year. This amendment bill reinstatement of Section 162 would be brought into effect by the passing of the Order in Council that brings the District Court Amendment Act into effect. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity of speaking on this Labour Government’s “Unashamedly Blatant Tax Amendment Bill” otherwise euphemistically known as the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. This bill literally represents yet another iniquitous and rapacious grab by this socialist Government into the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders. The tax in this bill comes as one in a series of taxes levies and increased compliance costs that this Labour Government is systematically and stealthily imposing on the people of New Zealand. 
This is the Government that says that it is focusing on economic growth. This bill epitomises just why the Prime Minister has had to admit in this Parliament that her Government’s policies have no date attached to when New Zealand might ascend into the top half of the OECD. This bill’s 5.8c per litre increase comes on the top of the 1 July Crown revenue petroleum excise tax increase which was from 17.8c per litre to 18.5c per litre and the 1 March 2002 road fund petrol tax hike which was from 13.5c per litre to 17.7c per litre. That is 3 years in a row that this Labour socialist Government hits the ordinary New Zealand taxpayer in the pocket and that is just in the area of accident compensation and it is probably only the beginning. 
It is relevant to this bill to look a little wider and glimpse over how hungry this Government is to grasp into the New Zealand workers’ hard-earned wages by whatever method it can. I took the trouble of going to our Parliamentary Library to see how in relation to this bill the Government has managed to spread its tentacles and grasp taxes from the New Zealand worker. The chronology it has left is quite extraordinary. This was the Government that said it would not increase taxes. All we have to do is look through the bill and on the first page we see “income tax”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can talk about this bill and the reasons for introducing it or not introducing it. But what he is doing now is going through a long list of taxes that are outside this bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I will go straight on to excise duties petrol tax duties and Accident Compensation Corporation levies of which we have a chronology that is a legacy of shame to this Government. Might I just start with the Accident Compensation Corporation levies because four of them were outlined by the parliamentary research unit on 1 April 2002 a short year ago. The Accident Compensation Corporation motorbike registration levy was raised from $134 to $211 a rise of 57 percent just in July 2002. The car ownership levy increased 14 percent from $130.23 to $141 and there are a whole range of other levies including petrol excise duty that have also been increased by this Government. 
It is also relevant to remember that many anticipated this—including the effects of the Kyoto Protocol which is also likely to have the effect of increasing petrol tax by at least 5 percent. The list is readily available. It goes on and the impacts it has on business and economic growth in New Zealand are profound. 
Turning to the bill I point out that the regulatory impact and business costs compliance statement states the reason for increasing costs is that the motor vehicle account is facing exactly that increase in costs. The statement saysthese increases have resulted primarily from improved estimates of long-term rehabilitation costs for seriously injured claimants and underlying cost increases. I want to ask the Minister why for 3 years in a row the corporation has had to fine-tune the way it estimates these costs and they have gone up each year. 
We know that the Government’s focus—it is all over the annual report—is on prevention care and recovery. If indeed prevention was to be successful and if rehabilitation was to be successful these costs would not have gone up. In fact the levy would have gone down. But the Government has failed on all three counts. 
This Government used to talk about how it would fix the Accident Compensation Corporation; how it would make the Accident Compensation Corporation more efficient; how by removing the competitive model everything would be better. But it is not. The Accident Compensation Corporation is actually a $2 billion business. It is a substantial business. This Government says that one of the major focuses encompassed in this bill is the area of prevention so that these levies might be contained. Yet less than 1 percent of that $2 billion is actually spent on prevention. In fact it is in the order of 0.75 percent. 
This amendment bill is undoubtedly unnecessary. One of the extraordinary things that I note in the Accident Compensation Corporation’s book  
Consequences: What Accidents are Doing to New Zealanders 
 is the fact that deaths and injury on the road are reducing. The Accident Compensation Corporation says that this is good. On closer analysis road deaths have marginally come down. But it is of huge concern that in New Zealand we average 12 deaths on the road per 100000 people whereas in the UK there are only seven deaths per 100000 people. In 3½ long tortuous years of this Labour Government what has it done to effectively prevent road deaths let alone deal with the more important statistic which is the moderate to serious injuries? Those are the ones that impact on Accident Compensation Corporation levies. If we analyse exactly what happens we see that in 1988-99 it was those moderate to serious injuries that sank the lowest they have done in decades and over the last few years they have marginally increased. This tax bill is an indictment on the ineffectiveness of this Government’s policies to do what it said it would with the Accident Compensation Corporation and that was to have effective prevention and a focus on prevention and early rehabilitation. 
These are the right things to do but under this model which the Government has put to New Zealand unfortunately none of it has succeeded. For 3 years in a row this Government has gone about increasing the Accident Compensation Corporation levies from petrol. This bill just epitomises another failed policy of this Labour socialist Government. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise with pride to speak to the first reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and in doing so follow on from the member for Port Waikato who I do not think believed what he had to say when it came to the approach this Government is taking with accident compensation. He knows that we are putting a huge emphasis on rehabilitation and injury prevention. We have reshaped the entire model around those principles and it is another good example of the Government bringing legislation to the House that ties in very closely with strategies the Government has put in place. For example the injury prevention strategy that the Hon Ruth Dyson announced last year and the New Zealand transport strategy that has also come out have very clear goals. Here we have legislation that puts those high-level goals into something practical for the New Zealand people. When it comes to the tax increase of course that is controversial with regard to roading funding but it was well signalled from December last year. The Government is making great progress on injury prevention and this is a bill we can vote for with some pride. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Clearly the member who has just resumed his seat has no connection with accident victims because he would not be singing the praises of the Accident Compensation Corporation if he had a great deal to do with them. I think the member should stay silent talk to some accident victims and hear what the dickens is going on. 
Darren Hughes 
: As a constituency MP I know what I’m talking about. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a debatable matter at the very least. There are accident victims out there who are suffering immensely. Accident compensation is missing the mark completely in many many areas and this might well be one of the areas where it is missing the mark. 
We are not necessarily against the Accident Compensation Corporation increasing the 2.3c per litre excise duty to 5.08c per litre but we say that money should come from the levy that goes into the consolidated account already. The motorist is paying plenty to run his or her motorcar and to be covered by accident compensation. That is where the Government should have taken that money from in the first instance—from the 17.5c per litre or thereabouts that goes into the consolidated account. This is another slug at the motorist. This Government has slugged the motorist in this country more than Mike Tyson was by Lennox Lewis. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Very droll! 
PETER BROWN 
: I thought that was pretty good. That member can sit there and say the motorist should be slugged for this and that and slugged here again but not every motorist will pay this duty—only the petrol guy and not the diesel guy or the truck guy. Do they not get involved in accidents I ask that member? [ 
Interruption 
] That is quite right; they do. 
Hon David Carter 
: He doesn’t know. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Benson-Pope is silent now. I can tell members that if the Government wants to increase the levy for accident compensation it should put it right across the board. Accident compensation is meant to be a “no-fault no-blame” structure. But what happens is that only the people whom we think are vulnerable enough to pay are targeted. The others are left alone. Ruth Dyson knows that what I am saying is true; she knows that she has put the diesel people into the too-hard basket. She almost acknowledged that in her opening speech in this debate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You would put a tax on diesel? 
PETER BROWN 
: We would put the whole thing across everything but we would take it out of the tax that is already being paid. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What would you take it off? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am almost positive that this bill will go to a select committee. The Minister has done her numbers so she knows that the Greens or United Future will prop this bill up and get it through its first reading. I will tell the select committee exactly how to solve the problems of this country in terms of accident compensation exactly as New Zealand First is telling the select committee how to solve the transport problems. 
Hon David Carter 
: The Greens would put us on bikes and skateboards. 
PETER BROWN 
: Bikes and skateboards! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am trying to hear as are other members. 
PETER BROWN 
: I could not even hear myself. I read in a press release that if this excise duty goes up Shell New Zealand will also impose extra costs of collecting it on the motorist plus there will be GST on top of that. I might be a simple sailor but would someone tell me how the extra cost of collecting 5.08c per litre is dearer or amounts to very much more than collecting 2.3c per litre? I fail to understand that. The oil companies are accounting for paying 2.3c per litre into the Accident Compensation Corporation’s coffers and accounting for paying 5c per litre will not in my estimation add any cost to the oil companies. But like the Government they are climbing on to the motorist again. I hope that the other oil companies show a good deal more responsible attitude than Shell New Zealand. 
The Minister referred to a legal requirement to fully fund the motor vehicle account. That all sounds very sound and sensible; we have no argument with that. However there is also a legal requirement for the Accident Compensation Corporation to provide accident compensation to accident victims. Daily in my office I receive letters—and I have no doubt that National Party Opposition members also get letters—from accident victims who state the accident compensation system is failing them. If this bill goes through this House as it is will the Minister give the House an assurance that accident victims will be better looked after? I do not think so. I think that much of that money will be absorbed in administration costs and goodness knows where else. As this bill stands New Zealand First will not be supporting it. We will not be supporting it to a select committee and we would urge the Minister to rethink the whole thing properly. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 First I think that members in the House should focus their attention on the member Peter Brown because he will probably have a heart attack when he hears my first statement in this speech. United Future will not be supporting this bill. United Future will not be propping up the Government on this measure. If the Government wishes to raise new taxes it will have to look to the Greens for support because we do not support this measure to increase the levy for accident compensation. The reason we are not supporting this bill is that we cannot condone a further unnecessary increase in the tax burden borne by New Zealand motorists. New Zealanders already pay more than $1.7 billion in petrol excise duties road-user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees. However more than $785 million of that is diverted straight back into the consolidated account. It is not spent on accident compensation roads or anything that is directly transport-related. That $785 million is siphoned straight out of the regions and now the Government is asking motorists to cough up even more. 
United Future is not against providing more funding for the transport-related costs borne by the Accident Compensation Corporation; members should not get us wrong on that. We believe motorists should have to pay for the rising costs of treating the people who are injured in car crashes. Accident compensation levies at the petrol pump may be a simple way to collect that funding—the more one drives the more one pays. Perhaps that might be considered common sense but we have to ask whether it is fair. There is no compensation for or consideration of the individual motorist who takes care of his or her own safety who may purchase a safer vehicle and therefore should not be bearing the costs that are spread across the whole driving public. However if that is the measure we are to follow then the extra funding should come from the revenue already collected from road users—as has been said already on a number of occasions by different speakers in the House—rather than taking the form of yet another extra cost for motorists. 
Of the excise duty that is currently collected at the pump 2.3c per litre is already ring-fenced for the Accident Compensation Corporation. Given that so much of that excise duty goes directly into the consolidated account why not ring-fence a further 3c per litre of that for the Accident Compensation Corporation and give the long-suffering motorists a break? The fact that 2.3c per litre is already ring-fenced proves that the Government can designate the funds to the proper source when it chooses to do so. Given the fact that the Government expects to have significant surpluses this year it would be reasonable for the Government to put its hand into its pocket to meet those needs on this occasion. We support the Government’s common-sense approach of not spending all that surplus before we are sure of it being there and— 
Hon David Carter 
: So you’re supporting a tax increase now? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: No. We are supporting a prudent approach to any potential windfall. But that would have been a very small step in the right direction. 
United Future has consistently called for the revenue that is collected directly from road users to be spent on roads and other transport-related expenses including the Accident Compensation Corporation. We understand that the initial fiscal impact of that would be considerable so in order to give the Government’s finances time to adjust we have argued that it should be phased in over a 5-year period. Perhaps the increase of 3c per litre for the Accident Compensation Corporation could be used by the Government to make a start on such a policy rather than passing this bill which does the complete opposite of that. 
At a time when New Zealand’s economic growth is coming under increased pressure from both external factors and deficiencies in our national infrastructure—especially roading—is this really a good time to siphon another $75 million out of the regions and businesses of New Zealand? This extra Accident Compensation Corporation levy will cost Canterbury an extra $10 million per year the Bay of Plenty $7 million Otago $4 million Wellington over $8 million the Waikato $10 million and Auckland a whopping $28 million—and those are just conservative estimates. How does that support the Government’s much-publicised priority of encouraging regional development and economic growth? How can it be fair to take all that revenue from regions that are already paying almost twice the amount they receive back from the Government for transport-related expenditure including that relating to the Accident Compensation Corporation? 
I urge the Government to reconsider its support for the measures in this bill and instead to support United Future’s policy of spending all revenue already collected from transport users on transport-related matters. That would address the need for increased Accident Compensation Corporation funding and at the same time it would benefit road users and encourage economic growth at both the regional and national level. The Automobile Association’s director of public affairs George Fairbairn has said that some members of the association accept the need to cover skyrocketing medical costs but that they want to know when the levies will stabilise. When will we see the increasing cost of medical expenses resulting from accidents on our roads begin to stop climbing and reach a plateau? I believe that will be when we begin to build roads that provide a safe environment for motorists to travel on. 
It has been clearly pointed out by Ministry of Transport officials—even as far back as 1999—that 15 percent of the fatalities and injuries on our roads are a result of the road conditions themselves. It would therefore make much more sense to invest more of the finance that has already been gathered into building better roads and to have a net gain from a reduction in the expenses that come from accidents and injuries that result from poor roads. 
I reiterate that United Future will not be supporting this bill. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to follow the member Larry Baldock. He is erudite intelligent and honourable—and in this case he is wrong. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is that ever said about you? 
DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is often said about me. Mr Baldock has made an important point. He has asked why all the money that has been raised from transport sources is not spent on transport uses and he has suggested that as a first step that should be done. The point is that if that money were diverted into transport uses taxation would have to be raised from other sources. I am afraid that even in a United Future world there is no such thing as a free lunch. 
Someone asked me on the street what I did for a living and when I told that person I was a politician he scratched his head and asked what I made. I scratched my head and thought about it for a while and then it finally dawned on me—on this pre-Easter occasion—what it is that we make around Parliament: law. It is a pleasure to be able to support this bill because it will make an excellent law. It is fair. It puts the cost where the risk is highest and reduces the cost where the risk is low. It provides for sustainable funding for accident compensation and it ensures that people will be able to be rehabilitated and to go forward. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee because there are some very important principles in it that we strongly support. We hope that we will make some improvements at the select committee to take the bill further in some directions where it has started in a small way but not gone far enough. The first important principle we support is that there should be better long-term care and rehabilitation of accident victims. Because the National Party kept cutting levies right throughout the 1990s and not funding the tail we have ended up with a lot of people—many of whom I have helped through my constituency office in the Coromandel—who are having their accident compensation payments chopped off when they still need them because the money is not there. Peter Brown is right on that count but why does he then oppose raising the money to fix it? We support raising the money to fix it and I will get to that in a minute. 
We also support the strong principle that people should pay roughly in proportion to the contribution they make to the risk. Obviously that cannot be taken to a fanatical degree but it is undoubtedly true that the person who uses his or her car once a week to trundle down to the local shops does not contribute to the risk of accidents as much as the person who drives tens of thousands of kilometres every year at high speed on motorways. 
At the moment those two types of driver pay the same amount. The people who hardly use their vehicles who use buses walk or cycle and use their cars only when they have to pay the same levy as the people who take their cars everywhere. So we strongly support shifting from the registration cost of the vehicle and on to the fuel cost which much more closely mimics the actual use of the vehicle. 
The trouble with this is that all the Government has done at this stage is put the increase on to the fuel rather than have that shift. We believe that if the Government could show people that it had reduced their registration cost by $141 then they could have accepted 15c a litre on petrol instead. That would have been a fairer way to do it and we will continue to argue for that. Putting the cost entirely on registration is a barrier to vehicle ownership and that is unfair. It is also a barrier to safety because people do not register their vehicles due to the very high cost. Also putting all the cost on to registration rather than on fuel makes it easier for people to evade paying their accident compensation levy at all. They can avoid it by illegally driving unregistered vehicles. One simply cannot avoid a levy on fuel. People either buy fuel or they do not. So we are disappointed that we have taken only a small step in that direction. 
However we agree with Peter Brown that it is unfair that this applies to petrol and not to diesel. We believe that diesel users should contribute in the same way. They should contribute according to the kilometres they drive rather than by way of the registration cost of their vehicle. Whether that is done by a levy on diesel which is possible with a rebate system or whether it is done by a levy on road-user charges which is also possible—and which is how they pay for roads—is fine by us but it should be done in that way rather than done on the registration cost. 
At the moment of course we have a strong incentive for people who do high mileage to buy diesel SUVs which are a huge risk to other vehicles in a crash although safer for their drivers. They are much more dangerous for anybody they run into. People are much more likely to be killed if they are hit by an SUV than if they are hit by a light car. So SUV owners are externalising all the costs of their safety on to other people and there is an incentive to use those vehicles rather than petrol cars because people get their accident compensation cheaper if they drive very high mileages by going to diesel rather than to petrol. 
I am disappointed that National Party members do not support funding long-term care and rehabilitation of accident victims because clearly we are not going to get that unless we fund it and they are opposed to what they call a new tax. We do not call this a new tax. We call this paying one’s way. We are disappointed that they do not support full funding of transport injuries from the transport system. They seem to support some kind of cross-subsidy from the general taxpayer to road crash victims. We do not support that and in fact calling this a new tax is really just scoring a cheap political point. It is a statutory requirement that the system be self-funding and if we want decent long-term care and rehabilitation then we have to fund it and it has to be funded by transport users. 
Peter Brown and United Future both say that the money should come from the current petrol excise. Let us have a look at that proposition. The current excise is only on petrol. If we want the increase in accident compensation funding to come from that then diesel users are not going to be contributing a cent because diesel users do not contribute anything to the consolidated account. That is one of the great inequities at the moment. All the excise that goes into the consolidated account comes from petrol users. None of it comes from diesel users. But I have great difficulty with the idea that fuel and motoring is not something we can tax for general revenue. Virtually every developed country in the world taxes fuel and motoring for general revenue. 
Nobody argues in this House that all tax on tobacco ought to go into building cigarette factories. Nobody here argues that all tax on alcohol ought to go into booze barns. But somehow people argue that all tax on motoring ought to go into roads. If we look at the land transport pricing study published in the late 1990s we will find that the costs that motorists cause to the rest of the economy—costs that are picked up by the taxpayer—are far more than the $700 million a year that goes into the consolidated account from the petrol levy. So the Greens have no difficulty with some money going into the consolidated account from a fuel levy but it ought to be equal across the board across petrol and diesel. 
In fact if we want to snaffle that money for accident compensation or something else or if we want to put it all into roads then members have to say which hospitals in the country they are going to close and which schools they are going to reduce funding for—because that money is being used now. It is being used for the general expenditure of the Government and if members are going to take it from there they have to argue what they are not going to do instead. 
We heard Larry Baldock talk about money being siphoned off from the regions as though there were some great sink into which this accident compensation levy is poured and as though the regions never see it again. Where does the levy money go? It goes back to accident victims and to treatment systems and where are they located? They are located in the regions. So in fact the money that is “siphoned off” from fuel tax in the regions goes back into the regions in rehabilitating people who can then play a part in the workforce and contribute to the economy of the regions. It goes back to the people who work in the treatment and rehabilitation systems in the regions and that provides economic development in the regions. 
Roads and motoring are not the only things that boost the economy. All the other services such as health services and care and rehabilitation also boost the economy and it is a completely shallow argument to say that this money is being siphoned off somewhere never to appear again and never to play any useful role in the economy. 
So I am disappointed at the shallowness of the debate that has taken place today. The Green Party wants to see a much more concerted move of all of the costs that are loaded up-front on owning a vehicle on to the cost of running it so that it is cheaper to own a vehicle and more expensive to run it. That will be a good incentive in that people will use their cars more wisely but they will have access to cars. People will not be shut out from transport because they cannot afford the registration fee and people will not be driving unregistered cars. We want to see it shifted to diesel on the same basis so that diesel users at least contribute their share to the Accident Compensation Corporation to the economy and to the consolidated account. It also gets rid of the distortion that at the moment is promoting diesel as a cheaper alternative to petrol when it is not and is promoting all the emissions that go with diesel. 
Peter Brown 
: What about gas? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: What about gas indeed! If it still existed would it not be nice? I still drive on CNG whenever I can but that is another issue. As I say we will support this bill to the select committee. We will see whether we can get some improvements on it when we get there 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I support the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I support the Minister in her introduction of this bill and I take this opportunity to commend the previous speaker for a well-reasoned contribution in which the sort of political opportunism that we see from one of the Opposition parties on that side of the House was totally absent. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I take no pleasure in speaking on the introduction of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I would have thought that a Government should be damned well ashamed of itself to come into this House and increase the Accident Compensation Corporation levy on petrol from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre. That is a huge increase in that levy—or tax—on the public of New Zealand. What was so pathetically absurd in the contribution of the co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons was that she thinks the way to provide more service is to increase the spending. It is the way the Green Party thinks. It has no idea of how one actually runs a business or an organisation. 
The first thing that should happen is that the Accident Compensation Corporation should have to deliver some efficiency instead of automatically coming to the Government when there are a few more costs and saying that it wants more money. Of course the reason that the Accident Compensation Corporation can come to the Government and simply say that it wants more money is that that Labour Government has renationalised the Accident Compensation Corporation. It is under no threat from this Government. No matter how inefficient it is and no matter how big a monopoly the Accident Compensation Corporation becomes this Government will say: “Yes we’ll enable you to levy more charges on the poor people of New Zealand with this legislation.” 
The increase is more than the total of the old levy: it is 2.78c per litre. The old levy was only 2.3c per litre. Motorists will have to pay almost 3c per litre more on their petrol when this bill goes through and Labour thinks that is great. 
What has become of that once great Labour Party which used to care about the working-class people in this country who have to use petrol to get around? It is going to slug those people another 2.78c per litre. It all goes back to the problem that Ruth Dyson as the Minister for ACC and her cronies in this Labour-led Government said they cannot have competition in the Accident Compensation Corporation or efficiencies or better services delivered through competition. They said they would re-establish a monopoly. We all know what happens when there are big monopolies. They become very inefficient and costs go up. 
Look what has happened. All we have seen since competition was wiped out of the Accident Compensation Corporation is that the self-employed workers levy has gone up 40 percent the wage-earners levy has gone up 10c to $1.20 per $100 of income—an almost 10 percent increase—and the motorbike registration levy has increased significantly. There was a 57 percent increase in the motorbike registration levy. Previously the car ownership levy increased by 14 percent and now there is a further increase in the petrol levy—all because we have a monopoly. It is a monopoly where competitive efficiency is impossible. The only answer the Government which refuses to allow competition in the system has is more taxes and more levies on the public. 
I draw the attention of the Minister who introduced this bill to the requirement of a regulatory impact and business compliance costs statement to accompany all legislation introduced into this House. The Hon Ruth Dyson is not without some intelligence. Some of the Ministers on the Government side of the House are short a few quid upstairs but the Hon Ruth Dyson has— 
Hon David Carter 
: A sandwich short of a picnic. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: She does have a couple of neurons upstairs. I know that. I want her to look seriously at this regulatory impact and business compliance costs statement and to tell this House through the course of the debate on the passage of this legislation whether she genuinely considers that that is a thorough cost-benefit analysis. I draw her attention to the statement of the net benefit of the proposal on page 7 of the explanatory note. That statement acknowledges that there is a 25 percent increase in the costs. It states that that has been assessed through assessment of the various components of the account. 
What we do not see here is anything about the costs on the economy that the increase in the petrol levy will impose. It should have been possible to estimate the increase in transport costs. It ought to have been possible to estimate for example the increase in costs for the export sector in getting products to the wharves. It ought to have been possible to get the increase in costs to our education sector. It ought to have been possible to get the increase in costs to our elderly retired folk. It ought to have been possible to itemise in that statement of net benefit the actual cost to the economy of this very significant increase in the cost of petrol through that levy. 
That is what a cost-benefit analysis is all about and we see nothing of it. We talk about what we see in the business compliance cost statement which states that the various options that were explored have costs and benefits. The following impacts can be anticipated to varying degrees. There has been no attempt to quantify the effects on the wider economy. There has been no attempt to quantify the drop in petrol consumption. It might be a positive thing for the environment if less petrol were consumed. It is a totally inadequate cost-benefit analysis in relation to this legislation. It allocates no costs to any of the impacts. I believe that when the Government through this legislation is imposing a more than doubling of the petrol levy on the New Zealand public there should be an assessment of the wider costs to the economy. 
That is simply not good enough for a Minister like the Hon Ruth Dyson. A Minister with her tertiary qualifications—and we are not talking about some hopeless Minister here—ought to be able to make sure that a bill she introduces has an adequate cost-benefit analysis. By any assessment it is a woefully inadequate cost-benefit analysis. 
I come back to the point where I started in this debate. Before levies are imposed on the public when there is a monopoly administration system like the accident compensation scheme in New Zealand the Government has a responsibility to the public to make sure that every possible mechanism is used to introduce efficiency into that system. This Labour Government has done exactly the opposite. It has rebuilt the Accident Compensation Corporation into a huge monopoly the efficiency of which it is now impossible to measure because there is no competitive mechanism to measure it. 
Darren Hughes 
: How come premiums have come down? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The junior member Darren Hughes says that levies have come down. He should tell the truth in this Parliament. Under his Government accident compensation levies continue to go up. As I said before levies for self-employed workers have gone up wage earners levies have increased the motorbike registration levy has gone up and it is serious for businesses around the country as well as for motorists. Under this Government accident compensation levies continue to go up because we have a monopoly. We have an inefficient empire running the Accident Compensation Corporation and this legislation is just feeding an inefficient bureaucratic empire. We are totally opposed to it. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party I rise to strongly oppose the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. This is a bill that has been brought forward by a Labour Government that promised no new taxes. Apart from the people who earned over $60000 there were to be no new taxes. I ask the Government members sitting opposite what on earth they think this bill is. It is a bill to increase taxes. It is a bill to gain something like $155 million from hard-working New Zealand families. It is a tax-grab bill. Members opposite should slink in their seats because they are going against their election promise and increasing taxes in this bill that we are now debating. 
The bill increases petrol taxes from 2.3c a litre to 5.08c a litre. This is the third time petrol taxes have been increased since Labour has been the Government. In this case it is a 120 percent increase. If we look at the figures New Zealanders use almost 3000 million litres of petrol a year. If we multiply that by 5.08c we end up with a very large amount of money that the Labour Government is stealing off hard-working families. But we should not be surprised because since Labour has been in power it has increased the tax take from $34 billion in 1999 to $43 billion in the year 2003. That is a $9 billion increase mostly because of the stealth taxes it has introduced. 
Labour members said there would be no new income tax increases but what they have done is increase levies charges and taxes in a whole range of different areas. For example we know that fringe benefit tax has gone up and that tobacco tax went up. Petrol tax which is what we are talking about today has already been put up a number of times as have diesel and road-user charges. If we look at things such as the cost of birth death and marriage certificates they have all gone up as have driving licence fees. There is a litany of different types of fees and charges that this Labour Government has put on. 
If we look at accident compensation levies we find Labour has increased the levies for the self-employed by 40 percent. The wage earners levy was increased by 10 percent. Motorbike levies increased by 57 percent and car ownership levies increased by 14 percent. Even over the last couple of weeks we have had new levies and taxes on car dealers. We now have new levies and charges on school exam fees for goodness’ sake. Across every level of New Zealand society this Labour Government has increased charges. 
 When we think about a tax-grab bill from the Accident Compensation Corporation we have to ask how come we can possibly have that. The only reason that that could be done is that the Accident Compensation Corporation is a monopoly. The previous speaker pointed that out loud and clear. The Labour Government nationalised accident compensation. We actually had a competitive model operating and operating extremely well. That was one of the really good things that the National Government did. Labour came into power and immediately changed it. It scrapped it and meanwhile there were so many employers in New Zealand who had found their accident compensation levies had gone down for the first time ever. This Government came in and what did it do? It imposes additional costs on to the business sector of New Zealand that earns us the wealth and creates a rising standard of living if only it is given a chance. 
We now have the Accident Compensation Corporation as a monopoly. It is bureaucratic inefficient and costly. It is just a monster in New Zealand. It urgently needs to be reformed but this Government is doing it in the wrong direction. 
Employers universally oppose accident compensation being run by the Government. In spite of all of the assurances by Labour they know that it is a service they get and costs they have to provide do not even match anywhere near what the private sector can do. That growing cost burden on New Zealand’s small businesses will add to the cost that ordinary New Zealand consumers have to pay. It will also make them less able to withstand a downturn in the economy. 
A while ago an article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 estimated that the costs of small business had increased by over $25000 per year for a medium-size small business. As that was done several months ago I suspect that that figure is nearer to $30000 a year in additional compliance costs since Labour has been in power. That is a shocking indictment on the Labour Government. It is putting a huge deadweight cost on the small businesses that are trying to produce the wealth the jobs and trying to keep this country going. All Labour can do is to think of all these new charges and new red tape and dump it on the backs of small businesses. 
That is disgraceful. This Labour Government came into power trying to pretend that it was pro-business. This bill lets us see the Labour Government’s colours. This is an anti-business Labour Government. All it wants to do is to nationalise as much as it can and if it cannot nationalise it then it will regulate it to death. Over the last 3 years in this House we have seen legislation that does just that. 
The justification for the bill is meant to be all about injury prevention. If we look at the statistics on the rate of serious injury and death from motor vehicle accidents we find that it has actually decreased by 30 percent over the last decade. That is in spite of the number of cars increasing by 30 percent over the last decade. New Zealand is developing an excellent track record in preventing motor vehicle injuries and deaths and the Government knows that. It has a Minister of Police who given any opportunity will stand up in the House and tell us what an excellent job the traffic police are doing. We have a process through Transfund and Transit New Zealand where dangerous roads are being fixed where the engineering which is a major cause of accidents in this country is quietly being improved over time. We should start to see the death rate and the injury rate on New Zealand roads reducing even further. 
What is the Government’s response to this? Its response is simply to increase accident compensation levies pretending that it is trying to keep up with the demand. It is just hollow words. This is simply a way to try to gain a whole lot of money to put into a fund—something like the Cullen fund—that will be worth over $2 billion by the time the Government has finished building it. The Government is trying to do it very quickly over a period of 4 or 5 years—trying to get this $2 billion into this fund so that it can pay for future accidents. However the Government is actually asking today’s motorists not only to pay for the long-term claimants of yesterday last year 10 years ago today’s claimants and tomorrow’s payments but also to pay for the claimants in 10 or 20 years’ time. 
How fair is that to burden this generation of motorists with the costs to come in 20 or 30 years’ time? It is an absolutely stupid idea. We would only get a Government monopoly even thinking about doing something like that. In fact if it were not a monopoly it would be trying to keep the cost down provide an excellent service be efficient and it would try to make the motorists and all the other people who pay accident compensation which is virtually every working New Zealander feel they were getting really good value for money. 
We should expect this sort of bill because this is a socialist Government. Labour has a track record of trying to take money off the workers of New Zealand to give to those who have not earned it. That is the socialist philosophy. We understand that the average working family in New Zealand is now $1400 a year worse off in real terms than when Labour took office. What has the Government done with that money? It has put it into funding privilege for the groups that it likes. It has put it into buying the votes of beneficiaries superannuitants and so on. It has not put it into the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders who actually earned it. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this fine legislation. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 As I start to speak to this bill it is interesting to note the length of calls that Government members have just taken to justify yet another tax bill before the House today. Here we go again in another attempt to slug the motorist in the hope that the petrol pumps will tick over shortly and another 2.78c a litre will be added to the price of petrol. 
Peter Brown 
: Plus GST. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes plus GST and the Government cynically hopes that people will not notice the increase. Mark my words: I will be making sure they know that when that new tax increase goes through yet another tax increase is being slugged on to the New Zealand motorist. 
As we debate this bill I recall with interest the election campaign in the middle of last year. Time and time again Government members around the country promised: “Read my lips. There will be no further tax increases.” I have lost count of how many times we have brought legislation into this House recently in an attempt to slug New Zealanders—most of them real Kiwi battlers; middle-income New Zealanders—and here we go again with an unashamed attempt to have a crack at the motorists of New Zealand. There is an awful track record in that regard. Just over a year ago we battled in this House to stop another attempt by the Labour Government to put up petrol prices. On that occasion it put petrol up by 4.7c a litre. Nearly 5c a litre was slugged on to motorists that time and this time it is 3c—in an attempt to make sure that they did not notice it. The justification is that the rise is required to plug further the huge bungling bureaucracy we have around accident compensation. On the matter of the last 5c increase passed in roading legislation I recall that the speeches delivered in the House promising that roading money to all parts of New Zealand were absolutely amazing. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Take your hands out of your pockets! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I will take my hands out of my pockets if it will make George Hawkins feel better. Why does that member not stand and make an attempt to justify the legislation? He is probably not allowed. 
Anyway here we are debating this bill because the current Minister for ACC has contributed to getting accident compensation into a mess. The corporation has come back to the Minister and said that it will need a little more money because money is being spent without any sort of budgetary control. Ruth Dyson has said not to worry because on a Thursday just before Easter the Government will slip in a little bill and put petrol up by 3c a litre—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister keeps interrupting but as soon as we ask her to repeat what she is saying she cannot remember. Mark my words: I will make sure that residents of the Banks Peninsula electorate will remember this particular petrol increase and I will make sure that they know who is responsible. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: They don’t even know who you are. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: They do not know who I am? I will make sure that they do know who I am. They will know who is responsible and they will also know that Rod Donald put his hand up and supported this 3c tax increase. 
Rod Donald 
: And add it to diesel— 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No. Rod Donald has not read the legislation. He now says that we are adding 3c a litre to diesel. He is wrong again—which gives me an opportunity to debate the logic of the Greens’ argument. Jeanette Fitzsimons came into the House like a dutiful little puppy dog and said that she would support whatever the Labour Government put before us. Then she came along with the most interesting argument of the lot—she attempted to argue that it was fair that the user paid. She attempted to argue that somebody doing a considerable mileage was likely to have a higher accident rate and therefore should pay more. Is that right? Rod Donald is nodding his head. Well what about all the cyclists who are hurt in this country and require accident compensation support? 
Rod Donald 
: Get rid of cars I would say. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh so now we are to get rid of cars! I will happily debate that with Rod Donald next time we campaign in the Banks Peninsula electorate. I will happily debate his new policy about how to get accident compensation under control—get rid of cars! That is the logic of the Greens. United Future members at least have had the stomach to stand up this time and say they will not support a tax increase. 
Peter Brown 
: It’s only because they knew the Greens would. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I still admire the fact that they have finally come into the House and are prepared to stand on something they promised in the election campaign. That is a vast improvement on what we have seen in the past. But we cannot keep slugging the motorist because $1.7 billion is grabbed from the motorist now in the form of road-user charges vehicle licensing and fuel excise tax. I guess Labour Party people can argue that 3c a litre is not much in amongst $1.7 billion but the point that has been made by members on this side of the House is that at some stage we have to stop slugging motorists. They cannot continue to pay for the inefficiencies and inadequacies of the Accident Compensation Corporation. 
That brings me to my last point. After the 1999 election we stood in this House and watched that socialist Labour Government dismantle the accident compensation industry that existed in New Zealand. We had speaker after speaker from the Labour Party. I guess if I went back through  
Hansard 
 I would find that George Hawkins was allowed to speak in the House. He probably got up and made a speech like this: “Mark my words: ACC costs will not increase.” Darren Hughes the new member interjected in the House only half an hour ago that accident compensation costs had been held. That is the sort of propaganda Darren Hughes is prepared to believe. Accident compensation levies have continued to increase ever since the Government renationalised that industry. The farmers I represent now face— 
Jill Pettis 
: You can’t represent anybody. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That member says that I do not represent farmers. I am happy and proud to be here representing the farmers of New Zealand. They do a lot more for this economy than that member has ever done. The point I am making to Jill Pettis—the junior Government whip who used to be in the Speaker’s chair—is that the farmers I represent now face accident compensation costs 60 percent higher than in late 1999. So Darren Hughes tells porkies when he comes into this House—[ 
Interruption 
] Darren Hughes is being economical with the truth if he argues that accident compensation costs have not increased. [ 
Interruption 
] Well get up and take a point of order lazy member! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the member could just withdraw that reference to you know what. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I withdraw those references to “you know what”. The point I am making is that accident compensation costs have increased and have continued to increase and it is absolutely unreasonable for any Labour member of Parliament—in this House or outside—to argue that they have not. Only on the eve of Christmas last year that Government increased the New Zealand self-employed levy by 12.4 percent. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 63 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Maori Television Service Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 April. 
Part 2 Key provisions relating to appointment and duties of directors transfer of UHF right accountability of Service and establishment of related entities ( 
continued 
)  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I was just explaining to the Committee the amendments that the Greens are putting forward to Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia and I will continue with that. The amendments that we have put forward will mean that any third party who may lease the UHF spectrum will have to commit to prime-time broadcasts primarily in te reo so that te reo is not relegated to obscure times when no one is watching the television. At other times te reo programmes will have to be prioritised. Any third party will have to commit that the service delivery takes into account the needs of te reo learners both children and adults and ensure that practical access to as many people as possible is made available. 
Those amendments reflect our concern about the current General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments: that those commitments do not adequately protect Maori broadcasting. We know that a request has been made to abandon funding for Maori broadcasting. There remains a GATS reservation in respect of Maori broadcasting but the limits of that reservation are not clear. There is no reservation to prevent foreign ownership or delivery of te reo programming. For example the reservation may protect the funding of Te Mangai Paho but not necessarily the use of the spectrum for Maori broadcasting nor the service delivery of Maori programming to the country. 
The Greens’ amendments will ensure that any third party will be required through its business plan to prioritise te reo and to commit to delivering a broadly accessible service. That is an essential protection in this legislation. We urge all parties in this Committee to vote for those amendments. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of this bill. Once again I say that for something that was supposed to be a flagship project for this Government the Maori Television Service has been an utter shambles from the very beginning. Almost every step that has been taken towards the provision of the Maori Television Service has faltered. It seems to many members of the public that this group of people just cannot get anything right. We have seen director after director—a virtual game of musical chairs in terms of directorships—move on and off the board with alarming regularity. The service has been an absolute embarrassment. 
Nobody has really explained how the television service will play its part in preserving the language. On the Opposition side of the Chamber we feel it is vital that work is done to preserve the language but we would argue that if we took that $55 million per annum and put it into teachers Maori-language programmes and school programmes in particular the whole country would be much further ahead in terms of learning the language. If members compare the Maori Television Service—which is being based on a Canadian model the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network—with that network they will find that even though Canadian cable broadcasters are forced by legislation to carry that channel under a “must carry” clause in the legislation only about 1 percent of Canadians watch the channel. I would like the Minister to answer this: how can this New Zealand channel play a part in preserving the language if nobody will watch it or if very small numbers of New Zealanders will watch it? Broadcasting into the ether is not enough. There is no way that the language can be preserved if the service is on an obscure part of the Sky remote and nobody watches it. 
I turn to clause 47(3) which states: “The Crown must not incur any liability to the Service or expend any money for the use of the Service under an appropriation by Parliament unless—(a) a final statement of intent has been presented to the House of Representatives by the responsible Ministers; and (b) the responsible Ministers have agreed to the output agreement prepared by the board …”. To the Minister sitting in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia I say that that clause is a bit late because we on the Opposition side of the Chamber would like to know what has been happening within the Maori Television Service for the last 3 years. Certainly a number of liabilities have been incurred under that Minister’s responsibility when in fact the Maori Television Service has had no legal status in relation to the law at all. 
We have seen a lot of high-profile liabilities being incurred heard a lot of debate about directors’ fees and seen some programming projects that have gone bad. In just the last month we saw that Slightly Upbeat Productions has not paid any of its bills. It has left a lot of people with unpaid bills and those people have incurred a lot of costs when it came to producing programmes. We are about to hear about another one of those issues. A number of programmes that Te Mangai Paho has funded are open to question. I say that that particular clause is quite late because the Maori Television Service has been going out and spending a lot of money signing leases signing programming contracts and signing up staff. 
While we are on the subject of staff I would like to get back to another high-profile staff member. I would like to read from the Maori Television Service’s website. This is the part I did not manage to read the other night. Reading from the website notes I learn that Mr Davy is an accomplished recording and video producer. He is a composer a songwriter and a musician. He has extensive experience in drafting and managing international licensing and royalty agreements. He has authored two books  
The Platinum Formula 
 and  
The Art of Record Producing. 
 Would members believe that neither of those books exists? This bit is very interesting: “His non-conflict directorships include being founder and commissioner of the Asian Hockey Association.” I say to Mrs Wong. 
Pansy Wong 
: Really? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Yes. Mr Davy is “a member and adviser of the Middle East Round Table for International Relations. He is also a member and adviser of the BC Securities Commission.” Of course the only truthful thing we know about Mr John Davy is the fact that he is Canadian. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Deborah Coddington. 
Rodney Hide 
: I hesitate to say that there is bias. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. What rule was the Chair applying in calling Deborah Coddington before me? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Hide you may not remember this but you had a call yesterday on the same part of this bill that we are now debating. 
Rodney Hide 
: Oh that is right. I got it in before I was thrown out of the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. You had a call at 9.36 p.m. last night. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to Part 2 and to continue from where Katherine Rich finished off. She talked about the clause that mentions the statement of intent and said that it was 3 years too late. It is actually longer than that. If we go back to 1997 we find that taxpayers’ money was being spent on setting up the Maori Television Service and commissioning programmes doing research and consulting huge numbers of the Maori community. That was all being done without the benefit of legislation like this which enables that to happen. 
The other area where this part is too late because we have already gone down this road and blundered into trouble is clause 28 which deals with directors having a conflict of interest. I suggest that that is also too late. We should go back and look at some of the people who were involved in the steering groups back in 1997 for setting up a Maori television network and then look at some of the companies that have received funding from Te Mangai Paho. Let us not forget that the Maori Television Service and Te Mangai Paho are interconnected in that the funding of $13 million a year for the television service is only for the actual running of it and the $155 million that will be spent by 2005 is for the making of programmes. Many of those millions of dollars have been spent on programmes before this television service has even come within cooee of going to air. 
But I will come back to the issue of a conflict of interest. I put some questions to the Minister about the full list of grants that have been made for funding. It is very interesting to look at the companies that have been given millions of dollars to make these programmes. If we look at the companies and then do a search at the Companies Office to see some of the directors behind those companies well lookee here we find they are the same people who were involved in advising the Government on setting up the Maori Television Service and the same people who have been given money from Te Mangai Paho to make a lot of these television programmes. 
Iki Animation Ltd is just one of them. It has received several million dollars. Cinco Cine Film Productions appears again and again. We have no idea about the quality of those programmes. The only way that we can judge them is by looking at what has already gone to air before the Maori Television Service was set up. If we take the judgment of some of the people who watch those programmes I would say that they will not be terribly successful. 
What are the boundaries within this legislation for the quality of programmes when we have a conflict of interest which really just amounts to snouts in the trough—the restrictions on the same people appearing again and again who are involved in both the setting up of the service and lining up for the funding? That is already happening. It has been happening for several years and I really do wonder why the Minister even bothered to put this clause in. We will address schedule 2 later on—I know that—but nevertheless Part 2 refers to that schedule. 
I have received some correspondence from a young 18-year-old Maori person who was in the gallery the other night watching this debate. She emailed me and stated that as a young 18-year-old Maori who is studying politics she is very concerned about the Maori language. She is appalled by the standard of spoken Maori on some of the shows like  
Pukana  
and  
Mai Time.  
She said that the language is poor including that used on the Maori news and the current affairs shows. The presenters come across very poorly and unprofessionally and she said that they represent a really fake attitude to Maori things. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 This is very important legislation and I applaud the Chair for allowing more calls. There are two clauses in Part 2 that I would particularly like to speak to. The first one is new clause 28A which refers to the fact that the Maori Television Service will be broadcast on the UHF frequency. I read with interest the introductory speech on this bill by the Minister of Maori Affairs. He promised that the Maori Television Service would be encouraged to embrace sunrise not sunset technology. To that end the service had to broadcast according to the Minister in such a way that its programmes would be technically available throughout New Zealand. I do not see how this bill supports that. 
The National Party certainly will hold the Labour Minister of Maori Affairs to the promise he made when introducing this bill that the service would be broadcast using sunrise technology. But instead the Maori community will get second best. The platform for the service is only UHF. That means that all those people will have to pay $200 for a new aerial and the tuning of their television sets. I do not know whether the Minister has the mandate for that. Did he tell the Maori community and other people who want to watch Maori television that they will have to pay $200? I think the Minister owes this Parliament and the public an explanation of that. Who will pay the $200? I think that is a fair question. Can the Minister take a call to explain why he thinks UHF is sunrise technology? Why is the other platform not being used? The Opposition parties and the public are listening intently to this debate so the Minister owes us a duty to stand up and take some calls in order to answer some very serious questions. 
The other issue I wish to speak about is clause 28 “Duties of directors”. That clause states: “A director of the board when acting as a director and the board acting collectively must—(a) act in good faith honestly and with integrity;”. I would like the Minister to reflect take a call and explain to us the actions of some of the directors. For example what happened to the first appointee as pointed out by my colleague Katherine Rich? I have just learnt like most people that apparently the first chief executive Mr John Davy is in charge of some Asian hockey service. I wonder whether Mr John Davy can speak Chinese Korean and Japanese on top of his other skills? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Yes. 
PANSY WONG 
: The Minister reckons that John Davy is fluent in Chinese—as fluent as I am in the Maori language I bet! What happened to the board that appointed Mr John Davy who ended up in jail? The board was supposed to act with integrity. Where is the accountability? 
The situation becomes worse. After finding out through the media—and by the way the media has been doing all the hard work in finding out that Mr John Davy was not worth the paper that his name was written on—about Mr Davy he was not got rid of by the board but through an external source. Then the chairman of the board Mr Derek Fox started to interview for the next possible candidate for the vacant position. Mr Derek Fox sat on the selection committee and asked questions apparently making sure that none of the candidates came up to scratch. What did the board do? It had a 5-minute break. Mr Derek Fox left the room and we learnt that the board voted three to two with one proxy vote to appoint him as the chief executive. 
The Minister really needs to take a call and explain to the public whether that was an example of a board of directors acting in good faith honestly and with integrity. If it was we might have to re-write the legislation. 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 The main thrust of this section is the purpose and part of the purpose is the Treaty of Waitangi obligations. I say to our Minister that obviously there is some attraction to the Treaty of Waitangi but I believe that will just be a fuzzy feeling for our Maori people—just another fuzzy thing to try to entrap our people into something that is going down the wrong track. 
I want to touch on the teaching of te reo. I ask our Maori members why we do not leave it to the kohanga reo to the kura kaupapa and to all the programmes the polytechs currently run. I know that there are private te reo classes running here there and everywhere. I mention my fellow MP’s korero last night about learning from television. I am not an expert in that particular area but I think the information he gave last night is very important. I do not believe that this is the right forum for our young people or people like myself to learn te reo. I give an example: my daughter Renée who is currently at St Joseph’s College did not go to kohanga reo as a baby or as a 5-year-old. She went straight into kura kaupapa Maori and is now a very fluent speaker of te reo. All I am going to say to the Minister is that it was already happening in a qualified way in those particular areas I have mentioned. 
I want to talk about the directors. We have heard this afternoon and we have heard through the papers before all the negativism towards Mr Davy who I think had a job somewhere in the world—whereabouts was it? 
Rodney Hide 
: Afghanistan. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: It probably was Afghanistan but through the grapevine I did hear: “Haere ra John Davy!” which means: “Get on your way there is no more work here for you!”. With regard to the directorships of this particular television station let us not get into the nepotism. Let us keep away from that. If this bill goes through neither we nor the Minister want that landing on our heads like it did on Mr Davy. I want to spell out some things here. Mr Davy had an advance on his salary. He had an impeccable CV. If I had been sitting on that board the first thing I would have asked Mr Davy is if he was that good where was his credit card to get an advance on his rent and on his car? Quite frankly the directors did not smell this man coming so I advise the Minister to beware who he puts on the board. 
I want to touch on the quality of the programmes. I have seen some of the previews of those programmes. I hope there is some te reo that matches the korero they are speaking. With those hop-pop ideas they have I am sure that there will be some real quality te reo. I will be interested in Mr Gudgeon’s interpretation of some of the te reo they will be putting in those programmes. Let us be aware that we are using taxpayers’ money. Let our whanau across the floor be aware that there are other important things. There is marae development and I must say that New Zealand First in coalition with National put $3 million—only a snippet—into marae development. That can be trebled because that is the foundation of our people and that is where we must build our strength from—not from some television station. That should come later not now. 
Land development is an issue but I want to talk about membership. The member from I think National talked about that issue. Membership will cost something like $200 but who the hang will be able to afford to pay that? I know what they will join up to. Because Super 12 is here they will join up to that. They will not join up to this. 
I am just looking back through the bill and I might just be moving quietly aside here but let us talk about banking. Why is the Government putting the banking with the Bank of New Zealand? Why is it not going with Mr Anderton’s big bank the Kiwibank? 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I have great pleasure in speaking on Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori and I am looking forward to the Minister taking a call and explaining to us exactly what— 
Rodney Hide 
: We’ll be waiting a long long time. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is right. We might be waiting a while but it is absolutely relevant. I am very glad to be using the new name prompted by the fine member for National Georgina te Heuheu. The contribution by Edwin Perry was an absolutely relevant and excellent one. 
Ron Mark 
: It was a gem. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It was indeed a gem because he asked why we are using the medium embodied in Part 2 of this bill as the flagship to promote te reo Maori and tikanga Maori. I asked the question yesterday. What is the evidence base behind this medium being the one that will make the huge difference in promoting Maori language? From the report of the Maori Broadcasting Advisory Committee I pointed out just how perilously precipitous the fall in the usage of te reo has been over the years. It might be very well for the Minister not to listen to this but I would like him to take a call and tell the Committee about the evidence base behind using $55 million on a Maori television channel that has a body corporate structure and clearly has had so much difficulty over the past 2 to 3 years. Will the Minister take a call and tell us what the evidence base is behind using this very important resource on this very important question? I go over it again: in 1973 the status of te reo was that 13 percent of Maori had high fluency in it. In 1995 it was down to 8.1 percent of Maori with high fluency in te reo. By June 2000—probably at the beginning of this Minister’s position as Minister of Maori Affairs—we heard that only 4 percent of Maori had high fluency in te reo. 
 As Edwin Perry was saying there have been some wonderful results through the kohanga reo movement. The question I have to ask is why we are spending all that money on a television station that is very unlikely to reach a large number of Maori for the reason that he said which is that there will be a cost of $200 and for many that will be prohibitive. As my colleague Pansy Wong so rightly pointed out in respect of clause 28A the Minister was the very one who said that he would encourage sunrise technologies not sunset technologies. Surely those sunrise technologies are the ones that would be relevant and of high quality and ones that had been developed through time that would hit the right target—those young Maori between 0 and 5 or 0 and 10. That is the crucial time. 
Simon Power 
: 0 is young. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The whole point is that instead of a television station that will not reach such a large portion of Maori can the Minister give us the evidence base that this extremely unwieldy structure will be effective. I really would like him to take a call on this point because it is absolutely crucially important. If we look at clause 24 “Appointment of directors” it was on 15 March 2002 that the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia— 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the 
following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to new clause 28C(4) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to: 
to omit from new clause 28C(4) the words “principal function” and substitute the words “functions set out in section 8”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put t 
hat the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to new clause 28D(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to: 
to add to new paragraph 28D(1)(b) the words “to be used in fulfilling the functions set out in section 8”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that 
 the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Pursuant to an agreement of the House yesterday we will now proceed to voting on Part 1. 
The question was put 
that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) of clause 10 and substitute the following subclause: 
(1)The responsible Ministers or any other Minister or any person acting by or on behalf of or at the direction of any Minister or Te Putahi Paoho or a member of Te Putahi Paoho or a director acting without the authority of the board must not direct the Service or any subsidiary of the Service or any director officer or employee of the Service in respect of-- 
(a)a particular programme; 
(b)a particular allegation or complaint relating to a particular programme; 
(c)the gathering or presentation of news or the preparation or presentation of current affairs programmes; 
programme standards. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 87 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 23 
New Zealand National 23. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 15(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “sections 16 and 17” from paragraph (b) and substitute the words “section 16”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendmentsbe agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Provisions for termination of Te Reo Maori Television Trust (Te Ahwiorangi) transitional arrangements for establishment Service etc provision for review of Act and amendments to other Acts 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 It is quite interesting to stand here and debate Part 3 of the Maori Television Service Bill which will establish the Maori Television Service and spend approximately $55 million per annum at a time when in my home town seven of our 10 hospital theatres have been closed down because they do not have any money. 
John Carter 
: How many? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Seven of our 10 hospital theatres have been closed down because we do not have any money to do operations. 
John Carter 
: Is that recent? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is just in the last couple of days. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. What has hospital wards operating got to do with Part 3 of the Maori Television Bill? There used to be some rules in this place about relevance of debate. It is bad enough that we have the debate on every part as a second reading debate. Now it appears to be a second reading debate about a completely different bill. I know that the member has not been here very long but there are some rules about relevance in the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am ruling on the point of order. The member will keep to the part. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. It has been a convention if we are talking about conventions that members are allowed a lead-in to a debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. The member has had that. 
John Carter 
: She has had only a few seconds Madam Chair. If you look at your clock you will have a better record of that than I. It is not unusual for a member to have some lead-in and then come to the bill. The member was talking about the money that has been spent. It is quite normal for that to happen. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has had 2 minutes to do that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Are you speaking to the same point of order Mr Mark? 
Ron Mark 
: No. It is a new point of order. There are those of us in the House who would have thought that that was quite spurious. I ask you to consider that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member calling the ruling spurious? 
Ron Mark 
: No. It would be very helpful if a man could be allowed to get two words in without a woman interrupting. I am looking at Jill Pettis. I know that it is a habit that is hard to get rid of but the member should try. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Ron Mark 
: My point is that we do note that the Committee stage is an important part of the debate. It is an opportunity for the Opposition to put its arguments against the various clauses and for the Government to respond in kind. I am a little concerned that the only contributions we have had from the Government in this debate are contained in points of order and I ask that members be advised that they should make their contributions as 5-minute contributions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Leader of the House spoke about the generality of the debate. I have given two speeches in this debate and on both occasions I addressed myself specifically to technical points and asked for guidance or comment from the Minister as I invariably do in the Committee stage on points that I believe are proper points of inquiry. The problem that I have if the Leader of the House is correct that in fact one should confine oneself only to those kinds of points is that there has been no response and that if one does that one actually makes a boring speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a point of debate about Government members speaking or not speaking. A lot of members have spoken on this bill and will continue to speak on it. They do need to restrict those speeches to the part concerned. 
Stephen Franks 
: Madam Chairperson you did not let me finish my point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not a point of order. The member cannot raise a point of order about whether the Government participates. That is a point of debate. It is the Government’s decision. 
Stephen Franks 
: It would be very helpful if there were an indication that we were likely to get more than one speech per part which is provided for in the Standing Orders. It is at the discretion of the Chair. Those of us who endeavour to confine ourselves strictly to the technical clauses in the bill end up with our comments on the part as a whole never being heard because we simply get closed down. Given the concern of the Leader of the House about the way we are addressing the bill I invite him to consider that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point but the Chair is the sole judge of relevance. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: As I return to the point I was making as we stand in the Chamber and debate Part 3 it is a sad indication of this Government’s priorities that we are debating the Maori Television Service Bill at a time when seven out of 10 of the hospital theatres in my home city have been closed down due to lack of funding. Each month there are usually 20 operations for grommets; now there will be only 10. But getting back to Part 3 as I continue with my speech— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You were distracted but the member has just carried on talking endlessly about grommets operations and hospital wards in Dunedin. That has nothing to do with Part 3. If she cannot speak on it I suggest that she leaves it to Stephen Franks who can speak on the details of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Committee stage is the nuts and bolts stage. The bill is considered provision by provision—[ 
Interruption 
] There will be silence while I am on my feet and speaking. The bill is considered provision by provision to determine whether the details of the clauses are drafted properly and incorporate the principles of the bill as agreed to by the House. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 88/3. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I understand that when there is a debate during the Committee stage if members refer to a part and the clauses within that part they are still allowed to make comments regarding those clauses. The point I was making during the debate on Part 3 of the Maori Television Service Bill is that it is a sad indication of the Government’s lack of concern about the real issues. It is setting up a television station at a time when seven out of 10 of our hospital theatres are being closed down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Those are matters that should be addressed in the second reading. I have made a ruling on this matter as to relevance. I ask the member to continue. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
John Carter 
: Absolutely and that very question brings me to a second matter that I want to raise with you in a minute. I am concerned about the conduct of the Committee. You have correctly ruled that when there are points of order they are to be heard in silence. We often hear interjections from the junior Government whip. Indeed you just had to remonstrate with her and tell her to stay silent. You made the point that members were to be silent during points of order whereupon the Deputy Prime Minister then uttered an interjection across the Chamber. Also when Katherine Rich was standing and he wanted to raise a point of order he yelled out: “Sit down it’s a point of order.” It is not for him or the junior Government whip to run the Committee it is for you Madam Chairperson. We support you in doing so and so you should. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for his assistance. He is absolutely right. This is about the third warning during the debate on this part on points of order being heard in silence and rulings being heard in silence. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is interesting to see the way members opposite have conducted themselves during the Committee stage of this bill. They have not liked many of the points we have raised in this debate. They have not liked us to mention names like “John Davy” or for us to say words like “Viaduct Basin”. They do not like mention to be made of any of the disastrous decisions the board has made in regard to the Maori Television Service. Government members have lost all signs of a sense of humour as they sit there with totally sombre sour faces. They do not like it one bit. 
In terms of Part 3 though there are some pretty interesting clauses. One of those clauses is clause 76A “Review of Act” which states: “(1) The responsible Ministers must as soon as practicable after the expiry of 5 years from the commencement day—(a) commence a review of the operation ...”. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he really thinks that that channel will be up and running in 5 years for a review to be undertaken. At the moment as it has taken a good 3 years just to get the legislation into the House as far as this I wonder whether when we turn on our television sets in 5 years’ time we will see any channel at all. Certainly the signs are not good. It is doubtful whether the channel will be watched by a large number of New Zealanders. Frankly I think that that clause should be reviewed and amended so that a review is done in 12 months’ time. In 12 months’ time the House will want to have some significant questions answered about the way the television channel has conducted its business in the interim. 
It is very interesting looking at the clauses that relate to the protection of trustees. There is a very long long clause that basically indemnifies all trustees from any liability any failure or any mistake made in terms of putting the bill in place. I am not surprised. Those who were to consider being trustees or directors would want every indemnification possible because the chances are that this thing will not work and if it does not work they will be in the gun. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to focus a little more on new clause 76A. If I read that clause correctly it tells me that if this bill is enacted it will require the Minister to review the entire operation 5 years out from the commencement date. That surely must mean reviewing the structure the costs the uptake of te reo and the outputs—that is the number of people who will be speaking te reo that can be directly attributed to the performance of this television channel. Hopefully the review will also look at the appropriateness of spending the money on this programme as opposed to other programmes like Maori health. 
Pansy Wong 
: It doesn’t state that. 
RON MARK 
: But one would say that it should. I hope that the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia or even the Minister of Finance who is here in the Chamber now will take a call to explain something to me. I have a fear that in reviewing the set-up of the service they will find that Maori have once again been set up for failure. Why do I say that? I will put some information out here in the Chamber that I have had put to me and I will leave it to the Minister to stand on his feet and tell me whether it is true. I have not heard his speech. We will publish the speeches from the Labour Party members on all these bills come the next election so that Maori can see just how much work that party did in the House or Committee on any day and what Labour members did to earn their money. 
I want the Minister to talk to me about why the Maori Television Service is not operating on Sky or why Maori television is not free to air alongside Television One and TV2. 
Jill Pettis 
: Which seat did the member win? 
RON MARK 
: That woman cannot help but interrupt men. She has to chip and chip away. She should sit down. I have been told that there is a satellite floating around up there in the sky called—I ask her to listen and learn something—the Optus B1. 
Jill Pettis 
: Not from you! 
RON MARK 
: The member should not be so nasty. It may be close to the adjournment time but that member should take a pill or something. The Optus B1 satellite is floating up there and I understand that Television New Zealand is operating on frequency 12456 symbol rate 22500 on a Forward Error Correction of three-quarters. I understand that TV2 is operating on exactly the same basis. I also understand that Sky is on that same television satellite. There are eight channels there for Telstra Saturn. 
The chap who pointed that out to me asked why given that Television One and TV2 are on the same satellite—which is free to air on those frequencies and symbol rates—Maori television is not on that satellite. Why is Maori television not operating off that satellite free to air in the same way as Television One and TV2 are operating and why does it have to go on UHF? The Minister knows why that is; he has some answers there. I would like to have the answers to that. I am told that if we were operating Maori television in the same way that Television One and TV2 are operating then the coverage would be nationwide. There would be no blank spots and there would be no issues of Maori sitting up in Northland and knowing that whilst $150 million will be spent on this project they will never get to see it. So I would like the Minister to talk to me about the Optus B1 satellite. 
I would also like him to talk to me about the failed Government bid. I understand that Television One and TV2 planned to form a contract with Telstra Saturn to stop Sky from ruling the satellites. That whole contract fizzed out. It was due to happen in August/September of last year but it did not. Sadly the Government folded and failed to keep up the pressure to stop Sky Network Television from freezing out other competition. However Telstra Saturn had a legal obligation to pay for two Optus B1 satellite transponders—that is TR4 and TR8—for the next 7 years. Part of that agreement set aside half the 54 megahertz transponder for TVNZ to distribute free to air. Why is Maori television not on that? Why is Maori television to be set up at a cost of $150 million ready to be chastised at the review in 5 years’ time—provided for under clause 76A—for blowing money for not having achieved its targeted outputs and for not having been able to identify how many Maori have taken up te reo? I have the horrible feeling that Maori have once again been set up to fail. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I am concerned at the proposal in this part to terminate the Te Reo Maori Television Trust. It seems to me that the replacement which is the channel itself together with Te Putahi Paoho is focused too much on this particular proposal in terms of the advancement of te reo by television. I envisage that the Te Reo Maori Television Trust would take—and it does take—a far broader approach to the issue of promoting te reo on television generally. That is what we need here. We need a body with Maori on it that looks at the wider issues of how te reo is best promoted on national television. 
As I indicated before I am simply not convinced that we should isolate Maori television and te reo education if that happens on a separate channel that hardly anybody will watch and that not very many people will have access to by the sound of it. That will simply isolate the language and put it to one side. In fact it will be destructive of te reo in New Zealand rather than helpful to it. We really need to have a trust such as Te Reo Maori Television Trust to look at the broad perspective of how we promote te reo on nationwide television. 
 I note that in the  
New Zealand Maori Council 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 case which the Government tells us is the foundation for why it is promoting this service the comment was made that it is necessary for there to be mass exposure to te reo throughout New Zealand. That is how we will advance te reo in New Zealand—through mass exposure to the language not by the restricted and confined exposure that will occur when we simply have one fringe channel that is watched by a minority of people and that may or may not deliver education. The Government is sidelining te reo; it is not promoting te reo amongst the general New Zealand population. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I ask the same question about relevance that was previously asked by the Leader of the House. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: The essential point if my friend was listening was the termination of the Te Reo Maori Television Trust. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member is correct. He is sticking to the part. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I note also in new clause 76A that a review is talked about to occur in 5 years’ time. I do not have the optimism of my friend Ron Mark who thinks we will have a wide-ranging review because if he looks at subclause (2) in new clause 76A he will see it states: “Prior to commencing the review referred to … the responsible Ministers must consult with Te Putahi Paoho on the terms of reference for the review.” It states there that the Minister who now has an obligation in terms of the promotion of the Maori Television Service—in the way that the Government wants to promote it through that restrictive channel—has to consult with the body that will in fact head the review on the terms of reference. I can see that those terms of reference will not be terms that will look at wide-ranging issues like whether we still need the television channel because we are asking that body effectively to look at voting itself out of existence. 
I am not confident that the review procedure in the legislation will provide the sort of wide-ranging review that we will need. I do not think even the Government is confident of that because we have already seen previously in clause 28C on Supplementary Order Paper 77 a sort of expectation by the Government that the UHF right will cease to be used. There is almost an expectation of failure for the service because the Government has now put in by way of that Supplementary Order Paper all those provisions that set out what happens if the service does not require the UHF right ceases to use the spectrum licences or proposes to transfer the UHF right to a third party. What does the Government envisage in such provisions? How long will this channel keep going? 
I think this review is not broad ranging enough and if we still had the Te Reo Maori Television Trust operating then it could continue to assess whether this proposal of the Government continues to be the most effective way of trying to get as many New Zealanders as possible familiar with te reo and more and more fluent in it. That will not happen. I and some other members are attending a te reo course at the moment. This bill is like saying that only members of the Maori caucus would be told about that te reo course because we were confining it to them. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I hope that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is listening to me because I think there is a matter that he would have a close interest in. Clause 72 “Protection of trustees” has a provision in subclause (2) that is deeply confusing. It appears on first reading as though it states if a trustee officer or agent refuses to help set up this legislation—the words are: “ … fails or refuses to act in order to prepare for or assist in the implementation of this Act”—then he or she cannot be held liable. The other interpretation is that if he or she does fail or refuse to act in order to prepare for or assist in the implementation of the legislation—in other words if he or she does something in order to assist—then he or she cannot be held liable. I think that anyone whether a lawyer or non-lawyer who reads subclause (2) will see two completely opposite meanings for that subclause and there is nothing in the grammar or context that really states what it is that the Government is trying to do. 
Clause 72 is about the protection of trustees. I assume that they already have a protection in their trust deed. I would be very surprised if they had taken on the trustee exposures if they did not have a protection in their trust deed. So the provision in clause 72 must be intended to add a new kind of protection for them. But is that a protection for trying to delay block or change some aspect of the legislation or is it a protection for not doing one of those things? I can see no indication from the context about what was intended. 
The second point concerns clause 74 which states that the directors of the service must be appointed as soon as reasonably practicable after the commencement of this legislation “in accordance with section 24.” I turn to clause 24 and see it simply states that the board must consist of seven directors four appointed by Te Putahi Paoho and three by the responsible Ministers. To understand what is going on we then have to go to schedule 2 where the appointment provisions are set out. When we go to that schedule and try to imagine what clause 74 will mean in practice we find that that clause is a very covert discreet signal that we then have some joint action by the Ministers and Te Putahi Paoho. An almost hilariously detailed set of definitions has been set out. 
Clause 74 is a little 5-line clause but behind it lurks pages and pages of definition—on suitability conflicts of interest financial probity tests and the whole 9 yards. All of that is implicit in company law and would be totally unnecessary if clause 74 simply stated: “The directors shall be appointed as if they were directors of a company and have all the duties responsibilities liabilities and requirements of directors of a company except that—” and the Government might then have been able to tell us quite clearly why it was that this service was not a company. But nothing in Part 3 tells us that. Indeed nothing anywhere else in the bill tells us why the service was not made a company. 
I think we can then find out why the service will not be a company. It is because this legislation is a carefully cobbled-together set of compromises that are entirely political and are set up to allow the Ministers in fact to control the outfit without alerting Maori to just how deeply they are being patronised. New Subpart 2A which contains new clause 76A “Review of Act” underscores that. Clause 76A(1) states: “The responsible Ministers must as soon as practicable after the expiry of 5 years from the commencement day”—in other words 5 years from now—“(a) commence a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act …”. It is not to be a review of the Maori Television Service but of this legislation in accordance with the terms of reference set out by the Ministers. 
 There is nothing in the Maori Affairs Committee’s report that tells us what it is up to here. Clearly someone said this legislation was a dog and someone else said the committee should not worry about that because the legislation would be looked at in 5 years’ time. That is the most amazing code of acceptance of failure. Even with that little safeguard the Government was so hopeless in the drafting and presentation of this bill that we have had a shambles today concerning which amendments go forward and which do not. This legislation is an abject failure. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure once again to speak on the third part of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori Bill. I take up the point that my colleague from ACT Stephen Franks made about Subpart 2A concerning the review of the legislation. It is quite extraordinary that new clause 76A(1) states: “The responsible Ministers”—it does state “Ministers” not even “responsible Minister” and we would hope that there will be clear accountability there—“must as soon as practicable after the expiry of 5 years from the commencement day—(a) commence a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act in accordance with the terms of reference set by the responsible Ministers;”. 
I am here to try to help the Minister on this occasion. I have put in an amendment that I hope will be a useful contribution. In my last speech I did ask the Minister where the evidence base is that this television service will increase the knowledge of te reo Maori and tikanga Maori on an objective measure in the future. We have seen a dramatic decline in those areas since 1973 and it is absolutely important that the success or otherwise of this station be measured. Consequently I have suggested an amendment to add a new clause 76B which would state: “The responsible Minister must ensure from the beginning of the establishment of the Maori Television Service”—not 5 years later but from the beginning—“that operational research be carried out in order to continuously monitor and measure the efficacy of the Maori Television Service in achieving an objective difference in the number of Maori who are fluent in te reo”. 
I hope that the Minister will take the time to treat that amendment seriously. All too often we lack the operational research needed to assess and monitor whether a particular piece of legislation is indeed effective. Knowing the scarce resources and knowing the various alternatives that are available—as was enunciated by Edwin Perry just a little while ago—to increase the use of te reo and tikanga Maori I think immediately of the kohanga reo organisations and kura kaupapa Maori initiatives in the schools which surely must be extremely pivotal to increasing the knowledge of the matters that this bill is all about. Surely it must be important to have some effective objective measurement right from the beginning of the legislation when it comes into being. I hope that the Minister will take this amendment seriously and will take a call to comment on it. 
When we think of what has happened in the last few years in terms of the television service unfortunately we realise it has been a litany of one mistake after another. If we can ever rescue something out of the unmitigated conglomeration of disasters that have occurred over the last few years—and I will not go over them—it is to make sure that we do such monitoring and measuring right from the start. 
I note that clause 78 “Amendment to Broadcasting Act 1989” states: “Section 53E of the Broadcasting Act 1989 is amended by adding the word ‘; and’ and also by adding the following paragraph: ‘(f) the needs and preferences of—(i) children participating in te reo Maori immersion education; and (ii) all persons learning te reo Maori.’ ” It is absolutely essential that we remind ourselves from the very beginning that that is what this bill is all about. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 71 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12 ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.