Volume 624 Week 83 - Wednesday 16 March 2005 
Volume 624 Week 83 - Wednesday 16 March 2005 
[Volume:624;Page:19221] 
Wednesday 16 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I bring to your attention the great difficulties that some of us are having in getting answers to written questions from the Minister of Health within the time frame of 7 days required under the Standing Orders. I now have 14 written questions for which answers are long overdue. Some of those answers relating to waiting lists—and I know that that information is available—are a mere 6 weeks overdue but some of the questions go back almost a year and despite constant correspondence between my office and that of the Minister of Health the answers are still not forthcoming. The Minister makes frequent statements about being open and transparent but in fact she is the opposite. I ask your guidance Madam Speaker as to how we can get answers to written questions that have been submitted in the proper way. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member sends me a list of those questions then I will look into it immediately. 
Questions to Ministers 
Banking—Joint Trans-Tasman Council 
1. DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: On whose advice did he decide to establish a Joint Trans-Tasman Council on Banking Supervision and what is the purpose of the council? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It was on the advice of the Reserve Bank Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development in a joint report dated 28 January. The council’s terms of reference are to enhance cooperation review trans-Tasman crisis response preparedness advise on policy harmonisation and report on possible legislative changes to ensure the Reserve Bank and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority can support each other in the performance of their current regulatory responsibilities. 
Dail Jones 
: What does the Minister have to say about the comments made by Professor Edward Kane the James F Cleary Professor in Finance at Boston College who was a professional fellow at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand who recently described the proposed joint regulator as “incompatible” with New Zealand’s current regulatory system and a “dangerous step”; and given that that view is consistent in my understanding with that of the Governor of the Reserve Bank Alan Bollard Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development as reported in the  
Dominion Post  
on 24 February is not the Minister’s decision a clear example of a dereliction of his duty to protect New Zealand’s national interests? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is the Joint Trans-Tasman Council on Banking Supervision tasked with exploring the establishment of a single trans-Tasman regulator? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That was explicitly excluded from the terms of reference after discussions between myself and Treasurer Costello. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister agree that a regulator with the oversight of an entire banking group’s operation could have a more complete picture and therefore thorough understanding of that group’s combined financial strength; if so does he therefore agree that over time that could provide more security not necessarily less security to New Zealand depositors? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is something in what the member said but I would qualify that in a number of ways. Firstly I think it is important we recognise that there are circumstances in which a regulator in New Zealand would want to have the capacity to act independently of a regulator in Australia in relation to a systemic issue in New Zealand alone. Secondly there are issues of course around whether the current framework in Australia is best practice in terms of regulation of the banking system—although I think as my colleague the Minister of Justice has already announced there will have to be some moves in New Zealand that will actually take us towards the Australian system in any case for other reasons. 
Dail Jones 
: What will be the situation with regard to New Zealand’s economic sovereignty as a result of the establishment of the Joint Trans-Tasman Council on Banking Supervision and is the Minister certain that we will not be sold down the road to the Australians while we pursue the economic nirvana of this Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister to have a single economic market given that this type of regulator could surely be a stepping stone to a single currency and a single reserve bank and a further step towards economic colonisation by Australia and by foreign-owned banks? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I certainly favour the development of a single economic market. It is clear that that would have enormous benefits from New Zealand’s perspective. But the member is jumping any number of hurdles simultaneously and is at serious risk of doing himself some physical damage as a consequence. 
Dail Jones 
: What assurance can the Minister of Finance give the House that he will accept the warning of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that New Zealand does not come under the control of an Australian-dominated system which would have the effect in the event of a banking crisis of Australian creditors being paid out first and New Zealand creditors receiving nothing bearing in mind that the priority would be Australians first and New Zealanders taking whatever remained—if anything? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a very helpful question because although the Government has made no commitment to proceeding to a single regulator of either limited or broad powers the Australians have put on the table the extension of depositor preference to New Zealanders in the event of a single regulator developing. 
Biotechnology—Research Science and Technology Portfolio 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: How is the research science and technology portfolio contributing to the development of New Zealand’s biotechnology industry? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 On Monday a $100 million life sciences fund the largest ever promoted in New Zealand was announced—the BioPacificVentures fund. The Government will be contributing between $15 million and $20 million towards the fund through the Venture Investment Fund and AgResearch. It will focus on agricultural biotech and food sectors in New Zealand and Australia with a secondary emphasis on health. The establishment of this fund is a vote of confidence in New Zealand’s burgeoning biotech industry and is evidence that there are major opportunities for growth in the biotechnology sector. The main New Zealand investment partner is Wrightson and the main international partner is Nestlé. 
Dianne Yates 
: What else is the Government doing to support the biotechnology sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Let me cite five key points. Around $175 million of our research investment in 2003-04 was put into research in biotechnology and that is the highest proportion invested of any OECD country. More than half the projects funded through our Pre-seed Accelerator Fund so far have been biotech projects. The Research Consortia Fund has funded $10.4 million to biotech-based consortia over the past 2 years and the Venture Investment Fund has supported investment in Proacta Therapeutics. The Australia - New Zealand Biopartnering Fund is funding nearly $6.8 million for commercialisation of four biotech projects. 
Rod Donald 
: How is it consistent with AgResearch’s statement of intent for it to use its scarce resources to become an investor in a venture capital enterprise? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The quantum of money coming from AgResearch is around $5 million of the current $100 million. It seems to me that that level of investment is cautious as it should be. It is appropriate for it to put funding into biotechnology. 
Crown Accounts—Accrual Accounting 
3.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What advantages if any does accrual accounting have over cash accounting in the presentation of the Crown accounts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 They both have advantages. Accrual accounting provides a full picture of the Crown’s financial position including non-cash components such as the unfunded liabilities in the Government Superannuation Fund and Accident Compensation Corporation funds and the retained surpluses from State-owned enterprises. It also has the by-product of making it more difficult to pretend that the benefits from State asset sales are as large as some people like to say they are. That is because the loss of the asset then has to be shown in the accounts. The main disadvantage is that ignorant and dishonest people can assert that the accrual surplus is the same thing as cash available for expenditure or revenue reduction purposes. 
Rodney Hide 
: [ 
Interruption 
] Paul Swain cannot stop himself can he? 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Two percent and falling! 
Rodney Hide 
: See? Does the Minister recall former Labour finance Minister David Caygill cooking the books by declaring a forest asset sale as income in order to hide a deficit; and what is the difference between what David Caygill did and what this Minister of Finance is attempting to do in order to hide a surplus? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member cared to think about his own question he would find that the answer is that David Caygill could be accused of hiding a deficit in that case rather than a surplus. 
John Key 
: If we are to believe that the change in the presentation of the Crown accounts is as the Minister said recently an “effort to educate the media on one of the basic questions of third-form accounting: What is cash?” has he himself considered taking a form 1 accountancy course wherein he would quickly discover that the net value of assets on the balance sheet is the important issue not entirely whether they are funded out of cash; or is he telling New Zealand companies that are capital intensive and are thinking of investing in this country that they should not bother to do so? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No but if the member cares to consult the latest Crown financial statements he will find that the only change that has been made is to the first line that is entered in terms of the summary fiscal indicators: the operating balance or the net cash flow. That means that Mr Key can no longer go around doing his dodgy international financial markets stuff pretending that one can use an operating surplus consisting of retained State-owned enterprise surpluses and revaluations to fund tax cuts. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect for a few moments on the answer given by Dr Cullen and to tell us whether the use of that sort of language is acceptable and if you consider that it is acceptable whether it would be appropriate for the Opposition particularly in supplementary questions to use such epithets as well. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This is a robust House. I did not take exception to Mr Hide talking about “cooking the books” in relation to actions that I am taking and I am sure Mr Key is big enough to look after himself. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I think there is quite a big difference between asking a question about whether someone had cooked the books in the past and suggesting that a member of the House today is “dodgy”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say there was a vigorous exchange of views about others. The point of order is not valid. I call Rodney Hide. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will address his question in silence. 
Rodney Hide 
: It will be hard to give my question in silence. Can I ask my question Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have invited the member three times to ask his question. Would he please ask the question? 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister agree with the Bank of New Zealand’s chief economist Tony Alexander who referred to the Minister of Finance’s focus on the cash balance as “pulling the wool over our eyes” and “the biggest smoke and mirrors exercise” since 1990 or is Tony Alexander also one of those people whom the Minister of Finance needs to educate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Alexander is a well-known self-publicist in the economic area. In terms of the reference to smoke and mirrors I recall that that was Dr Brash’s description of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which he now supports. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would ask you to consider how that answer could possibly have addressed my question. My question asked whether the Minister agreed that Mr Alexander was one of the people who needed to be educated. Michael Cullen’s response was that Mr Alexander is a well-known publicist and then he went on to talk about Don Brash’s criticism of the “Cullen fund”. That in no way addressed the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am happy to elaborate further. The original question asked whether I agreed that I am pulling the wool over people’s eyes. The answer is no. The people pulling wool over people’s eyes are those who pretend an accrual surplus is cash that is available for spending or revenue reduction—people such as that member. 
Aged-care Facilities—Carers 
4.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied that the pay conditions and development of carers in aged-care facilities are sufficient to ensure a sustainable and viable workforce; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 No which is why the Government recently made an extraordinary funding injection into the sector. 
Judy Turner 
: Why has the Government fobbed off the Health Committee’s recommendation that the Government fully fund foundation skills training for caregivers and roll out the model quickly given that in its own response it admitted that current subsidised training schemes simply cannot address the need for the industry’s 45000 workers to be trained? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We are not fobbing off anybody. We are not short of advice on what to do in this sector whether it comes from the select committee report the Quality and Safety Project report the report of the so-called working party and so on. This is an ongoing matter that the Government will address from time to time. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why has the Minister not met with District Health Boards New Zealand to discuss the aged-care crisis which has seen the sector say that it is 20 percent underfunded caused 37 rest homes and hospitals to shut and not-for-profit organisations such as the Mt Roskill retirement village the Methodist Mission the Salvation Army and Presbyterian Support to exit the sector and seen home-care workers paid so poorly due to 6 years of serious neglect by a Labour Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Again the member’s invective does not match the facts. For example on the issue of home care which is the most rapidly growing funded area in this general arena funding in the last 6 years has almost doubled. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Associate Minister outline further improvements that have been made for the care of older people since 1999-2000? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. Total funding for providers in the older peoples sector increased by 14.5 percent in the first 4 years of this Government. Last year it increased a further 3 percent and there is a further Budget in May. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What does the Minister believe are the main issues facing the sustainability of the aged-care sector and what plans does he have to ensure that the current shortage of staff is addressed immediately given that the ageing of our population is set to make this problem worse in the very near future? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I would list the main issues as being quality and safety low pay the ability for the Government to roll out different and in some cases quite innovative models and the desire for us as a nation to move progressively to a point where we meet the needs of the clients in front of us rather than presenting them simply with an array of options that the State has developed. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why if home-care funding has almost doubled over the last 6 years is the Government still allowing home-care workers in some cases to have to cover their own vehicle costs and to cover travel time in their own time which reduces their already low wages to almost nothing in some cases? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is true that home-care workers are in my view quite poorly paid. They receive in some cases $10 an hour or even less. What might interest the member is to learn that when we contract for home care we pay—this is for under-65-year-old people—not $10 an hour but $17.20. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister accept that without Government intervention to ensure that funding for caregivers’ wages is ring-fenced and that significant numbers become qualified—as recommended by the committee—staff turnover rates averaging an alarming 40 percent and up to 88 percent in some places where better-paid work exists will continue to plague this industry? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Generally speaking yes which is why we increased the rates for home-care workers a few months ago by a further 6 percent. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers will the Minister give the House a specific answer to this question: when will the aged-care facility operators be reimbursed for the Holidays Act legislation that was passed last year—now soon or never? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will be able to advise the member of the outcome of those negotiations which are Budget negotiations in due course. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister guarantee that this current aged-care crisis is addressed by way of substantial increases in funding this year that will be significantly greater than the token 3 percent recently received; if not what does he say to caregivers such as Pat Parata of Christchurch who has stuck in this industry for 12 years and is earning only $1.50 more an hour than when she started? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I refer the member to the answer to her primary question which was that the Government made an extraordinary non – Budget cycle funding injection into the sector recently. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a parliamentary question showing that the Minister has not bothered to meet yet with District Health Boards New Zealand to discuss this funding crisis. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is an objection. It will not be tabled. 
Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
5.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why did she not inform the New Zealand public immediately when she learnt there was a problem with the flu vaccine on 28 February? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is plain common sense that no Minister or agency would make a public announcement until all the information was available and comments had been received from the vaccine manufacturer. On 28 February I did not have this information. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Did the Minister not think to ask searching questions surrounding the delay with the flu vaccine because she simply did not realise this was an extremely important public health issue affecting over 700000 people or because she is so used to ducking her responsibilities that she relied on the fact that she could always blame health problems on someone else? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it was because I was informed I would receive information in a few days which I did and because the roll-out of the vaccine programme is not due to start until 21 March and we still have not reached that date. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What progress has been made in seeking suppliers of full-strength vaccine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am pleased to inform the House that I have just been advised that Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will supply New Zealand with an additional 100000 doses—50000 within a month and 50000 a month later. That gives us a total of 150000 doses and work continues to secure more. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that the flu vaccine contains thiomersal a known allergen that contains mercury; if so does that not mean that New Zealanders who get a double-dose of the vaccine will get double-doses of mercury? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No this vaccine does not contain thiomersal. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw to your attention that the ACT party should be called in preference to the Green Party. My colleague Heather Roy has been calling consistently from the start of this question; it is just a question of order according to proportionality in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I accept that. My apologies. 
Heather Roy 
: How many patients will die of the flu this winter because of this dodgy vaccine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No patients would die because of this dodgy vaccine. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister be instituting an inquiry into Pharmac’s handling of this issue given that this is the first time that Pharmac has been involved and we have a problem or does she consider that Pharmac has covered itself in glory in its handling of the matter? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I will not be initiating an inquiry into Pharmac’s handling. It followed the procedure that has been followed for the last 7 years—that is to go to a request for proposal process and then to have a sole supplier. What it has said—and so has the Ministry of Health—is that it will examine whether it would stay with a sole supplier in future or look for multiple suppliers. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What comments has she seen on the work being done by expert advisers on New Zealand’s approach toward a flu vaccination programme this year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This morning the National spokesperson on health who might be an expert in gynaecology but certainly is not on expert in communicable diseases was raising alarm on the radio about the possible side effects—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear the Minister’s answer. Would members please allow the Minister to give her answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Order will not be maintained while Ministers repeatedly take gratuitous shots at members of the Opposition. If that is the sort of Parliament you want to run that is the sort of consequence there will be. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker I refer you back again to some of the original questioning which accused the Minister of dereliction of duty. All the Minister said was that the member was a gynaecologist and not an expert in communicable diseases. That is scarcely gratuitous; it is actually a basic fact. I am sure the member takes no offence from that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order is not a valid point of order. Would the Minister please give her answer. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Dr Hutchison was on the radio this morning raising alarm about the side effects of double-dosing. I believe that he used his title as a doctor to raise unnecessary and alarmist fears without waiting to hear from the experts; I wait to hear from the experts. I think that shows he is playing pure politics. He is also revealing the nature of his ignorance because in fact New Zealand has provided two doses in certain circumstances to children in the past and this is consistent with international practice. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does she think an independent expert committee can decide whether two doses of the Sanofi Pasteur flu vaccine will be safe and effective within a week or two when usually it takes months to carry out scientific evidence-based trials or is she just hoping her committee will get her off the hook? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would suggest that Dr Hutchison goes and says that to the experts on the committee—paediatricians infectious disease specialists virologists and so on—who are experienced in making such decisions and in fact are able to read international evidence even if the member is not. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question: why does she think an independent expert committee can decide whether two doses of the Sanofi Pasteur flu vaccine will be safe and effective within a week or two? She failed to address that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I listened carefully and she addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. She addressed the question by telling Dr Hutchison to go and ask that question of the committee. I am sure he is capable of doing that but surely you would expect the Minister to answer a question asked of her in the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I listened carefully to the answer. The Minister said that the committee was composed of experts who are capable of reading the international evidence on these matters. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement just given to Heather Roy that no one will die of the flu because the vaccine fails to vaccinate properly; if she does will she resign as Minister if someone does sadly die because of the improper vaccine or is her job as Minister more important than this person’s life? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member might like to rewrite the question for the member who asked me the question. She said it was a dodgy vaccine. I said that it is not a dodgy vaccine; it is a vaccine that has full potency for two strains of influenza and not enough for a third strain. I was commenting on the fact that she said it was a dodgy vaccine. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is attempting to rewrite her answer I think. What she said in her first answer was that no one would die because of this vaccine which as the Minister said vaccinates against only two strains of flu not three. She said in this House that no one would die as a consequence. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Of a dodgy vaccine. 
Rodney Hide 
: She has said it again. I asked her whether she stands by it. The answer is yes or no and she is refusing to answer. I think what we are hearing from the Minister is that she is quite happy to pretend that no one is at risk because this flu vaccine does only two out of three strains but she is not prepared to stand up in this House and say that no one will die as a consequence. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think this is the problem that happens when people do not listen to answers carefully then change subtly the wording of a subsequent question and then complain they have not been given the same answer as previously. Heather Roy asked the Minister whether she can assure the House that no one would die as a result of this dodgy vaccine. The Minister said that yes she can give that assurance. The member asked as a different question if he cares to think about it whether she can assure the House that no one would die as a result of the flu. That is a different question if he cares to think about it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I thank Dr Michael Cullen for pointing out that it was a different question. Now may the Minister of Health answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened carefully to the points of order and also to the questions and the answer. The Minister addressed the question. There is no valid point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a very important matter. We have just heard the Minister of Health not ruling out people dying of the flu— 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I wasn’t asked that. 
Rodney Hide 
: She can interrupt because I know she is feeling sensitive about this. [ 
Interruption 
] Are you going to do anything about that Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please finish his point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I would if the Minister would shut up so I could say it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please sit down. Please just calm down. The Minister knows she is not to interrupt—as is no member—during a point of order. Please abide by that rule. Would Mr Rodney Hide please address his point of order so I can rule on it. 
Rodney Hide 
: Thank you. It is a very serious matter. The question that I put to the Minister was whether she would rule out people dying as a consequence of this vaccine not properly vaccinating people for the three strains of flu. What we are hearing from the Minister is that she is not prepared to rule that out. I suppose the only conclusion we can reach is that yes New Zealanders will die of the flu although they have had this vaccine because it is inadequate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order is really a supplementary question. Does the Minister wish to address that question? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order I addressed the member’s question. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister agree that as of today she can give assurance to only 150000 people that a fully effective vaccine is available and that according to experts that will leave 500000 people uncertain and put some of them at greater risk of hospitalisation or even death which should have been prevented? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly wish we could have had the vaccine we ordered from the company. However I am pleased to say that yesterday we had 50000 doses today we have 150000 doses and the work goes on. Next week the ministry will be able to inform New Zealanders as to whether the vaccine we have purchased is able to be double-dosed. 
Rodney Hide 
: How many people Minister will die as a consequence of not being— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If we are going to ask for strict rulings the member cannot ask a question like that; questions should be addressed through you. The member cannot ask a question in that particular kind of form. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please address the question in the correct form. 
Rodney Hide 
: How many people will die of the flu this winter because this vaccine does not vaccinate them against all three strains as promised? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have that information. At this stage although we have 150000 doses we are seeking more and I am hopeful we will have more before the flu hits New Zealand. If members recall flu arrived in New Zealand in September last year. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you need to carefully consider whether the Minister has given an answer consistent with the public good. Mr Hide asked a pretty simple question and I would have thought the Minister would know why the flu vaccine was being funded. Surely the flu vaccine is being funded because it saves lives. There must be some estimate somewhere that goes across her desk that states: “Go into the bilaterals and bid for this amount of money so that you can effectively ensure that this number of New Zealand lives are saved from death by influenza.” For the Minister to say she does not know stretches all credibility. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I suggest that we are now getting into depths of absurdity. First of all the Minister indicated to the House that work is still going on as to whether double-dosage can be used which of course would increase the potency in relation to the flu version that is not covered adequately by the current vaccine that has been ordered. The member is asking for a whole series of things in terms of assumptions that cannot possibly be arrived at at this point. The Minister clearly addressed the question and in fact gave an honest answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My ruling on the point of order is that the fact the Minister said she did not know is a direct answer to the question; therefore the question was addressed. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two documents the first from the  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 of March this year entitled “New Zealand’s Pandemic Action Plan”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second document is a report from NewsQuest dated 15 March where Dr Peter Moodie the Medical Director of Pharmac says there is no way that Pharmac would be able to arrange to replace all 750000 Sanofi Pasteur vaccines and it now needed to work out how best to use the vaccines. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table a press statement from the Australian chief medical officer announcing a supply problem for the flu vaccine that was produced a day after New Zealand health professionals had been advised in New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The document will not be tabled. 
Tertiary Education—Industry Links 
6.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is the Government taking to promote better linkages between tertiary education organisations and industry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Sixty research projects linking tertiary students with industry have been approved under the Enterprise Scholarships programme. These scholarships support students to undertake study involving a significant research component. Half the funding is provided by private companies or organisations such as Crown research institutes and half is funded by Government contribution. 
Helen Duncan 
: How are students and industry benefiting from Enterprise Scholarships? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Organisations benefit by having access to talent technology knowledge and training by working with students in research teams from any discipline area to improve processes business solutions train existing staff and identify potential future staff. Students benefit from having significant financial support to undertake their studies. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister is funding links between students and business through the Enterprise Scholarships scheme what is happening to the money he allocated to the strategic initiative scheme for exactly the same purpose—a sum of $25 million to organisations that are already flush with slush funds from the Government? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will share that comment with the private training organisations which the member has criticised over the last 24 hours. 
Tertiary Education Commission—Strategic Direction 
7.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How much funding if any was allocated from the Strategic Priorities Fund for each of the following courses: the animal homeopathy course run by Bay of Plenty College of Homeopathy the art of health course run by Taruna College and the nail technology course run by the National School of Aesthetics? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Strategic Priorities Fund was established in 2002 following our Government’s decision to cap the funding for private training establishments which previously had been funded on a “bums on seats” formula developed by the member when he was in Government. In order to receive funding providers have to demonstrate that courses meet a range of criteria including: first getting people into jobs; second regional needs; and third links with industry. I am advised that those courses will this year receive around $180000. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen a memo from the Tertiary Education Commission that explains that late last year it decided not to fund alternative therapies and some other types of courses from the Strategic Priorities Fund; can he explain to the House whether its change of mind was because of pressure from him so that the Strategic Priorities Fund is now paying for a course like the art of health which includes in its subject matter “Cosmic and Earthly connections: 7 fold human being in relation to the planets organs metals and soul types.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not sure why the member hates Rudolf Steiner schools so much. That course is run by the organisation that trains the teachers and workers in Rudolf Steiner schools. I do not myself quite go for that approach but I do not believe Ministers should stop it. I had no influence on those decisions. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What specific steps has the Tertiary Education Commission taken in order to focus enrolment patterns to meet the objectives for the tertiary education strategy or is a “bums on seats” funding policy still the order of the day? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There has been considerable work in this area as the member is aware—for example through the Performance-based Research Fund into which $200 million is going. That is a move away from “bums on seats” to a strategic approach. There has been a major development in Modern Apprenticeships—a move away from a “bums on seats” approach to one that is strategic. In this particular area there was evidence provided that a group in New Zealand’s dairy regions such as the Waikato the Bay of Plenty Southland and the Wairarapa is committed to ensuring that animal health standards meet overseas expectations of quality—in particular the increase in demand for organic produce and meat. Again frankly that does not mean much to me but it is worth $70 million to exporters. It is a rapidly growing market. Opposition members may hate people who have alternative approaches but this Government does not. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: With regard to the Minister’s answer to that question does he think it is important strategically for the organic sector as a growing export industry to have vets who can treat animals without chemicals so that they can maintain their organic certification or does he think like Mr English that neither the education sector nor the agricultural sector need to respond to market demand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the answer to that is it is a bit of both. Fonterra has indicated that if companies meet US standards for dairy products they get a premium of 16 percent and that that will be moving up to 20 percent. That is a market matter and in order to get those premiums antibiotics cannot be used. People do use organic and other methods. The Opposition members may not like us to export organically raised milk or meat but this Government will not oppose it in the way that Bill English does. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In addition to concerns over the strategic priority of some of these training courses does the Minister believe that the reported 25 percent decline in enrolments in one training organisation is a result of my exposure of shortcomings or does he accept that the previous levels may well have been inflated by fraudulent enrolments? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On the fundamental point of the member’s question the numbers were dropping well before he made his revelations. 
Jill Pettis 
: Is funding for those sorts of courses new? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I happened to pull out information about a group of courses that were approved in 1999 and amongst that group were homeopathy golf and health and natural rebalance therapies. I think that a few Opposition members could use the latter. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he is aware that the Education and Science Committee has asked the Tertiary Education Commission to release the tertiary enrolment figures for 2004 and that the commission has agreed to release them but that he is stopping the release of those figures because he is trying to hide further evidence of massive growth in low-level low-quality courses at the expense of trades and apprenticeships; and why does he not release the figures? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I intend tomorrow or on Friday to release the figures on apprenticeships which will prove that what the member says is untrue—and I think he knows that. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table documents that show fraudulent enrolments in a tertiary training course. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: What would the Minister say to the parents who spoke to their petition on special-needs education to the Education and Science Committee this morning—which included stories about children at school who require nappies but have no one to change them—about his history of stupid decisions about the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars on tertiary education courses that students do not attend while those children with special needs go without? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would tell them to listen very carefully to the member try to run down New Zealand organic farmers. I would say to them that this Government has worked very hard to get people into jobs and to build the value of the economy so that we can supply the sort of special education that all of us think is necessary. I would also say to them that the very low priority that the previous Government put on training special-education teachers is showing now. I do not know why National hates the parents of children with special needs. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sitting here not as a member of the National Party or the Labour Party but I ask you to consider that the Minister in his answer said that members of an entire party hate the parents of special-needs children. You accepted that as an answer to a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please withdraw that comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
Biotechnology—Regulations 
8.  
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does she stand by her response to my question for written answer 15237 (2004) that a role of the Ministry for the Environment in respect of biotechnology is to “ensure our regulations remain appropriate”; if so has she received any new information that would cause her to revise those regulations? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes I stand by that response and no I have received no new information that would cause me to revise current regulations. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What then is the response of the Minister to the findings of the recent United States Government research that proved that individual genes do not line up with one-on-one individual heritable traits but line up with multiple traits which means that changing even one gene by genetic engineering will inevitably lead to multiple undesirable outcomes and inherent instability? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am well aware of that development in genetic technology and that is the reason why we have an Environmental Risk Management Authority that takes such applications on a case by case basis. 
David Parker 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the case by case approach she just spoke of is and remains appropriate for dealing with biotechnology advances in New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes more than ever. My colleagues Peter Hodgson and Steve Maharey recently announced grants in excess of $20 million to put New Zealand at the forefront of biotechnology innovation and we have rigorous testing processes under our hazardous substances and new organisms legislation to ensure we can take advantage of developments and be aware of changes in technology. 
Larry Baldock 
: Would the Minister agree that the fact none of the predictions about overseas consumers boycotting New Zealand produce once the GE moratorium was lifted have eventuated is a reasonable indication that our regulations have been appropriate; if so does she have concerns that the comments from Dr Tony Connor a professor of plant biology at Lincoln University as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
yesterday that “…it has become virtually impossible to justify field trials of GM plants because of the costs involved and the effort to win approval.” perhaps indicate that the regulations are too tight? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: What I take from Dr Tony Connor’s comments is an indication that we do have a rigorous assessment regime and it does involve costs but they are appropriate given the level of assessment and the risk management called for by the public. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it not true that since the moratorium was lifted there have been no applications for commercial release—in fact no applications for field trials—and therefore is it no wonder that lifting it has had no impact on our overseas trade? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement in a recent issue of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s  
Perspective 
 newsletter: “Continuing attention has been given to relationships with a whole range of stakeholders.”; or does she now agree with Bas Walker the authority’s chief executive who has admitted that the authority is being boycotted by non-governmental organisations and independent scientists because of their lack of faith in the authority? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I stand by my comments in the magazine. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Minister aware of the recent review by Marvier and Van Acker in which the authors contend that risk management protocols concerning GE organisms have to date paid too little attention to the role of human error in generating risk and that coexistence of GE and non-GE crops is virtually impossible; and what advice has she received from Ministry for the Environment officials on this matter? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am not aware of that particular piece of research but I am aware of ongoing research on coexistence that gives different advice. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Minister aware that species that grow through different life phases such as caterpillars growing into butterflies have identical DNA in both phases—in fact in all phases—of their lives; and if that DNA were to be used to create a GE pig for argument’s sake can the Minister predict whether the resulting creature will be a pig that builds a cocoon or a pig that flies? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I can make no such prediction though I wish I could. 
Primary Health Organisations—Official Information Act Request 
9.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why wasn’t the report  
Review of Primary Health Organisation Management Services 
 dated 11 August 2004 released when I made a request in September 2004 under the Official Information Act 1982 and why has it taken 6 months and intervention from the Ombudsmen for this report to finally be made available? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The member’s request for the report  
Review of Primary Health Organisation Management Services 
 was made to the Director-General of Health not to the Minister of Health. The review was undertaken to assist policy development and Budget decisions. Following the receipt of the review policy work commenced. Budget decisions were finalised in the last few days. The report was released once the decisions were made. 
Heather Roy 
: Is the Minister saying that she was not consulted advised or in any way connected to the decision not to release this report until forced to do so; and if she cannot say yes to that how does she reconcile her role in this with her constant claims to be proud of her open and transparent provision of health information? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is the Minister aware of any reports outlining attitudes towards primary health organisations? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I am. I have read a recent report in the first Grey Power quarterly publication for 2005 in which Dr Lynda Scott one of the five health spokespeople the Opposition has had in the last 5 years appeared to accept the introduction of primary health organisations and was reported as saying that when push came to shove the primary health organisations policy was not much different from that adopted by the previous National Government. I am not sure how National can claim credit for what this Government has achieved in primary health care but it is clear that National goes along with the thrust of what we are doing. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What responsibility does the Minister take for directly influencing the withholding of this report as well as for not informing the public of the vaccine crisis immediately and how can anyone have faith in her when if something bad happens she tries to cover it up? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am a Minister who does not cover things up but also I do not go out using my title as “Dr” and trying to whip up a political storm over an issue that is not political but is a serious public health issue in New Zealand. That member has done that and he should hear the feedback today from some of his former health colleagues. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister may have inadvertently misled the House when she said she does not go out and use her title. My understanding is that— 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I didn’t say that. 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes the Minister did say that. I am making a point of order. That is the third time the Minister has interrupted. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please refrain from interrupting on a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: The Minister inadvertently misled the House by saying in her answer—and she might try to interrupt and say that she did not but  
Hansard 
 will show that I am correct—that she does not go out using her title as “Dr”. Well she is not a doctor. She has no title to use at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That may be a point but it is not a valid point of order. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What other feedback has the Minister received on the primary health care strategy? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A keynote speaker at last week’s primary health care conference in Wellington which was attended by 600 delegates was Dr Rafael Bengoa from the World Health Organization. He is a world expert on chronic disease management. He thanked New Zealand for its right approach congratulated us on our sustained policy commitment and said that our focus on chronic care needs is an integral part of primary health care reforms. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just for future reference so that members of the Opposition parties are clear on your ruling can you tell us on how many occasions it is acceptable for a Minister to interject on a point of order before action will be taken? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will judge that as it arises. On that point of order I tell the Minister that if she intervenes again then further action will be taken. That goes for all members not just for that Minister. We have been running a fairly fluid game here with interjections going backwards and forwards and it has been a matter of give as good as one gets. However it is getting to the point where it is very difficult to hear the answers to the questions so I ask members to refrain from caterwauling. I do not mind the odd interjection but when one cannot hear the answer it becomes very difficult. 
Heather Roy 
: Is it not true that the reason the Minister did not release this report was that it found that Labour’s primary health organisations are deficient in performance monitoring deficient in reporting requirements deficient in business planning and deficient in quality management amongst other things; or was it because there was such a lack of financial information that they could not even identify relevant costs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could seek the leave of the House to have the bell rung in order to wake up the Minister of Education David Benson-Pope for question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a valid point of order. 
Border Control—Trade Facilitation and Security 
10.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What initiatives has he launched to increase the dual purposes of trade facilitation and security capability at the border? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 This Government has invested $20 million in equipment including three mobile container inspection units two fixed-site X-ray units five extra mobile trailers and one multi-purpose screening unit which are all now in use at the border. 
Mark Peck 
: Could the Minister tell the House what the effect of these initiatives has been? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: These initiatives have been successful on both fronts. The Customs Service has recently made a significant drugs seizure that would not have been possible without the X-ray equipment. In respect of exports the new equipment has been effective in providing assurance about the contents of export containers thereby ensuring that New Zealand exporters’ goods clear customs at their destination without delay or charge—a good result all round. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How does the requirement that Customs Service staff demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of Maori culture and the Treaty of Waitangi including its historical legal social and economic significance to the Customs Service workplace fit in with the new initiative and assist with security at the border? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is always important to be aware of cultural issues. But that is an operational matter and I suggest the member directs that question to the Comptroller of Customs. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You might like to ask the Minister to reconsider the answer that he gave. You may remember that a similar question was asked of Mr Mallard in the House a couple of weeks ago and he gave a similar answer—that the matter was operational. We checked it out with the State Services Commission and were told that the relationship between staff and a Minister is a matter for the Minister and that the advertisements that appear in newspapers and other job advertisements that require applicants to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Maori culture and the Treaty of Waitangi including its historical legal social economic and other significance to the Customs Service workplace are fulfilling a requirement put in place by the Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am somewhat surprised by the member’s comments. I would ask him to authenticate those comments to indicate whom he has spoken to whether he received that in writing and whether normal form was followed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That may be another matter for another time. Ruling on the point of order I say that the Minister is entitled to respond in that vein. Whether the member who asked the question accepts the answer is entirely another matter. 
Paul Adams 
: Can the Minister assure nervous exporters who are already under stress due to the Government’s programme of border security cost recovery that this time the cost of further securing the facilitation and capability of trade in the name of national interest will not be imposed upon them and that due consideration of their difficult situation will be taken into account when deciding who will fund border security initiatives; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can assure the member that these programmes are in the best interests of exporters as I said in my earlier supplementary answer. These initiatives have ensured that New Zealand exports are crossing foreign borders quickly expeditiously and without delay or charge. 
Paedophile—Supervision 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What evidence did his department have for its assessment as stated by the Hon Phil Goff on 12 January 2005 that halving the supervision of paedophile Lloyd Alexander McIntosh is “appropriate to prevent risk of reoffending at this point”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Currently this offender has two supervisors with him at all times during the day. However initial advice from the department at the time of the statement was that moving to one supervisor during the day was appropriate. Following further discussions with the provider it has been agreed that it is appropriate to have two supervisors present whenever the offender is in public. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why when in January Mr Goff was insisting that community safety would not be jeopardised by cutting McIntosh’s guards from two to one has the Government quietly shelved the plan Mr Goff so endorsed? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The advice at the time was that that level of coverage was appropriate. However the department went back and had good lengthy discussions with the provider—and I commend it for doing that. On the basis of those discussions it was decided to maintain the current level of supervision. I suggest that the member congratulate the department on that rather than trying to attack it. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What has the Government done to protect the public from high-risk child sex offenders? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly this Government passed the Sentencing Act 2002 which states that a recidivist child sex offender can receive preventive detention and be locked up if necessary for life. Secondly legislation was passed last year that allowed for an extended supervision period of up to 10 years for serious recidivist sex offenders after the completion of their sentences. This Government under the leadership of Phil Goff has done a lot to try to make sure the community is safer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When Mr Goff endorsed halving Lloyd Alexander McIntosh’s supervision and said that there would be no increased risk to the public was he briefed by his department that the people who knew McIntosh best had warned that those cuts were unsafe and unwise and that staff had grave misgivings about them? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table my statement which is quite different from the misrepresentation that Mr Ryall has made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. The document will not be tabled. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has long been a convention of this House—certainly in my short time here—that if a member wishes to table a document in relation to a question it is done at the conclusion of that question not after a supplementary question has been asked by the Opposition and before the Minister has answered it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I believe that it is very important when a misrepresentation is made by a member that it is corrected immediately. That is why I sought leave at that point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That may not be the normal process but it has happened in the past. We will now move on to the question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When Mr Goff in his press release of 12 January that defended the Department of Corrections raised no questions whatsoever in parroting his officials’ advice and telling the public there would be no increased risk to its community safety had the department advised the Minister that it had received advice from the people who supervise Lloyd McIntosh that such cuts were unsafe and unwise and that the staff had grave misgivings about that? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am advised that there was a briefing with the department. There was a lot of discussion about the appropriate level of supervision and as I have said before after further lengthy discussions with the provider towards the end of January—as I understand it—the level of supervision was maintained at two persons. I think that the member should applaud that because the department has been responsive to concerns by listening to relevant information from the provider. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not a fact that this Government’s ridiculous extended supervision scheme has now created a bizarre situation whereby providers such as the one that has the contract to accommodate and supervise high-risk sex offenders like Lloyd Alexander McIntosh are now able to collude with the paedophiles they have in their charge in order to ratchet up and extort more money out of the Government and out of the Department of Corrections by negotiating and levering them through publicity and through playing on the fears of the public—something that this Government cannot handle—and is this not an example of a new burgeoning industry we will see where we will end up paying people hundreds of millions of dollars to run a scheme that could quite easily be catered for by putting those people in preventive detention immediately? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that this is the same Lloyd McIntosh who along with Barry Ryder and many others was released in 1993 by the previous National Government of which Tony Ryall was a part with absolutely no control no supervision and no attempt to put legislation in place to provide it? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can it be that that Minister has any responsibility for any action alleged or otherwise that occurred under a previous National Government? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We are talking about someone who is the current Minister’s responsibility. All the questioner was trying to do was to establish that it is the same man that Tony Ryall was happy to see go free and attack little boys in the 1990s. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker I ask whether you heard the comments made to the House by Mr Mallard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I did not. There was too much noise as you may have heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well then I think it would be unfair to require you to take action immediately. We asked you last week and the week before to consider a number of things and come back to the House but you obviously have not had time yet to do that. This matter is very serious. I ask you to consider Mr Mallard’s comments which will be in the  
Hansard 
 available after question time and then to decide what action should be taken. There have never been statements made—in my short experience in this House—that are likely to lead to so much future disorder as those just made by Mr Mallard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am very happy to do that Mr Brownlee. I will also be considering however as I said that I have allowed a fairly free rein of interjections and caterwauling across the House from all sides. The question will be whether that also can continue in the future. When one simply cannot hear the statements that are made there is no opportunity to intervene immediately. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I just make the point that Mr Mallard’s comments were made during a point of order. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon Annette King 
: It relates to this: today you have ruled that on several occasions I interjected during a point of order. I just want to say that that has to apply also to those who make the complaints and that the chief Opposition whip interjected during a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I note that point. It has gone on on both sides of the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think you may have unwittingly been put in some difficulty by Mr Brownlee in that I think you responded to his question in relation to something other than what you thought he was referring to. Apparently in his point of order he was referring to the statement made by Mr Mallard in speaking to the point of order which obviously you did hear since there was no large amount of noise in the House at that time. I think what Mr Brownlee was seeking from you was advice as to whether Mr Mallard’s comment in relation to Mr Ryall being happy to see somebody released into the community to attack little boys was out of order. I actually think Mr Mallard should withdraw that comment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to withdraw that comment. I did not actually hear it but I will ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. New Zealand First has noted that you have noted the behaviour of members on both sides of the House. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that my colleagues’ behaviour in New Zealand First— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Their behaviour is exemplary. I have noted that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You should point out to Mr Brown that it is inappropriate to talk about the absence of members from the House. We all noticed that Mr Peters was not here. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In response to Mr Goff’s question yes I can confirm that it is the same Lloyd McIntosh. That is why I think it is absolutely disgraceful that National wants to play politics on that issue when it let the sex offender out into the community in the first place. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to refer to two particular statements you made during this question time. A couple of times you referred to the fact that there have been general interjections almost as a way of justifying behaviour on the part of the Government which was clearly out of order. There is some behaviour in this Chamber that is in order and some such as interjecting during a point of order that is quite out of order. The Opposition is going to find it a bit difficult if you go down that path whereby actions that are clearly out of order are justified by you because Opposition members were making a noise during the answer to a question. We are moving to a new plane where answers are going to be treated much more broadly and certainly that will incite disorder. Personal abuse has always been here and you are permitting it so it will continue to incite disorder on a pretty regular basis. Our response to that should not be treated by you as a way of justifying a Minister’s interjecting on a point of order. All I am asking is that you treat issues that are out of order on their own merits. The fact that the House is noisy sometimes does not justify the Government being out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is talking to the same point of order which has been dealt with. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the member makes a very fair point. But what we have seen today also are a number of points of order that if I am to take them seriously from the members opposite and because of the noise from their own side they did not actually hear the answers being given or at least took exactly the wrong impression out of it. For example I cannot see how referring to Dr Hutchison as a gynaecologist is an abusive statement. It seems to be no more abusive than calling me a historian. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will certainly take on board all those points. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was trying to raise this a little earlier but we have obviously been preoccupied with other points of order. I am not sure about the answer the Minister gave to the House. He gave a very short answer to my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Does the member wish to ask a supplementary question? 
Ron Mark 
: I am seeking clarification as to whether the Minister said that money is not being extorted from him by the people who are looking after Mr McIntosh or that he agrees the scheme does not work. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The problem there was that Mr Mark followed his usual custom of asking an extremely long question which had so many subparts within it that the Minister could have answered “No” to any particular part and the member is then in the difficulty of not knowing to which part the answer was given. The solution is to ask shorter and more precise questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have noted that the practice has developed of the questions being longer than most of the answers. Often there is more than one question involved within the supplementary question and we all know what the Standing Orders say about that. But we do in fact apply them reasonably liberally. So I ask members to just consider that issue when they are asking questions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did this Minister’s office deny receiving correspondence from McIntosh’s supervisors warning of an increased risk to community safety when an Official Information Act request shows that his office and his department did have this letter in their possession? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It was because it was copied to me as a member of Parliament in Upper Hutt not as the Minister of Corrections. As soon as I became aware of that I advised the media accordingly. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table papers that show that when the Labour Government cut the level of supervision of Barry Allan Ryder within days he had gone on to reoffend. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection. 
Marc Alexander 
: What gives the Minister confidence that any amount of supervision for Lloyd McIntosh will be effective given he has already sexually violated an intellectually disabled woman while being supervised and has admitted both an intention to manipulate his supervisors and to reoffend and would it not be more effective to put the $350000 tax bill for 1 year’s supervision towards securing him in a psychiatric facility for the obviously chronic nature of his medical condition or is this no longer possible since Labour has closed these options down? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: May I intervene at this point and note the point that was pointed out by the senior Opposition whip. If in fact members want to table documents that should be done at the end of the supplementary questions. I think this is a good example of that. Could the member please repeat the question to the Minister who obviously thought that it was over. 
Simon Power 
: We thought it was all over. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Exactly because of a departure from the normal practice. 
Marc Alexander 
: What gives the Minister confidence that any amount of supervision for Lloyd McIntosh will be effective given he has already sexually violated an intellectually disabled woman while being supervised has admitted an intention to manipulate his supervisors and to reoffend and would it not be more effective to put the $350000 tax bill for 1 year’s supervision towards securing him in a psychiatric facility for the obviously chronic nature of his mental condition or is this no longer possible since Labour has closed down these options? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I think the incident the member raises was the one in Palmerston North. I think the point about that was that primarily the supervision was not as adequate as it should have been. What we now know is that the provider who is providing the supervision now will be trained and skilled and the level of supervision now has been agreed between the provider and the department as being appropriate. 
Electricity—Pricing 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Have average household power prices increased since the election of the Government in 1999; if so by how much? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I am advised that the average retail charge per kilowatt hour has increased from 11.4c as at 15 November 1999 to 14.53c as at 15 November 2004. A significant proportion of this increase reflects increasing electricity generation costs with higher prices being paid for thermal fuels. However New Zealand still has some of the cheapest prices in the OECD. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Economic Development has outlined price increases throughout the country along the lines of 40 percent since the Government came into power and further to that is he aware that some power companies including taxpayer-owned companies such as Genesis Power are warning that there will be further power price increases in the pipeline very very shortly and is that acceptable to the Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have certainly seen some figures that are somewhere around the 30 percent level. I have not seen any at the 40 percent level. I have seen some gas price increases in the pipeline. But I can tell the member of prices for household power supply in some other countries. In Denmark for example the price is 43c in Italy 35c and in Japan 32c. They do not have the natural resources; they are richer countries than we are but sometimes we do not know how lucky we are. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that some of that price increase is a result of levies in order to increase power generation at Whirinaki and that there are complications now with Whirinaki being able to deliver the power it can generate because of limitations in the national grid? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Certainly yes some of the ongoing cost is around Whirinaki and I understand that the person who briefed the newspaper on transmission limitations was somewhat out of date. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister recall that Labour when in Opposition promised to solve the electricity problems for New Zealanders and implied that prices would be cheaper; if he does recall that will he tell us how he will deliver on that promise and when New Zealanders can expect it to be delivered without him telling us to go and live in Denmark? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I do not recall that. 
Question No. 1 to Member 
Question withdrawn. 
Voting 
Correction 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the vote on the third reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill to be amended. The proxy vote of Pansy Wong was inadvertently cast both for the Ayes and the Noes. The result was announced as Ayes 76 Noes 44. It should have been Ayes 76 Noes 43. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought by Lindsay Tisch for that amendment to be made. Is there any objection? It shall be made. 
General Debate 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. It is roughly 6 months until an election has to occur in New Zealand. At this stage New Zealanders are asking themselves a question: not just who is the Government but where is the alternative Government? Not who it is but where it is. There must also have been the question: where is the Opposition? Because if there is no Opposition there cannot be an alternative Government and there is not an Opposition. 
This Labour Government has proved that it can work with other parties in the House and shortly we will achieve the longest-lived successful coalition in New Zealand’s history under MMP in terms of the support from United Future. We work with our friends in the Greens. We work on occasions with New Zealand First. The National Party has nobody to work with at all. It is a party whose members yesterday when offered the chance to debate the issue of the day the vaccines instead chose to spend 2½ hours trooping into the voting lobbies most of them on the wrong side to lose time after time after time with poor old Pansy Wong ending up voting on both sides for a brief period of time. 
What we see around us now is a National Party with no friends. There is no other party in this House that wants to work with the National Party. The National Party is reduced to Dr Lockwood Smith and Pansy Wong sitting together. Talk about the odd couple! Look at the ACT party. ACT was buddying up to National only a short time ago. Now we see the savagery of the cornered beast at 2 percent. They have to take a chunk out of the National Party’s legs and the mad dogs have been let loose on the National Party as a consequence. National loathes ACT. Look at the comments it makes about the ACT party because ACT has the courage to say what the National Party only dares to think in the privacy of its caucus room. 
Where has Dr Brash gone the great man who admired Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas the archpriest of the ultra-dry right? I can remember the morning when I received a breathless phone call from the Governor of the Reserve Bank. He said: “I’ve got a shock for you Michael. I am resigning to go into politics.” I said that I did not remember choosing him for our list. He said: “No I’m going to the National Party because there’s things I’ve got to do. I’m a man with a mission; a man who wants to follow on the great tradition of Richardson and Douglas.” He is the man with no tolerance for recreation without purpose as his biography says. 
He thought we were wrong. Labour was all wrong because it believed in not selling State assets. It believed in supporting modern industrial relations law. It opposed increasing inequality. It supported public investment in health and education. It was saving for the future by means of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and it was nuclear-free. It was all wrong for Dr Brash. It all had to change under a National Government. There he was in his pyjamas vacuuming out the concrete garage floor saying: “This Government’s got to go this terrible left-wing Labour Government. We’ve got to get back to the programme of Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas.” He said: “All these programmes will be tough and we will be tough now.” 
Where has that strong line of the far right gone? Now it is all: “How do we close down the issues? The Superannuation Fund now is wonderful. We will support it. We are not really that much in favour of selling State assets just a bit here and a bit there and maybe in a second term maybe a little bit more. And of course we now do not favour all those terrible other things we said we were going to do. We were not really that much in favour of being not nuclear-free any longer. In fact what we are going to be is a kind of Labour Government with a slightly friendlier image amongst the business community.” That is what Dr Brash is trying to say. He is really saying that he is a kind of social democrat in drag or at least in pyjamas I think it is fair to say. 
Well nobody believes it. Nobody believes that Dr Brash has undergone this conversion. He gave up 80 percent of his salary when he came into this Parliament merely to echo the policies of the Labour Government. ACT is right to say to National: “Stick by your principles and don’t throw them away.” Who is waiting in the wings? The person who is waiting to come out of the freezer is Mr English. Mr English is quietly working away promoting himself asking three times as many questions in the House as Dr Brash making four times as many speeches as Dr Brash and being five times as visible as Dr Brash and he waits because he will be the next leader of the National Party. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 What an extraordinary amount of bluster from a former history lecturer who purports to be a finance Minister. He is a man who taxes and spends. There have been over 30 new taxes in 5 short years under this Government. The final tax take in 1999 was $32 billion and 5 years later it was $42 billion yet the average take-home pay in New Zealand after tax has not increased one iota. 
I want to talk about a very important health problem. When the Chief Executive of Pharmac Mr Wayne McNee phoned the Minister of Health on 28 February and told her there was a problem with the flu vaccine she should have immediately found out what the problem was and told the New Zealand public. She should have asked the key relevant questions. But what did the Hon Annette King do? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Nothing. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: She did absolutely nothing. She sat on the problem for over a week and told the House on 7 March that she still did not know what the problem was. 
Yet for months the Ministry of Health had been warning that an influenza pandemic in New Zealand would be very serious. It would cause up to 3700 deaths it would involve more than 20000 hospitalisations and it would result in the need for over 1 million consultations. Surely the Minister of Health would have realised the importance of that phone call from Wayne McNee on 28 February but she did not. 
The ministry also tells us that the flu vaccine halves hospital admissions and reduces death rates by up to 70 percent in high-risk patients. With all those warnings it is quite clear what the Minister of Health should have done on 28 February when she was first told by Mr Wayne McNee that there was a problem with the flu vaccine. Even the Prime Minister told us in this House yesterday that the Minister knew of the issues on 28 February. The Minister should have asked the fundamental questions as to why there was a delay in the vaccine—a vaccine that over 700000 people were expecting by the beginning of March. 
As far as we can tell Mrs King just did not ask the basic questions. Did she forget was she distracted or was there a lack of competence by this health Minister? I think so! Despite the potential for one of the most significant public health crises in New Zealand health Minister Annette King simply did not ask the relevant questions. 
What was she doing? She was probably deciding on her next move in expanding the biggest and most complex bureaucracy that the New Zealand health system has ever seen. That is the legacy of this health Minister and this Labour Government. She favours theNational Health Service model in the UK. But that is the third biggest bureaucracy in the world—1.4 million people second only to the Chinese Red Army and the Indian railways. That is the way the Labour Party wants the New Zealand health system to go. That would be a disaster because undoubtedly she has created the biggest and most inefficient health system in the history of New Zealand. 
While Mrs King has been so distracted with creating this huge and inefficient health bureaucracy she did not have the time to concentrate and to ask questions of her officials when they told her on 28 February there was a potential major public health crisis affecting 700000 people. The Minister waited for a whole week. She denied the reality of what was happening. It was not until Friday 11 March when I suggested there was a significant public health problem that she started downplaying it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I point out for people who do not know that that was Dr Paul Hutchison—“Dr Paul”. I understand he was the doctor who used to be on the radio just before  
Portia Faces Life 
. The one thing I can say is that he is sitting on the bench that belongs to Dr Nick Smith and it was the best speech that has come from that bench for several months. But that is not saying a lot. We know that if Lynda Scott had still been the Opposition spokesperson on health National would have had some energy knowledge and integrity in the position. She would not use her position as a doctor to mislead and scare people on the radio the way that that obnoxious member did earlier this morning. 
Dr Hutchison deliberately scared old people and misled them. He did not know what he was talking about. He could well end up in front of the Medical Council for his obnoxious behaviour—if he still holds a licence; I do not know whether he does. That sort of approach from someone who says he cares about older people is just disgraceful. One of the most important things that a doctor has to do is tell the truth and be sure of the facts and Dr Paul Hutchison did not do that on the radio this morning. It is absolutely disgraceful but it is consistent with the approach of the National Party. He is following in the ways of Dr Brash. Dr Brash just cannot maintain his position. Using the term “flip-flop” is generous as far as Dr Brash is concerned. He is totally failing to lead his party. 
It is not often these days that I agree with Richard Prebble. I used to agree with him a lot more in the past when he was a left-winger but he is getting it right and Dr Brash is failing to lead his party. That is why the bets are going on as to who will replace Dr Brash. Currently the odds are 4:1 on John Key and 7:2 on Katherine Rich—quite a canny little approach. We all know that Katherine Rich has been working her way around the country talking to the people who are likely to come in on the National Party list. She is working on those ones—she is ignoring some of the old fools in the House—who are likely to come in to replace some of the current members. She is getting her numbers together. We are told that the odds for Winston Peters are 5:1. I do not know why he would do it but Winston Peters has been asked again by Gerry Brownlee to merge with the National Party. Apparently he is turning it down. The odds for Bill English are 10:1. He got up to about 6:1 a couple of weeks ago but at the point when he started to attack his old friend and funder RongoWetere the odds began to slip away again. People are just beginning to wonder. [ 
Interruption 
] We are working our way through Dr Brash’s book— 
Darren Hughes 
: Yes it’s a great read. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it is sort of interesting. I wonder about chapter 8 page 202. I have not read all the way to chapter 8 but this bit has been identified for me. I know that for me it would create some tension at home if my partner said that getting into bed with me was like getting into bed with the guy in  
Steptoe and Son 
—the way Dr Brash’s wife said. The idea of getting into bed with that “dirty old man”— 
Jill Pettis 
: With false teeth! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No false teeth actually. It is an interesting approach—that someone like Dr Brash would publish a book about himself in which his wife said that getting into bed with him was like getting into bed with the guy from  
Steptoe and Son 
. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I caution the Minister about bringing a spouse into the debate. That is not acceptable. I ask the Minister to withdraw. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. I want to make it clear that all I am doing and will continue to do is to quote from the biography of Dr Brash according to Dr Brash. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It does not really matter what Dr Brash said in his biography. There is a convention—and I really would ask that the Government think hard if it is go down this course—that we do not involve members’ spouses in debate. That is a course of action that as any sensible member of Parliament can see could lead to Parliament being an even more difficult job than it is at the moment and I would like you to caution the Government if it intends to continue along this line this afternoon. I think that would be a very grave mistake for the House to make. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I have reflected on what the member has said and I accept that what I said was not in good judgment. I was quoting from the book but it was probably inappropriate to do so and I withdraw. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Mallard and Mr Prebble. I would certainly refer members to Speaker’s ruling 38/2. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Today I wish to raise in the House once again the question of John Albert Thomas Clarke. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh! 
RON MARK 
: There goes the chief Government whip a female who thinks that revelations about a man who raped a 15-year-old schoolgirl are boring. I tell that member that the subsequent molestation of three more women by that man since he was placed on home detention and on parole is not a boring matter to those victims. This Government Jill Pettis and Trevor Mallard who is trying to interject must take responsibility and be accountable for the situation. Last week I told the House that this man had been sentenced to a total of 44 years in jail. 
Jill Pettis 
: You’re obsessed! 
RON MARK 
: I want it on the record that Jill Pettis is laughing about this man. That is why these sorts of people—people like Mr Jarden who raped two schoolgirls—are out on our streets or released into home detention. I ask the member whether that is something else to laugh about. Is that a joke too? She should try telling that to the parents of those girls. 
This question has to be asked: who put Mr Clarke on home detention? How could that possibly happen? How can the Minister of Corrections say that Mr Clarke completed his home detention successfully when there are now three new victims who have said that Mr Clarke was smoking marijuana drinking and was alone with children consorting and associating with them—thereby breaching the three conditions that were part of his release? This Government is becoming legendary for being blind to deaf to and totally disinterested in the pleas of victims. 
I ask Jill Pettis—on behalf of a young mother who is now on the run who is somewhere in New Zealand hopping from plane to plane and from home to home fearful that this man Mr Clarke will be released back into the community because that is what she has been told—why the police will not be charging him with threatening to kill? The Department of Corrections said that he had completed his home detention successfully. Rubbish! He was alone with children whereas a specific condition of his home detention was that he was not allowed to be alone with children. And Jill Pettis a member of the Government laughs. Everyone in the gallery saw her laugh. It is a joke to her. 
This young mother is still on the run. Mr Clarke has threatened her child and sends her text messages boasting to her and to his other victims—this same man who supposedly was reformed—what he did when he raped the 15-year-old girl he kidnapped. He has even gone on to say that the best way to get at people is to get their children and he boasted that the 15-year-old schoolgirl he raped was a detective’s daughter. Is that true? Is that fact? Do we now have this Government letting out on home detention people who try to pervert the course of justice by attacking the children of detectives who are investigating them? Is that the truth? If it is it is a sad indictment on this pathetic Government—a Government that purports to care about children purports to care about solo mothers and purports to care about victims. Yet right now this very minute a young woman with two children is on the run because she fears for her life and for the life of her 13-year-old son who has been threatened by Mr Clarke. 
Mr Clarke is up before the Parole Board today. The sad tragedy is that it is the same Parole Board that let him out. So what do we have to ask it? If the board thought it was such a smart idea to let this remorseless sexual offender out on to our streets what will it do today? I have asked the Minister of Corrections but he does not have answers. So far all the answers he has given me have been wrong. He tried to tell me that I was wrong and that this man was not in a social services home on home detention being cared for by a 76-year-old woman. The Minister was wrong. The man was there. Why did the Department of Corrections not tell that woman and all the other vulnerable women who were going into that house and subsequently preyed on by Mr Clarke about Mr Clarke’s past? He was and still is a remorseless predatory high-risk sexual offender who has now added three more scalps to his belt. And I do not hear a peep out of this Government because it thinks it is doing wonderfully well. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 For those people at home they have just been listening to a speech made by a person who I think is a true Opposition spokesperson Ron Mark. He has assiduously followed a range of policies in this House that are close to his party’s interests and his own interests. I do not happen to agree with his characterisation of the Government in relation to its concern for old people about crime and so on. I know that as he is sitting in his seat now considering the possibilities of maybe one day working with a Government—one never knows—that he himself knows his speech was full of rhetoric. However the member has been assiduously a powerful Opposition spokesperson. 
That brings me to the central point of what the Government is concerned about today—that is it is the Government’s role to keep the Opposition honest. In the case of Mr Mark we can say he is doing his job. In the case of the National Opposition—the party that is called “the Opposition” the party whose leader is called the Leader of the Opposition in the House—we have to say if we are to keep its members honest that it is time they admitted they are hopeless. The election is now only 6 months away. One might expect a sense of urgency to be building in the National Party. [ 
Interruption 
] Lynda Scott pipes up to say that she is leaving soon. She is a first-term MP. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: No I’m not. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: A second-term MP. 
Darren Hughes 
: It feels like first term. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It feels as though she has been here for only a short time because her impact has been low. But she along with Roger Sowry is leaving. She is leaving because she knows it is a waste of her time being here. She is a doctor for goodness’ sake! She can help people. She can do something for the older New Zealanders of this country. She knows that the choices between doing something and sitting here for another 3 years— 
Darren Hughes 
: Miserable years. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They would be long miserable years as the junior Government whip—or intermediate whip as he is now known—said. 
Lynda Scott sits there knowing that the National Party will never be the Government. I will show members why. We know for example that Murray McCully wants off the election campaign committee because the National Party cannot win. Actually Murray McCully never wins campaigns—never. He has been in charge of campaign after campaign. It is no wonder Lynda Scott is leaving—if he is to be in charge of the campaign she knows it is a foregone conclusion that National will lose. But Murray McCully has said that things are so bad that even he wants to get off the campaign committee. We know that Gerry Brownlee has been to see that wise member Winston Peters—who would have been the father of the House but unfortunately he has a broken record of being in Parliament—to ask whether their parties could work together in a coalition. Unfortunately Don Brash has already ruled that out. So we now know that there is a complete division in the leadership—between the deputy leader and the leader—as to what to do in relation to coalitions. We know that Katherine Rich was demoted by force from her position on the front bench and she has never ever looked happier. She is absolutely beaming about the possibilities after the next election and about coming back on to the front bench with a new leadership team. 
Then we have what I think has broken the spirit of the National Party the hagiography of Dr Don Brash. Let us be clear: this book is not a biography. This book was an effort by a writer to write something that was absolutely page-turningly positive about the leader of the National Party. It is a hagiography. It is supposed to be something that people say praises this person. It is an admission. That is what it is about. It was written so that Don Brash could be promoted in election year. But the poor old Simon Powers of the National Party have to pick up this book and no doubt read a page a night; it is too boring to read more. What they read is that they have a leader who is obsessed with the speckles in his carpet who cleans the garage floor and as it says at the back of the book was so excited when he went to a dance in Latin America. But on page 62 there is one line about the episode in Latin America. It states: “I quickly realised I was out of my depth with the Latin beat.” That is it! That is as exciting as it gets. He could not dance the Latin beat. 
One goes through the book to find out that he developed “considerable pulling power when it came to girls at university”. Now as everyone knows he has considerable pushing power. I would be depressed if I were the National Party. I would know I had already lost. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf on the ACT party to speak in this afternoon’s debate and to say as kindly as I can to Mr Maharey that he is mistaken—it is not his job as a Minister of the Crown to keep the Opposition honest or to be a book reviewer. What we would actually like him to do is be a good Minister for Social Development and Employment. I hate to draw it to his attention but at a time of record employment the numbers of able-bodied adults on the unemployment benefit are going up. I would like to have heard a contribution from him as to what the Government intends to do about it but I suspect we will be waiting a long time for that. 
I would like to talk about a matter that I think is of great concern to our Parliament. This Parliament is actually a better Parliament than we often give ourselves credit for and one of the best things we have done is to reach a bipartisan agreement that we will have better government if we have transparent accounting. 
I first became a Minister in the 1984 Government when we discovered that Sir Robert Muldoon had been able to use cash accounting to hide the fact that the Government was in a terrible financial state. That was a great shock not just to the incoming Government but also to his former Cabinet Ministers who had no idea of what had been going on. We then said publicly that we should improve the accounts. The Labour Government I am afraid then got into a bit of trouble and in 1990 David Caygill produced a set of accounts in which he claimed that there was a surplus. In fact it turned out later that there was not because he had sold a forest and he put it down as income and he had not accounted for the fact that in double accounting he should have allowed for the fact that he had actually sold the forest. He did worse than that of course. He then discovered that the BNZ was in trouble and he kept that fact secret not just from the country and the caucus but also from his Cabinet colleagues. 
The Labour Party felt a bit ashamed about that and when Ruth Richardson came along and said we should have the Fiscal Responsibility Act it was voted for by all members in this House. I think that is part of the reason—not all; the Government can take other credit—that the Government’s accounts are better. It is because they are more accurate. But no longer. Dr Cullen is now cooking the books. He has gone back to cash accounting. 
One would think that the media would ignore such nonsense as the claim that capital items such as new buildings—new hospitals—should be deducted and do not actually count towards a surplus. We actually have—and the Government ought to be proud of it—a surplus of over $5.5 billion yet it is trying to tell us that the surplus is lower. That is a load of nonsense. Does it matter? It does actually because the Government has now put a cash line in. It first went in 18 months ago on the bottom of the accounts then it was at the middle and then it was at the top. But worse than that Treasury is now putting out press statements as if the net cash surplus is a meaningful statement. It is not. I say to Mr John Whitehead who is the head of Treasury that he is now acting more like he did when he was the Treasury adviser to the Labour Party in Opposition than as the head of one of our most important departments. 
It is a matter of great concern that when the last lot of accounts came out the press gallery did not report the fact that there was a record surplus but instead reported that meaningless statement. And I say it is meaningless because if the Government is prepared to deduct assets from cash—and if the “Cullen fund” is not an asset why are we saving it? It is deducting that. It is deducting student loans yet Government members get up in this House and point out accurately that the vast majority of students are repaying their loans so they must be an asset. 
Most people would think that hospital buildings are an asset yet according to the net cash basis the Government would have us believe that none of this expenditure is in fact assets and that the expenditure on a hospital is the same as the expenditure on the unemployment benefit. What a load of nonsense! I say to the House that Dr Cullen and Treasury should be ashamed of themselves. I think it is a great pity that we have moved away from a bipartisan agreement that gave New Zealand the best accounts in the world. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow Richard Prebble. I did after Sandra Lee beat him and then I beat her. I also note that he has—sadly in his last few months in Parliament—resorted to attacking public servants making up statistics and blethering. I really feel very sad for somebody who has tried his hardest to make a contribution to this country. I point out to Richard Prebble that unemployment is down 54 percent under this Government and that there are 100000 fewer New Zealanders on benefits in total. I am proud of what this Government has done and if the failed MP for Auckland Central who is also the failed MP for Wellington Central and who cannot even attract any of his own colleagues to listen to him in the House wants to talk nonsense like that—presumably in support of the National Party—then I just say that the Opposition is in a really tragic state. It has no dignity no policies no loyalty and no decency. It is a failed Opposition on every level. 
I will speak briefly about the idea of an Opposition being the Government-in-waiting. We all accept that the Auckland region is the economic powerhouse of the country. We all accept that if Auckland is working well it is to the benefit of all New Zealanders. If Auckland wastes money on failed policies and failed infrastructure on congestion and on difficulties then I say that every dollar wasted in Auckland is 66c not available to the country. This Government is the first in history that has accepted that we have to work with Auckland as we do with the rest of New Zealand. 
I have looked with great care at what the National Party is offering for Auckland. I will look first at infrastructure. The National Party will sell State-owned enterprises. Dr Brash has said that National has to pedal softly on this because it will not tell the truth about what it will do with infrastructure sales—with State-owned enterprises. It will still bring back the Better Transport Better Roads so-called policy which would have sold roads. It would sell the roads outside our houses and our businesses and make us buy back access. That is what National’s policy was up until 1999. 
What does National’s policy mean for energy supplies? It means National would flog off Transpower. So how on earth would we get better investment to ensure security of supply to Auckland and the rest of the country if National flogs off Transpower? Presumably it would also flog off the major energy generators so in a dry year we would not be able to say to Meridian Energy or Contact Energy that they should taihoa on using all that water in our lakes so that we do not have to burn coal. National would want to burn coal because that is the bottom line. It would flog off those State-owned enterprises that ensure we have some security in energy. 
It would flog off the roads and will stop the investment into Auckland’s motorways that this Government has seen. It would stop the investment into public transport. Maurice Williamson said that we should not do anything about public transport. We should not do anything about helping poor people getting on buses. They should get taxis. People with disabilities should get paid to use taxis because that was more efficient. 
What would National do in health? It would take away the coordination and support that this Government has put into primary health care not because it thinks that would help people’s health but because it does not care. It wants a country like America where if someone is too poor that person’s kid goes around with a club foot because that is what happens in a market health system. 
 Who in the National Party will speak for Auckland and Auckland businesses? Will Dr Brash do it? Will he do anything about better export opportunities? No he went to Australia and trashed us. He went to Australia our biggest market and trashed New Zealand. He said that New Zealand is on the road to becoming a banana republic. Who else? Maurice Williamson? We have already heard that Maurice Williamson does not believe in spending money on motorways or on public transport. Maurice Williamson will presumably be Auckland’s transport spokesperson. Perhaps we could have Richard Worth. But of course Richard Worth is a sacrificial pig. 
Darren Hughes 
: Lamb. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Lamb I am sorry. The National Party would be a failure for Auckland but this Government has made Auckland a great place to live. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 From the beginning the purpose of the Foreshore and Seabed Act was manifestly clear to the Green Party: the Government would acquire full legal and beneficial title to the seabed to enable it to better exploit marine resources. Why did it need the Foreshore and Seabed Act to do that? It was because Maori customary ownership was the last constitutional defence for the retention of the foreshore and seabed in the hands of New Zealanders in perpetuity; the last constitutional restraint on the power of the Government over the marine environment. The common law of our country provided Maori customary ownership that was governed by tikanga Maori that could not be taken arbitrarily by the Crown and could not be sold yet remained subject to regulatory regimes. Customary title would have required the Government to deal with Maori on a decision-making basis not a subservient one. 
But the Government choose to override the rule of law discriminate against Maori and ignore thousands of New Zealanders. Even the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recognised the foreshore law as discriminating against Maori because it removed the right of Maori to go to court to have their legal rights clarified and took potential property with no guarantee of compensation. The law is an international disgrace and is deeply embarrassing to this country especially to a Prime Minister who prides herself on her international reputation. Yet the Government pursued that law. 
Why did it do that? It was because with the last constitutional restraint gone all regimes relating to the marine environment are now fully within legislation and completely under the Government’s control. New Zealanders are effectively cut out of the picture. Maori clearly identified that serious risk and thousands of Pakeha agreed with them but they were all ignored and fierce exploitation of the marine area is now under way. Legal ownership of the seabed is now in the hands of the Government. 
The Government has altered the tax regime to remove barriers to offshore exploration companies making the exploitation of those resources more economically attractive to foreign-owned companies. The Resource Management Act amendments currently before the House include firstly the explicit removal of any duty to consult in the resource consent process so that local communities and environmental organisations will not be heard on potentially devastating environmental impacts and secondly an extension of the Minister’s powers to call in projects—a further and greater erosion of the principle of community consultation in resource management. Also before the House at the moment is an amendment to the Overseas Investment Act which will loosen the criteria for obtaining Overseas Investment Commission approval and perhaps even go so far as to not require a foreign-owned offshore exploration company to obtain Overseas Investment Commission approval before it begins mining New Zealand’s seabed. 
Looking at the full Government legislation programme we see that the Government clearly wants to enable greater mineral and resource exploitation of our marine environment with nothing more than the most superficial consideration of Maori views the total exclusion of local communities and the most minor mitigation of the devastating ecological impacts. The Green Party holds environmental sustainability and protection as a fundamental principle. We want controls on the Overseas Investment Commission tightened in order to keep New Zealand land in New Zealand hands and not loosened to enable foreign countries to buy up our country. We consistently argue for greater community consultation and decision making. We believe that Maori customary ownership would have protected our natural resources not eroded them. 
The Greens fought against the Foreshore and Seabed Act because we also predicted the risk the Act would pose. Maori customary ownership was actually our last defence. The constitutional te tiriti protections that were successfully used in the 1980s to protect our forests fisheries and land have now been legislated away through ignorance and arrogance. Those who argued in favour of the Foreshore and Seabed Act are now seeing the disastrous results of their mistake. Those who enacted it—the Labour Government and New Zealand First—will very soon be held to account by the people of this country. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I know that in the last little while—in the last couple of days—people at the fringes of politics have become very excited about a report from a United Nations committee regarding the Foreshore and Seabed Act. But I think it is very important to put on the record that that overseas committee considered that important matter for simply 35 minutes and that it was not a committee made up of countries that we could say have a better race relations record than New Zealand does. Indeed if we look at what the New Zealand Government did in relation to the foreshore and seabed issue we see that Government members travelled for 18 months around this country holding public meetings and hui trying to engage with all New Zealanders from all cultural backgrounds in order to raise awareness on that issue. 
It was not easy. The foreshore and seabed legislation was a difficult challenge for the Government to try to address but after 18 solid months it came together with legislation that I think most fair-minded people say achieved a balance of what all New Zealanders Maori and Pakeha said they were looking for. For the first time in this country Maori customary interests are recognised in law. Never had that been achieved before the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In terms of delivering for Maori I know that the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia has worked very hard on aquaculture issues in order to ensure that there is a space for Maori in that exciting new economic development. So let no member come to Parliament and say that this Government does not deliver to Maori as it delivers to all New Zealanders. 
In the next 6 months the Government will have to hold a general election. We go to this country with a clear record about the economy having one of the highest growth rates in the OECD. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD our crime rate is at its lowest since 1982 7000 young New Zealanders are working as Modern Apprentices giving them a chance to go ahead in their life and 100000 fewer New Zealanders are relying on welfare for their main source of income—the figure was 400000 but under the Labour-Progressive coalition Government it is now 300000. So we will go to the polls not having delivered perfection in New Zealand but having a record that we can be proud of. We have achieved some real gains for ordinary New Zealanders. 
What do the Opposition go to the election with? Well 6 months out one would have thought that the National Party—the once-great National Party—would have a very clear policy and approach. But we now know that the entire National Party strategy rests on one book written about Don Brash. Let us be fair: Don Brash has achieved a lot of things in his life. But I never thought he would be interesting enough to have an entire book written about him. I personally thought it would be a struggle to get a pamphlet out about him but sure enough a book has been written. It was written not by some independent historian political commentator or political analyst but by a National Party candidate—somebody very keen to ensure that he is shoved up the National Party list come the general election. 
We have found out all sorts of things about Don Brash by way of that book. I would think that if I were the leader of a political party I would say that if I was going to do a book I would make sure it was perfectly timed for the election so that it showed me in the best possible light. But having looked through that book I cannot see a single positive thing that has come out of it for the National Party. I cannot see that National Party members could look at that book and say: “Thank God they wrote that book about Don Brash because we’re really taking the country by storm now.” In fact when he states in the book that he quickly realised he was out of his depth with the Latin beat we see that it is not only South American music the man has a problem with but with staying in beat with New Zealand politics and being able to put himself across to our country. 
We know from the story that he is a man who vacuum cleans his garage which is slightly odd but people can do their own thing. The strangest thing about that book is the things the man was prepared to reveal: “At the Australian National University in Canberra Brash befriended Jack Dowie. Despite their differences they became close and developed a small daily ritual—almost sacramental—where they would sit and eat oranges together in their rooms. Surrounded by orange peels they would debate the issues of the day and life. It was an intellectual fellowship of the sort dreams are made of.” Of the sort dreams are made of! When one is sitting around with orange peels trying to talk about the future of a country! 
The book is a huge embarrassment. It must have the work of Murray McCully behind it. Murray McCully has of course managed five National Party election campaigns. When Murray McCully took over National Party strategy that party used to have 48 percent of the vote in New Zealand but after Murray McCully’s genius-like strategies he has now driven it down to 21 percent—and that was before the book came out. This book about Don Brash is the only book in the country for which when people front up at the shop to buy it the bookseller insists they take an exchange card. Booksellers know that people will be so disappointed. It is an absolute disgrace. Don Brash now has his book on one side and his hidden agenda on the other as the only things he can go to street-corner meetings around New Zealand and try to talk about. He actually says at one stage: “Almost all of us—me often included—forget what a fantastic country this is.” It is a fantastic country and it is a great place to live but Don Brash is having to hide his true agenda for New Zealand concerning asset sales—the selling off of our family silver—and concerning what he would really do about superannuation for people over the age of 65. 
We know that he cannot decide whether he would have gone to the Iraqi war. The man is a joke! 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 United Future has serious concerns about New Zealand’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners. Despite an avalanche of newspaper and television reports recently which give the impression that every scientist in the world now accepts the so-called facts about greenhouse gases and global warming I think it is important to maintain a healthy objectivity and even scepticism about all the so-called facts. A visiting speaker to the transport conference in Wellington said recently that every doomsday prophet he had ever heard had been wrong so far. It is not so long ago that we were being warned about global freezing; in the 1970s a new ice age was just around the corner apparently. An example of the danger of relying too heavily on assumptions rather than on empirical data is that usually those assumptions turn out to be wrong. 
For example I saw an article the other day entitled: “Hydroelectric power’s dirty secret revealed” which claimed that even hydroelectric generation is not environmentally friendly as far as climate alarmists are concerned. That may also provide a clue as to their real agenda. In the article a consultant to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the famous and illustrious “IPCC”—by the name of Eric Duchemin said that contrary to popular belief hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate. 
Mr Duchemin stated: “The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false. … Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels.” Just so that we do not write off Eric Duchemin as one lone loony voice amongst all the wise scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there are statements from Philip Fearnside from Brazil’s National Institute of Research in the Amazon at Manaus who stated: “Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam. But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about.” In fact he estimates they are as high as 3½ times more than the emissions produced by generating electricity from oil. If members want to know more about that article I will table it after my speech so that they may have access to it. 
What will we do if hydro stations are not really part of the answer but part of the problem? What we should do of course is to be sensible use our heads and remain calm. We should not give in to the fearmongering and doomsday prophesying of the Green environmentalists who would have us all making decisions that would ruin our economy and send us back to the Dark Ages. Or is that their real agenda? Maybe it is not a concern for the environment per se that drives them but rather some kind of loony left-wing agenda to eliminate one by one all the reliable energy sources upon which our entire industrial and military structure and in turn our modern society depends. While the debate goes on regarding the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change and as we study new data and consider its interpretation we need to remember that we are not as smart as we think we are. Scientists are very important and we have much to thank scientists for in our lives. But we are all on a learning curve and we need to study the facts carefully. 
It is therefore prudent perhaps to take reasonable steps to reduce emissions pursue new technologies and plant more forests in the interim as the debate continues but we should not impose draconian measures such as carbon taxes on our industries and economy. Having been led into Kyoto and its treaty obligations by this Government—and by a previous National Government too; we must not forget that—we must all do our utmost to make sure that we at least have net credits under that crazy system so that as a country we do not find ourselves having to buy credits from Russia. United Future will act constructively in that regard but we are deeply concerned about the growing tendency to refer to carbon dioxide as pollution and to demonstrate against coal-fired power stations which in the light of the science I discussed earlier from that  
New Scientist 
 article may be less greenhouse gas - emitting than our hydro power stations. Someone will soon be telling us that oxygen is bad for us and that we ought to stop breathing. 
If we are serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions we should encourage forestry—not see forests converted to dairying land—and consider ideas like encouraging the planting of native forests along all our waterways and around our lakes in riparian strips. That would help in our battle against pollution in our rivers and lakes and would produce significant carbon credits to guard against the possibility of ever finding ourselves with an economic burden from the bureaucratic nightmare of Kyoto. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 We can always tell when the Government is under pressure can we not? What did we hear from Mallard and Cullen today? We heard personal abuse. We hear personal abuse every time they come under pressure. Every time they have a hard question to answer do they answer it? No of course they do not. What they do is just personally abuse anybody in the firing line. That is what we heard from them today so we know that this Government is under pressure—serious pressure. 
We have seen the Government under pressure on education. It is spending huge amounts of money on low-level courses while special-education kids receive no improvement. I had two mums in my office the other day and both of them said that the schools were sending their children home. The children were not getting the education they deserved because there was no money. There was no money to pay for the carers needed in order to have their children at school full-time. We know that this Government is under pressure on law and order; Tony Ryall has seen to that. We know that it is under pressure on the issues of taxation and the economy. We know that families in New Zealand are hurting every time they go to the petrol station. 
We also know that the Government is under pressure on health. What is the Minister of Health doing? On 28 February she was told there was a problem with the flu vaccine. Members of Parliament were all booked for it actually but we were told we could not have it. Even I asked why— 
Simon Power 
: Simple question. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: It is a simple question. That woman Annette King has been the Minister of Health for 6 years. I will tell members why she did not ask the hard question: it is because that Minister does not do that. She has a deal: the Ministry of Health will protect her so long as she does not bother to ask any hard questions. When she was told there was a bit of a problem with the flu vaccine what did she do? 
Simon Power 
: Nothing. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: That is right—absolutely nothing. 
Simon Power 
: Sat on her hands for a week. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: She sat on her hands did not ask the hard questions about what was going on and did not tell anybody until she came under pressure to tell them. Why is that such a concern? Well the concern is that it is the Wellington strain of the flu that is causing the problem with regard to the vaccine. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mallard flu. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Mr Mallard’s flu. That is the one we actually do not have the correct potency for. The protection the vaccine provides against the other two strains is OK but that is the strain we do not have adequate protection against. That puts at risk 700000 New Zealanders. 
It is estimated that 400 people per year die of the flu but what did that Minister do? We know that influenza is a serious problem especially with the elderly. She can insult my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison as much as she likes but we know that he knows more about this issue than someone who was a dental therapist. I was a geriatrician and I know that aged care in this country is under crisis. Because aged care is under crisis people know that getting the flu in a rest home is an incredibly serious situation. It passes from patient to patient very quickly and the staff also get it. The aged-care sector is under crisis; it says it is 20 percent underfunded. If people living in rest homes get the flu we will have serious problems. There will be patients banked up in hospital beds and we will see deaths if people cannot get the correct immunisation. It is protection against the Wellington strain that developed last year—H3N2 which mutated around September last year—that has been added to the strains the flu vaccine protects against in the Southern Hemisphere. That strain actually mutated here and we saw quite a serious epidemic at the end of last year. If we do not have a vaccine that works against the H3N2 mutation we will have a nasty winter. 
The Minister says she is really glad that the ministry is out there trying to get more of the correct vaccine but we need to look at the role of Pharmac. For 7 years Glaxo Smith Kline was the supplier of the flu vaccine. This year the supplier was changed. Why was it changed? To save money. This year the supplier was changed and that decision has had these ramifications. We need to look at how Pharmac makes its decisions on sole supply for medication. It is fair enough to say we have always supported Pharmac. But it is time to reassess that policy. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take part in this general debate. I am proud to be part of a Government that has one of the best health Ministers this country has ever seen—a Minister presiding over a portfolio that has been such a problem for National Ministers in the past. It has been such a problem that health has been at the forefront of all New Zealanders’ minds at every general election. In this House we have had days when the Minister of Health has been asked a question in question time and the National Party has not even asked a supplementary question. I do not think that that is very common for such a high-profile portfolio—high-profile for the Labour Party which has the Minister of Health on its front bench but not quite so high-profile for the National Party for which health is now such a non-issue that it has demoted the health spokesperson to the third bench of its caucus. 
I am proud to be part of a Labour-led Government that has presided over some of the best unemployment and crime statistics that we have seen in over 20 years. We know we have an Opposition under pressure when it touts Tony Ryall as the answer on law and order—a man who was Minister of Justice in the last National Government and who did none of the things he now says should be done by the current Minister of Justice. I have to say that Tony Ryall is a lion in Opposition and a dead mouse in Government. It is not good enough: New Zealanders must hold him to account at this election and ask: “If it’s such a great idea now Mr Ryall why didn’t you do it when you were in Government?”. 
We in this House are being asked to perceive Dr Don Brash as a potential Prime Minister of this country. Unfortunately when one wants to be Prime Minister one sometimes has to make decisions without Murray McCully and I think that that might be an issue for Dr Brash. Sometimes to be merely uncomfortable with a position or a situation is not a firm enough stand to take on the international stage. 
Members should spare a thought for Dr Brash’s poor family. Imagine how many more obsessive-compulsive Oedipus complex tell-all biographies we and they will have to endure if Dr Brash ever gets within a stone’s throw of the Beehive. Dr Brash is described by his biographer—a National Party candidate—as a “true New Zealand patriot”. Let us look at that. 
Dr Brash is a man who stated last year that he often forgot what a fantastic country this is—a true New Zealand patriot? He is a man who thought that New Zealand would become just another Pacific Island State. He is also a man who thought young New Zealanders were so shallow that the only thing that would get them to go to Gallipoli—the only thing that would get them to go to a place where thousands of New Zealanders died—was a rock concert. Dr Brash dropped the ball on that one because he did not know that young New Zealanders go there in droves already. The ironic thing about Dr Brash trying to seem in touch with contemporary young New Zealanders is that this is a man who when he was interviewed on 95bFM could not name a single New Zealand band—a true New Zealand patriot! Is this the man we want advocating for this country and representing this country on an international stage? 
Here at home how can New Zealanders have any confidence in what the National Party stands for today? It seems that the only principle that holds today’s National Party together is the arrogant born-to-rule Tory assumption that it deserves to be in Government without earning the position. That is probably why the National Party seems to consider in an election year—6 months out from an election—that policy is an unnecessary luxury. 
In chapter 10 of Dr Brash’s biography on page 247 he is quoted as saying of the 2002 election: “We made two serious mistakes. First there was too much policy.” Well there is absolutely no chance of the National Party being accused of having too much policy this year unless we count all the Labour Party policy it has nicked over the last 6 months. 
A case in point is the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. What will National do with the Modern Apprenticeships scheme? Bill English has the gall to stand up in this House and tell this Government that we should be spending more money on Modern Apprenticeships when on his own side Max Bradford said of the Apprenticeship Training Bill: “This legislation is pathetic just like the scheme that is behind it and the sooner we get rid of it the better.” That is what the National Party said about the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. [ 
Interruption 
] Georgina te Heuheu pipes up. Does she agree with Mr Max Bradford? Tony Steel another fine National Party MP said that all that money was being spent on 3000 apprentices who would not get any work. Well what will the National Party do with the Modern Apprenticeships scheme now? 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the allocation of calls. In the general debate schedule I have in front of me the last call was to be taken by the Progressive Party. Moana Mackey a Labour MP took that call and I assume there is no difficulty with that. What I seek from you is some guidance as to whether in the next general debate Labour will have one call fewer and the Progressive slot will be inserted into that debate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for the parties. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 E tikaakeano ki te mihi akeanoi a koutou ngatupakeke e tae akeanoikonei mo te ra o te whakaotinga o te pirenei. Ki a koutou e mau kaha e Hirini koutou ngatupakeke. Ahakoangapiki ngahekemo te mau kaha i te oti. Hoi akeanotenei tino tuku e tuku akeanonga tupuna ki a tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
It is appropriate once again to greet you the elders who have arrived here once more on the day that brings a finality to this bill. To you the elders Hirini who have worked hard: despite the ups and downs you have worked on to complete it. This indeed is a legacy from the ancestors to us 
.] 
I move  
That the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a significant milestone that represents nearly 140 years of dedicated effort by Ngati Awa to seek redress from the Crown for raupatu. Ngati Awa is one of the principal iwi within the Eastern Bay of Plenty district. According to the traditions of Ngati Awa it is from their eponymous ancestor Awanuiarangi son of the famous Toikairakau that the name Ngati Awa is derived. As happened then and is remembered now Awanuiarangi settled here a long time ago before the arrival of Pakeha and he is a primary ancestor in both Ngati Awa and Te Atiawa history and genealogy. Another principal ancestor acknowledged within Ngati Awa tradition is Awanuiarangi II the great-grandson of Toroa the captain of Mataatua waka. Awanuiarangi is acknowledged by Ngati Awa as the paramount and principal identifying ancestor of the iwi. 
Ngati Awa is a confederation of 22 hapu and all the whanau who are beneficiaries of that confederation all of whom descend from Awanuiarangi. The hapu of Ngati Awa first established Te Runanga o Ngati Awa as a charitable trust in 1981. Te runanga was established as a representative body of all the hapu of Ngati Awa and was charged with looking after the collective affairs of those hapu. Since its inception te runanga has been consistent and dedicated in its efforts to negotiate settlement of the historic treaty claims. 
In 1988 Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act was passed and te runanga became a Maori trust board under the Maori Trust Boards Act. As a Maori trust board the runanga became accountable to me in my capacity as the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Te runanga and the people of Ngati Awa recognise that in order to now receive and administer settlement redress for and on behalf of its members the runanga will need to reconstitute itself as a body that is accountable to the members of Ngati Awa. For that they need to be commended. They are people with tradition they are people with tangata whenua rights and they are people who are managing their way forward in contemporary times. 
 The need to reconstitute the runanga gave rise to the bill that is before us today. The enactment of this bill enables Te Runanga o Ngati Awa to receive and administer settlement redress for and on behalf of its members. The passage of the bill is a further significant step to bring to an end a long long journey that Ngati Awa has undertaken to reach settlement of its historic claims with the Crown. 
However as momentous as this bill is together with the runanga charter it is more than preparation for receiving and administering settlement redress. It is about a significant expansion in the sense of Ngati Awa’s responsibilities to its people—its mokopuna its elders—who live in the region. The significance of the bill cannot be overstated. The bill and charter support the rangatiratanga of Ngati Awa. Both provide a strong structural base for Ngati Awa to be able to determine their own future development and operations. There is more than enough capability there for them to do what they want to do where they want to do it and how they want to do it. 
Once the bill is enacted Te Runanga o Ngati Awa will operate according to its own ratified processes allowing assets to be applied for the benefit of the people it serves. Te runanga will rightly be accountable to the members of Ngati Awa. It will be structured according to the wishes of Ngati Awa and it will be governed according to the rules processes and accountability requirements developed by Ngati Awa. Ngati Awa have stated how they wish their runanga to be governed and that is reflected in the bill. The enactment of this bill will allow Ngati Awa to participate and to realise their potential on their own terms—Ngati Awa succeeding as Ngati Awa. 
I am honoured to have sponsored this bill on behalf of Ngati Awa. I am more than confident that it will provide a solid framework for the future management and administration of Ngati Awa interests by Ngati Awa for the benefit of members of Ngati Awa. In this modern time when the political testings are a whole lot of nonsense—[ 
Interruption 
] This speech is worth more than four out of 10 I say to Mr Brownlee. It is more highly ranked than the mucking around that he does. 
At its inception Te Runanga o Ngati Awa adopted a whakatauaki that is as relevant today as it was at that time. I would ask Mr Brownlee to listen carefully. He manu houahau he pi ka rere. 
[ 
I am a new bird a fledgling that flies 
.] 
This proverb describes a new bird that is taking its first flight. The flight of the bird symbolises new directions new initiatives and new horizons—Maori people in contemporary times who are not losing sight of the tika and the reo that was tuku-ed to them by their tupuna. To day an adapted version of the whakatauaki applies: kua rere te manu. Kei ngarangi o te ao e rere ana. The translation for the benefit of my learned friend Mr Brownlee is: the bird has flown its nest and it is free to fly the skies of the world. It is important that in the advent of globalisation and with a young demographic of Maori people this iwi is more than ready to manage its way forward. 
I wish Te Runanga o Ngati Awa and the members of Ngati Awa all the best for their future development and success—kia kaha there will be ups and downs in it but good luck and all the best. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I will make a few comments about this bill. But first I would like to acknowledge as the Minister did the presence of Ngati Awa and to say simply tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa e hoa ma. This is a big day and an important day; the first of two important days for Ngati Awa that bring to a conclusion 140 years of hope and struggle to get recognition for grievance that was conferred in the past and that bring a new beginning as the Minister spoke of. I can only wish Ngati Awa every success from this point on and congratulate them on the structure that they have decided to take on for themselves. I acknowledge and assert that it is time for organisations like this to get out from underneath the shadow of the Government and take control of the destiny that is theirs. Although the Minister gave us the proverb that speaks of the new bird and the new vehicle it is only the vehicle that is new. Everything about Ngati Awa comes from the past and will continue through to the future. The value of that future will be seen in the way in which this bill allows those chosen people to administer the assets of the iwi. 
I wish that some of those sentiments might have been expressed by the Government in the recent fisheries settlement. I think it is appropriate that people who own assets should have hold of them and be able to determine exactly the way in which they are managed and how the benefits will flow on to those who own them. I hope that the sentiments the Minister has expressed today may flow through to other aspects of Government involvement with Maori because it seems to me that there is no group in the country that is as governed as Maori are at the present time. Without going into too much more detail on that—and holding the powder a little for the debate that will take place tomorrow afternoon—I simply say to Ngati Awa that we hope the bill they have approved and that this House has been asked to ratify proves to be a vehicle for success for their future. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
:  
A kuahurinoa ki te whanau o Ngati Awa. No reira tena koutou a tenatatou katoa. 
[ 
And so I turn humbly to the family of Ngati Awa. Greetings therefore to you and to us all 
.] 
I take this opportunity to join my colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs in acknowledging the Maori Affairs Committee members for their work and effort and Te Runanga o Ngati Awa for its continued support towards achieving the purpose of this bill and for the overall implication that the bill represents another strand towards fostering positive relations and as we evolve as a nation settling historical grievances and striving for the resolution of the rights of tangata whenua. I am sure this can only be constructive. It leads to better understanding and of course an agreement that is designed to give strength to our communities and to New Zealand as a whole. 
Although the bill provides for the repeal of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act of 1988 it does not effect the restoration of the character mana reputations and pardon granted by section 11 of that Act in accordance with clause 14(2) and (3) in Part 3 and the schedule of the bill. I believe that not only is it necessary to revisit the words of section 11 of the original Act it is mandatory to place on record the words used for this purpose because when the words are uttered they are given life. I take this opportunity to read those words: “It is hereby declared that after the passing of this Part of this Act the character mana and reputation of the persons of Ngati Awa descent who were arrested tried and labelled as rebels in or about 1865 is restored to them and their whanau and to the iwi of Ngati Awa as a whole and a full pardon is hereby granted to them in respect of all matters arising out of the land wars in 1865.” I believe it is necessary that we place that on the record as part of this debate. 
As a background to the bill the select committee recommended that the definition of the term “customary rights” be amended to mean rights according to tikanga Maori. That is set out in Part 1 clause 3(1)(a): “customary rights means rights according to tikanga Maori (Maori customary values and practices);”. There are two reasons why I raise this issue. The first is the obvious one which is to try to give some object to the clause itself. The second reason is that yet again it is an opportunity for us as Maori to extend our language within the laws of our land—the legislation. As we progress and are given the opportunity to manifest that option then we are truly moving towards a nation of united people. 
 I also want to say that the process of healing and the process of dealing with grievances is most important for the purpose of moving onward. The main changes as has been said by the Minister are that the Maori Affairs Committee has recommended that the definition of “Ngati Awa” in clause 3 be amended to include the words “nga uri o ngahapu o Ngati Awa”—the descendants of the hapu. I did note the comment from the select committee that recommended this change because it is preferable for the definition to revert to the wording that was agreed in the deed of settlement and for the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill to be consistent. The proposed amendment will accommodate as much as possible the wish of the iwi to include the words “nga uri o ngahapu o Ngati Awa” in the definition of Ngati Awa in the bill. An identical amendment was recommended by the Maori Affairs Committee in respect of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. 
Finally I congratulate the iwi o Ngati Awa on their observations and on their strength in seeking solutions to find a way forward. I do wish them the best of luck. Kia ora tatou. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
:  
A tena koe Mr Speaker. A tena hoki tatou o te Whare nei. Tatou hoki ngamangai o nga iwi katoa o Aotearoa. Nga mihi hoki ki ngakaikawe o tenei kaupapa moNgati Awa nga uri o Toroa ara nga tuakana o tenei he uri o Puhi Moana Ariki. A kia ahatiatena engarinatatouno te waka o Mataatua. Na reira tena koutou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and greetings to those of us in this House as well. We are indeed the representatives of all the people of New Zealand. Greetings to those descendants of Toroa too who took this matter up for Ngati Awa namely the elder brothers of this relative of yours of Puhi Moana Ariki. Regardless how that is taken ultimately it belongs to us all of the Mataatua canoe. Greetings therefore to you. 
] 
On behalf of New Zealand First—and I repeat that it is the only non-aligned political party in this House—I rise to speak to the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. This bill will essentially confer a new status to the corporate body known as Te Runanga o Ngati Awa. It will firstly give effect to the agreements between the Crown and Ngati Awa concerning the reconstitution of the structure and operations of its runanga; secondly remove its status as a Maori trust board under the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act and the Maori Trust Boards Act; thirdly allow it to continue to assume governance responsibility for assets that currently belong to Ngati Awa; and finally allow it to receive hold and administer the Ngati Awa settlement redress for and on behalf of Ngati Awa. 
This bill is part of the journey that Ngati Awa has had to undertake in order to reach closure of its claims—a journey that started some 15 years ago when Ngati Awa started negotiations on this matter. In reality this journey started much earlier than that. It began in 1866 following the raupatu or confiscation of Ngati Awa lands. For Ngati Awa a particular milestone of this journey was reached in the 1980s with the establishment of the Ngati Awa Trust Board to progress issues on behalf of Ngati Awa. I think it is appropriate that I acknowledge those responsible for that particular milestone. I say in the presence of those of Ngati Awa who are here in the gallery and to those who undoubtedly will be listening to this debate: ko tenei e hiahiaana au ki te mihi ki ngakaumatua o auawaingaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi ara ko: ErueraManuera Hare Reneti AhihetaRatene MatarenaReneti me era atu o auawa. No reira e karama e kuimakuangaro ki te ao wairua whakanga koutou i roto i te mohiotanganatenei kaupapa e tataanakuatau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I really want to pay a tribute to the elders back then who are no longer before us namely: ErueraManuera Hare Reneti AhihetaRatene MatarenaReneti and others. Therefore to you the elderly men and womenfolk who have departed to the spiritual world rest there in the knowledge that this matter is about to be settled. 
] 
This lengthy journey is clearly a commentary on the current process of negotiation of settlements. I acknowledge the Minister of Maori Affairs for the timely sponsorship of this bill which will help to facilitate the establishment of a corporate structure that meets the requirements of Ngati Awa in the governance of their assets and towards the ultimate settlement of their claim. 
It is important that this bill is passed today because another bill before the House affects Ngati Awa. I refer to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill which will finally see Ngati Awa complete the journey that they started in 1866. This bill requires enactment in order to give effect to the terms of the claims settlement bill. 
It ought to be noted that New Zealand First supports the timely settlement of claims and thinks that the settlements should be fair and durable. That should not be compromised for the sake of bureaucratic expediency. We believe this bill to be especially fair and durable particularly in view of the absence of any reference to the words: “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Currently those words can be found in almost 30 pieces of legislation but they lack any definition in that legislation. Sadly this Government has failed to give definition to those words. Their absence from this bill is evidence that this Government clearly recognises that their inclusion is not required or even necessary to provide fairness and durability to Maori and the Crown. If those words had been included New Zealand First would certainly have opposed the passage of this bill. They are not included therefore on behalf of New Zealand First I tender our support for this Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill in the knowledge that it will help to provide for the settlement of the claim made by Ngati Awa to the Waitangi Tribunal. 
No reira koutou ma o Ngati Awa kei te tata atu iho te puawaitanga o te kakanoihakato o ratouma o era o ngarautau te kakano hoki na koutou iwhangai hei orangamoNgati Awa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
And so to you of Ngati Awa the seed that they of a hundred years ago planted is about to bear fruit. You have nurtured it too as sustenance for Ngati Awa 
.] 
I just conclude by saying that reference was made by previous speakers to the whakatauaki adopted by Ngati Awa in terms of birds taking flight. This bill does not actually give flight to the bird but it allows the bird to take those first steps. No reira e tatouma kore kumearoaeneituengarituaketenei ki te tautoko te kaupapa iwaenganuii a tatou. Na reira tena koutou kia ora mai anotatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
And so to us here I will not prolong my address that supports the matter here in our midst. And so I greet you and wish us all good health. 
] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to this bill. As members have accurately said the reason it is being passed is because a Waitangi settlement is about to come into effect and the iwi does not have a legal structure to enable it to take the money. So it has asked for a private bill. A private bill of course is not a public bill. A private bill is one sponsored—in this case by the people themselves through their local member of Parliament—for the law to be written; a law just for them. It does not apply to any other New Zealanders just to them. 
Parliament is obviously going to approve this bill. Well the ACT party will not vote for this bill. The reason for that is that we do not believe that the Maori Affairs Committee or those who have promoted this bill—and I understand that the Minister was involved—are doing the people concerned any favours. Let me just draw the attention of the House to this extraordinary fact. Some very substantial amounts of assets will be passed over and we are passing a law to say that the people who will be holding those assets in trust are not bound by the Trustee Act. That means they do not have the obligations that normally fall upon any citizen who is holding money assets or goods on behalf of other New Zealanders. 
We will have all seen in the newspapers in the media and within Maoridom severe criticisms of a number of iwi for how they have handled the assets they have received under previous treaty settlements. I say that anyone who has spoken in this debate and is voting for this clause is morally unable to ever criticise if anything goes wrong with any of the money that the State is passing over. Because one of the obligations which we would put on them but for this bill would be that they would have to follow the provisions of the Trustee Act which means one has to hold money and assets for the benefit of beneficiaries. Well we have waived that. In fact we have gone further than that. If members read this bill they will see it states that all the people in charge have to do is follow a charter. The charter is not attached. Then we read further and it states that the charter which apparently was approved can be amended any time in the future. 
Why I ask the House should this group of New Zealand citizens be given a second-rate—in fact I would describe it as third-rate—legal structure? Even shareholders in a company get more protection. There is no protection provided here. There is no obligation here for audits to be held. There is no provision set down for how people are to be elected. If there is a conflict within this iwi in the future—and I am not criticising this organisation; conflicts are part of human nature—how is it to be settled? We in Parliament are completely silent about that. Do we treat other New Zealanders like that? No we do not. If one is in a cooperative one is bound by the Co-operative Companies Act which sets out how people are to account and how they are to be elected. If there is a future row or if there is an argument—and rows do occur within Maoridom occasionally—how are they to be settled? 
I say to the House that there will be some future Waitangi claim because somebody from this iwi will be able to get up and say: “The Government did not carry out its duty towards us. It actually treated us like third-rate citizens and it passed a special law exempting us from the Trustee Act and exempting us from the requirements that private enterprise is required to follow.” A soccer club and a rugby club has to actually obey those requirements. The Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act sets out a whole set of regulations that an organisation should have. The Minister promoting this bill at no time told us why he thought money should be handed over and we should not actually extend the 150 years of statutory experience that this House has with regard to public money and with regard to private money. [ 
Interruption 
] Has that member got an interjection? Is she going to tell me that these people do not need that help? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Are you going to vote for the bill? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No I am not. The reason I am not going to vote for the bill is that I think this bill is itself under the present definitions a violation of the treaty. The Crown is in no way meeting its obligations. I am not interested in the fact that there may be some leaders within this iwi who have come forward and said: “We would rather like to be exempt from all the obligations that we would have to meet for holding money.” 
Pita Paraone 
: They have not done that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well this is a private bill so the Minister is telling us that the organisation concerned is asking for it. Now if the committee is saying that they are not then what on earth is it doing coming through this House? 
I do say—and this is a criticism I have made of private bills before—that I think this Parliament passes private bills that are creating a special law for just one group of New Zealanders and that it does so far too easily. We have not been told why the models of the Companies Act the Industrial and Provident Societies Act the Charitable Trusts Act or the Co-operative Companies Act were not looked at. Now they are models that have stood the test of time. This model has not. We have actually been told that is a replacement for a previous model that has already turned out to be defective. We are actually being asked to give a rubber-stamp to a charter that none of us have seen. Even those who have seen it agree that it can be amended. 
I hope this turns out to be a wonderful settlement. I hope that this asset turns out to be great for the iwi. But is it supposed to last forever? It will be most extraordinary if this human organisation turns out to have this inhuman ability never to have any future problems. When it does have future problems people will look back and say: “What were the New Zealand members of Parliament doing? Why were they not prepared to apply the same safeguards that they applied to any other New Zealand organisation?”. That is one of the reasons—and I have some others—that I have grave doubts as to whether the present round of treaty settlements will turn out to be full fair and final. Indeed one can see that this Parliament is already setting itself up for a future grievance claim. 
It appears to me that the Crown actually does have an obligation to Maori to make sure that the iwi organisations do have a proper robust structure that ensures that all beneficiaries are properly treated that looks at issues such as conflicts of interest looks into how the people are going to be elected and covers all the sorts of things that one would normally expect. When one sees a statute going through that starts off by telling us that the Trustee Act is no longer going to apply I think that throws out all the warning signs. Accordingly the ACT party will vote against this third reading. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very pleased to be supporting this bill. We congratulate Ngati Awa on their achievement and in particular on their tenacity in getting to this part of the settlement and getting it through the legislative process. 
The bill sets out the mechanisms for the organisation that will manage the iwi’s settlement assets. I must say that the Greens still consider it extraordinarily rude that the Government did not consider this bill fit to be a Government bill and taking up Government legislative time especially as it was only because of Government policy through the Office of Treaty Settlements that the bill was needed in the first place. Mr Prebble is quite wrong in his analysis that this legislation was sought by Ngati Awa. Ngati Awa was forced to have this structure and forced to have the legislation go through the House in this way because their views about the way they wanted to manage their assets were considered inappropriate owing to Office of Treaty Settlements policy. 
 The Greens have continually criticised the Office of Treaty Settlements for its obstructive approach to Ngati Awa in the development of a structure that meets their needs and their requirements. The failure of the Office of Treaty Settlements to prioritise the needs of iwi does not come as much of a surprise; instead prioritising their own views has meant that the final structure is not the optimum one that it might otherwise have been. It has also meant that the settlement has been significantly delayed due entirely to the intransigence of the Office of Treaty Settlements and those delays have been incredibly costly. The Greens believe that in matters relating to the entity that manages an iwi’s settlement assets—assets that belong to the iwi that have been achieved because of the wrongs committed in the name of the Government and New Zealanders in the past and that are theirs and theirs alone to control—it is the iwi that should decide how that management happens. The Office of Treaty Settlements and the Government in general should be charged only with facilitating their views and not holding things up. 
It must be remembered that iwi pay the costs of these settlement negotiations. Many of them must borrow against their future settlement restitution assets in order to pay for and fund what can be very lengthy settlement negotiations. Ten years is not unusual so any delays especially those caused by the Government itself and Government agencies are an erosion of the restitution that the negotiation process is supposed to and is designed to provide. The Greens are completely opposed to this sort of approach. We want to see a process that is just and does not pauperise iwi in the process of providing restitution to them. That is what we think about this. 
For Ngati Awa this part of the process of settlement is now over. Ngati Awa will soon have the runanga to manage their own assets. Very soon Ngati Awa will also have the settlement legislation passed and the restitution and those assets returned to them—assets that in some cases were wrongly taken and other assets in compensation. The Green Party sincerely hopes that these resources will assist Ngati Awa in achieving greater self-determination economically socially and politically. We sincerely hope that the Opposition parties listen to their own rhetoric and fix their own mistaken perceptions and leave Ngati Awa alone to manage their assets without a continual barrage of unnecessary and destructive interference in their affairs. Such interference is a perpetual barrier to iwi hapu and individual Maori success in our country. Kia ora katoa. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a moment to greet the kaumatua and iwi representatives present in the gallery. I apologise for not being able to greet them in their own tongue. However let me state that as a long-term resident of Whakatane I am particularly thrilled to be here speaking for United Future on the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. 
Te Runanga o Ngati Awa is a legal entity already. It was established in 1988 to facilitate settlement negotiations with the Crown in relation to Ngati Awa’s historical treaty claims. A condition of the settlement is that Ngati Awa establish a governance entity to receive and administer redress. Te Runanga o Ngati Awa as presently constituted as a Maori trust board is not regarded as a suitable entity to undertake this function. However I would like to congratulate Ngati Awa. I recognise that the work they have done to date and the cooperation they have enjoyed amongst themselves means that this bill is passing today. 
The negotiations that have resulted in an agreement as to the nature of the governance entity that this bill gives effect to received 88.9 percent support from those eligible voters who chose to do so. It will reconstitute Te Runanga o Ngati Awa which will cease to be a Maori trust board under the 1955 Act. Instead it will be a stand-alone body corporate to be administered under this bill and the runanga charter. 
I noted that the Minister sponsoring and supporting this bill said that there was a high level of beneficiary registration that there was no opposition to the proposals that were actively voiced during the process and that there was a high level of support for the proposal. Therefore not wanting to waste any more of the iwi’s time I congratulate Ngati Awa on managing the settlement process successfully thus far and in supporting the third reading we hope to demonstrate our confidence in this governance structure. 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—TamakiMakaurau) 
: 
 E nga uri iraroi te maru o nga rangatira rongonui me Awanuiarangi kai te mihi kai te mihi kai te mihi nunui ki a koutou. Kaore e wareware ki a au nei me matau o tipuna ki a koutou haere haere haere atu ra. No reira e ngatuahine tuakanai roto o te Whare tena koutou tena koutou kia ora huihui mai ratatau katoa. 
[ 
And so to you the descendants under the care of the great chiefs and Awanuiarangi I humbly greet and acknowledge you immensely. I acknowledge your ancestors; indeed we all do and bid them a fond farewell. Depart go. And so greetings to my sister and brother colleagues in the House. Greetings to you and to all of us gathered here. 
] 
I acknowledged the people of Ngati Awa under their eponymous ancestor Awanuiarangi. I acknowledged the ones who have passed on and are not in the House today and I also acknowledged our brothers and sisters who are here today. 
I rise to support the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill and in doing so I want to correct a few statements that have been made by colleagues opposite. As usual when members of the ACT party stand in this House we regularly hear mean-spirited comments and that is just taken for granted these days. I do not think they will change their tune notwithstanding the fact that none of them will be returned to the House in 6 months. Having stated that I believe that there is no doubt that there is a range of protection mechanisms in place for beneficiaries. The fact that they do not necessarily fit the mind of the Hon Richard Prebble is neither here nor there to us. 
Furthermore the sustainability of Ngati Awa in regard to its governance entity has undergone a tortuous period in the negotiation process. That entity did not fall off the back of a truck. It will be a sustainable organisation and the people of the Whakatane area in particular should be gratified with regard to the quality integrity and credibility of their leadership that has steered that particular process. 
I comment now in relation to my colleague in the Green Party. There is no doubt that in terms of time in this House one of the best instruments available is a member’s bill. It is not a disingenuous approach on the part of Government. Quite to the contrary I want to support my colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia who championed the bill to go through as a member’s bill in order to give Ngati Awa space to get this bill passed consequent upon settlement legislation. It is not a disingenuous approach. I say to Metiria Turei that I think she has been sitting too closely for too long to ACT party members on that side of the House. 
Having said that I say that there are now enough people and there has been enough talk. Ngati Awa want to get on with the job and I want to stop there. 
I thank Georgina te Heuheu for her very good contribution on the Maori Affairs Committee. It is unusual to commend an Opposition member but she should be commended for her work. I am just trying to get in first so that she does not say anything mean-spirited in return. I say thanks very much to Georgina te Heuheu and to the other members of the committee which has been ably chaired by Nanaia Mahuta and prior to his— 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Elevation. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
:—elevation as he puts it to better things by Mahara Okeroa. 
To the people of Ngati Awa who are here today I say that once again a Labour-led Government with Maori members is on the road to deliver. It might not have delivered in the time Ngati Awa wanted but at least the cheque is in the mail. Kia ora. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
:  
Tenatatou katoa. A tena koutou tokuwhanaukua tae mai. He mihi aroha mai i te whare o te Heuheu iteneirawhakahirahira. No reira tenatatau katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to us all. And greetings to you as well my family who have arrived here. A fond and loving greeting from the house of te Heuheu on this special day. And so greetings once again to all of us here. 
]  
Before I comment on the bill before us I must accept the compliments of John Tamihere. I certainly had no intention of making any mean remarks about him. In this place if someone says something good about one then of course one must accept it. 
The third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill is the second-to-last step that Parliament must take to bring to a timely conclusion Ngati Awa’s efforts to achieve resolution of their historic claims against the Crown. Tomorrow this House moves to the third reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill which arises out of the deed of settlement dated 27 March 2003 and which itself took up to 15 years to manage and to negotiate but which again followed upon the efforts of generations of Ngati Awa to have their mana acknowledged by the Crown and for themselves to witness the honour of the Crown in action as indeed it moves to make amends for past injustice perpetrated upon Ngati Awa. 
Despite the generations of effort Ngati Awa have never lost their mana despite suffering dispossession and alienation. As my colleague Gerry Brownlee said we will have more to say on that matter the actual settlement tomorrow but for today this House must legislate for the entity that will receive the settlement assets and manage those assets. National is pleased to support the third reading of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill as it will also do tomorrow for the settlement bill. 
Comments have been made by the ACT party today that John Tamihere characterised as mean-spirited. I guess I would probably support those comments as well. The points that the member Richard Prebble made may or may not have merit but in my 8½ years in Parliament I have never yet seen that party offer some alternatives in a constructive way that might have allowed it to vote for a settlement bill—because of course it has never done that. That party never voted for settlement entities either. I am not sure how a party can sit in this House stand for the rule of law but not wish to see the rule of law exercised in favour of iwi who have sometimes been the recipients of actions by successive Governments that we today would rather have not had to deal with. But we have dealt with them. That is what we are doing now. The process that we have may not be perfect but it is the best one we have been able to devise up to this point. Since there are still some settlements to come it would be rather more constructive of ACT to put forward some of its suggestions in a constructive way so that they may be considered in a proper manner. 
I would like to make some comments about this particular bill. I am told that Ngati Awa has spent the best part of the last 3 maybe 4 years seeking from the Government their own legislation for their governance entity. It does not I think say much for us that after making them wait for so long—generations in fact—to have injustice recognised and made reparation for in the last 3 or 4 years they have had to wind down another tortuous path to get their governance entity in place. It may be that the Government might take the current trust board legislation from which this bill arises and perhaps see that that legislation with appropriate adjustments can be made to fit the requirements of a governance entity that is to receive settlement assets and be a proper representative body for the people concerned. That way we might save a lot of time effort and cost because as Metiria Turei rightly pointed out delay adds to the cost all the time and as she also rightly pointed out a lot of that cost is being borne by the iwi either directly or as a bill on their settlement quantum. Perhaps the new Minister the Hon Mark Burton might give consideration along with the Minister of Maori Affairs to seeing at least the good in the basis of the trust board legislation and use that as a template with adjustments for new governance entities if that is what tribes who are settling want. 
In closing I want to make some comments about the Hui Taumata that some of us were present at 2 weeks ago. The Hui Taumata and the presence of 400 Maori people there showed clearly that there is a flowering of Maori pride aspiration and entrepreneurship. It is against that background that these settlements are being negotiated and concluded. The turn-round of Tainui’s fortunes in the last 2 or 3 years after a slightly rocky start—which is probably understandable in all respects; theirs was the first major settlement—together with the achievements of NgaiTahu show exactly why it is important that this Parliament moves to settle these historic injustices in a timely fashion and why this Parliament should gladly wish the iwi the very best for their future. What this bill represents today and what the bill tomorrow will represent is a moment in time for Ngati Awa hopefully to put behind them that burden that they have carried for so long and look forward to the future. Indeed this tribe already has some very exciting initiatives in their area and this settlement will add to those initiatives. 
I want to say to my relatives in the gallery if I can say it without seeming to be— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is against the Standing Orders. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Well sorry; I am going to say it anyway. I offer them my congratulations particularly for their fortitude and their unending patience with the officials and Ministers. I mean that not just for this current Government but for the last one as well. This legislation shows that if people want to stick to their principles which they always did in the end right will prevail. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 A tena koutou mai iraroi o koutou nei maunga a Putauaki. Ka mihi atu tenei mai i Te Ati Awa ki a koutou a Ngati Awa ahakoa kei te haere tonu te patai ko wai te tuakana ko wai te taina? Na ka mihi atu ki a koutou i haere mai nei ki teneiwahanga o te pira te wahangatata atu ki te mutu. Ka mihi mai tenana mai iTuwharetoa ki a koutou irungai o koutou neimaia kaha ahakoa te piki me ngaheke o ngangarupapaki mai ki uta. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you from beneath your mountain Putauaki. I of Te Ati Awa acknowledge you of Ngati Awa even if the question between us remains unanswered as to who is senior and who is junior. Indeed I acknowledge you who came here for this part of the bill the part that is about to end. That member from Tuwharetoa acknowledged your boldness and efforts despite the waves going up and down on their way to crash upon the shores 
.] 
One of the abiding experiences that I have had is either chairing the Maori Affairs Committee or being a participant. With regard to the Ngati Awa claim one of the issues that was exposed—and I think the story needed to be told—was the nature of the claim the nature of the historical antecedence that preceded the claim and the way in which certain hapu were treated in spite of the fact that some of those hapu were instrumental in assisting others who were less fortunate than themselves without due regard or due compensation. 
 I was also privileged to hear an oral history at someone else’s settlement which was Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. Some Ngati Awa spokespersons presented a whole history of nga tikanga o ngawahi katoa. It then made me realise of course that Ngati Awa were not only subjected to the ravaging forces of colonialism but might have been doubly disadvantaged as well by what eventuated from that with regard to the loss of their land. So I can understand in a way that amongst Ngati Awa there is one person with whom I have had a long and fruitful relationship in the best way possible. She identified with our issues at Parihaka because in lots of ways they parallel those of Ngati Awa. 
If we take the contemporary context the Hui Taumata I think one of the very strong messages that was put out amongst the people was: “Hey it’s about time we were responsible for what we do. We need to be responsible for what we do. We need to grasp the responsibility on the go-forward.” So why does Ngati Awa have to be constrained by nga ture Pakeha—to constraints that apply to incorporations and other such entities—in contrast with what the honourable member from ACT said with regard to their claim? Let me then quote the Hon Richard Prebble who says and has said first that the treaty claims were “paralysing the Government and preventing it from using its own assets”; second that “the treaty industry is spiralling out of control into all aspects of life”; and thirdly that “the treaty created two classes of New Zealanders—Maori and the rest of us”. Hey history then tells us exactly where in the social indicators Maori have been for the last 150 years. I congratulate Ngati Awa on having to get a bill through this House that requires them to take responsibility for their way forward. 
The other example I want to use relates to a whare whakairo ko te ingoatena ko Mataatua. [ 
a carved house the name of which is Mataatua 
.] If we follow the history of Mataatua we see that the construction of te kuhunga whare a Mataatua [ 
the house entrance of Mataatua 
] was completed at the beginning of 1875. In 1996 you managed to get it back. It is almost synonymous with your claim. The two things seem to have travelled parallel. That is really interesting because it demonstrates where this whare went. It went to an inter-colonial exhibition. I do not know what the Aborigines put up at the show. However it went to an inter-colonial exhibition starting in Sydney Australia. It then went to Melbourne then to London. It reminds me of our old people travelling the oceans looking for justice by going to KuiniWikitoria. In 1924 the whare came back to New Zealand for the South Seas exhibition in Dunedin and the Crown agreed to allow the university museum in Otago to exhibit the meeting house on permanent loan. 
Ngati Awa have always maintained that they did not transfer title to the whare just as they have always maintained they did not transfer their land and estates to the Crown. So there are interesting parallels and I congratulate you— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to debate the issues through the Chair rather than to the gallery. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: It is a Maori custom to look at the people. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have the people in the debating chamber. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Koina te tikanga o tatou. [ 
That is our custom. 
] This settlement is a very good initiative and although it does not go to the full extent of total compensation we look forward to what Ngati Awa will do on behalf of all their people e noho mai rairaro o te maunga a Putauaki te tahataha o koutou neitakutai moana. Me era atu o ngaahuatanga katoa e paana ki o koutou nei waiata haka me era atu o ngaahuatanga a koro a kuima tena koutou tena koutou nga mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[…  
living there beneath Mount Putauaki and by the shores of your coastal lands. I acknowledge those things as well as these ones about your songs haka and the ancient traditions of the elderly men and womenfolk. Greetings greetings and a loving greeting to you all 
.] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is appropriate when speaking on a member’s bill—interestingly enough introduced by the Minister of Maori Affairs—to acknowledge Ngati Awa in the House today and acknowledge that this is part of the settlement. I guess the major part of it will actually be tomorrow but today we are establishing a new entity that is designed to facilitate and administer the settlement. For those reasons primarily National is supporting this legislation. 
I want to note that we are required to pass this law because of the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act of 1988 which established the runanga as a trust. Today we are giving it full powers as a body corporate. All of that might seem straightforward and simple enough but the problem is this—and I think the previous speaker Mahara Okeroa illustrated the very concern: it is a serious question I believe that we are required in the 21st century to pass specific legislation for a specific iwi giving them not a general status but a special status in legislation. The fact that the previous speaker Mahara Okeroa essentially had what was almost a private conversation with Ngati Awa demonstrates the problem we get into with this pattern of doing things for the future because today we are using the Parliament of New Zealand the supreme lawmaking entity embracing the whole nation to pass private legislation. So I guess it was not surprising that Mahara Okeroa saw it as a private conversation. But it is not. We are making the law of the land. Certainly it is for the benefit of Ngati Awa and certainly it is to facilitate the settlement but in principle it is wrong. I know we have to do it because there is existing legislation that has to be dealt with. What I would say to the Government—and I guess it is something that National will be addressing over time—is that we need a different way to deal with these kinds of issues. 
Clearly the legislation applying to Ngati Awa and indeed to many other iwi that have their own legislation needs to be modernised. It would be better to have a general piece of legislation that applied to all iwi and that brought their administrative structures into the contemporary world ensuring that the structures complied in a general way with trusts legislation companies legislation charitable trusts legislation societies and so on and so forth. 
In fact it would be the choice of each individual iwi as to exactly which option it would choose to administer its settlements. 
Clearly the issue of settlements is of huge public concern and clearly this Parliament is charged with passing specific legislation in each case. I would prefer it if in time we could move past that but at least for the meantime that is a public duty. I say to ACT members that it is not credible for them to keep coming here and saying that they want to conclude the settlement process but on virtually no occasion have they actually voted for a settlement. I say “on virtually no occasion” because I know that there has been at least one occasion when ACT did vote for a settlement but as a general proposition that does not occur. As a general rule National does vote for settlements—whether they are the Labour Government’s or ours—and we do that for a very deliberate reason. We do so because we think it is important for this nation and we will be talking further about that tomorrow. 
There may be occasions when from time to time we might want to record a particular objection to particular settlements and that would be recorded through the way that we vote. But as a general principle we acknowledge the need to deal with these issues. The problem with special legislation is this: it leads to a view that people acquire special rights. We can see that in all the consultation provisions that this Government has been introducing into a wide variety of legislation. On issues that obviously affect individual iwi consultation is relevant and appropriate. But where it is not appropriate is with the creeping participation that separates our country into two groups of people giving one group general consultation rights and another group special consultation rights not just on the things of specific relevance to the iwi but on the broad issues relating to local government health and education. In other words they are rights to do with the general administration of the law and policy in our country. 
I believe that when special legislation for particular iwi leads to that outcome we are not going down the correct path. So I would say to the Government that while it continues to do settlements—and over the next few months I guess that we may be having a few more—it needs to be thinking also about whether there is a better way of dealing with these administrative issues: the creation of the entities of the iwi to administer the settlements. I would much prefer and I believe that over time the House will see the logic of this to have a general empowering piece of legislation to deal with all iwi in relation to their governance bodies and then each iwi would choose the particular model that will suit its particular purposes. It is no business of this Parliament to have any role in that process. After all when the settlements are made they become the property of the iwi to deal with as the iwi feels fit. Naturally all of us would wish that each iwi will do the best in that regard but at the end of the day if that does not work out then it is the responsibility of the particular iwi. 
I just want to finish with this point. As I intend to say tomorrow I do wish Ngati Awa well in the administration of its claim. I do wish that it will be able to empower the people of Ngati Awa wherever they are in New Zealand in the process of the claim. I understand that in doing so it is less about money and more about pride as a people. Ultimately as the Hui Taumata demonstrated the prosperity of Maori will depend on individual endeavours through education not through iwi claims. But part of empowerment and part of pride is recognising historic grievances settling them and then moving on as a nation. 
I want to conclude by saying that National members support this bill but we do raise this general issue which I believe this country will have to deal with for the good of the nation. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 E nga rangatira me o tupuna e maiangiana hei kanohi moratoukuahuri atu tena koutou. He mihi ki o maunga o awa o whenua ana ngawhakatupuranga. Tena koutou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To you the chiefs rising up as the face of your ancestors who have turned beyond the veil greetings to you 
.  
An acknowledgment to your mountains rivers lands and therefore the generations. Greetings to you. 
] 
My humble contribution to this process has been as chair of the Maori Affairs Committee and in taking on that task it has been an opportunity to help navigate this legislation as well as the settlement legislation through the processes of Parliament. I would like to thank the advisers the clerks of the select committee and parliamentary counsel who have all helped to support this process and I recognise that the efforts of Ngati Awa have been significant over time to bring us to this point. 
So here we have it—the evolution of an entity to represent the interests of Ngati Awa. In 1981 having established itself as a charitable trust to represent the interests of Ngati Awa because it did not secure Maori trust board status to progress its legitimate historical treaty settlement claims we had the first entity to represent interests in that area. In 1988 the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act was passed under which as an entity it was formally constituted as a trust board under the 1955 Maori Trust Boards Act to help pursue and progress its historical treaty settlements claims. And now the Minister is introducing this bill as a member’s bill to release the shackles of ministerial accountability and to recognise that we have an entity that is set to take a new generation of Ngati Awa forward into the future—which is as it should be—in readiness for the transfer of ancestral lands and taonga back to Ngati Awa to be returned to Ngati Awa under its claims settlement legislation. 
The key intent of this bill is to restore and uphold accountability to Ngati Awa for Ngati Awa by Ngati Awa. There have been comments in this House that the charter should be in the bill. The committee considered that matter. It recognised that the restoration of rights includes responsibility and that the charter should stand outside the entity legislation so that Ngati Awa have the flexibility to grow and evolve. Again that is as it should be. I hesitate to defend the choices that Ngati Awa has made as I know that its challenge is organic and it is progressive and responsive to its needs at this point in time. 
The Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill—its construction the charter by which it abides—is for today’s generation holding tomorrow’s aspiration in view. The entity may change and the charter may change at some time in the future. We as parliamentarians should expect that from a modern progressive people—iwi who in this instance are known as Ngati Awa—in reaching a settlement of their historical claims. I regret that not all political parties or politicians will endorse the choices that Ngati Awa have made in reaching these agreements. A dispute resolution process is set out in the charter and with the exception of the terms of the settlement it is clear that it does not remove any right that a member of Ngati Awa may have to access the courts in respect of disputes with te runanga concerning the settlement assets and other matters. I make mention of this as it has been an issue that has been raised in the House at this point in time. 
 There is not too much to say here except that I commend the Minister of Maori Affairs for knowing when to let go. That is as it should be too. If we are serious about entrusting the challenge of Maori development we should know that it does not rest in this Parliament; it rests out amongst the people who have the tenacity to make things happen for themselves. Again that is as it should be. 
So I say to the Minister and to this House that I commend the bill and I urge support from all parliamentarians to meet the challenge of assisting to advance Maori aspirations as can be achieved in treaty settlements and in empowering legislation such as this. It is no easy task. We have spent many years during the time I have been in this House arguing over what could have been and should have been. But at the end of the day we have seen the tenacity of a group of people who have willing to sit down at the table with the Government and reach an agreement—with all its warts with all its challenges. That is no easy feat. So I urge parliamentarians when they debate issues such as this to consider the journey ahead. The past has been long and tumultuous for many iwi especially Ngati Awa. They will not tell that story in this House. Yet we in this House stand and speak as though we understand every part of their walk and their history. We criticise the decisions they make for themselves and then we have the audacity to say that they may not be durable. How can they be if there is no commitment in this House to help iwi achieve their aims and aspirations? 
I look forward to tomorrow’s debate first because it will be one of substance and I think one that will enable a group of people to get on with it and secondly because it will enable ancestral lands and taonga to be returned to the Ngaati Awa people so that they can do the things their ancestors taught them to do but have not been in a position to do until now. I also look forward to seeing the growth of real potential of people in Ngati Awa to move forward for future generations. No reira tena koutou katoa. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank the House for its consideration of this local bill. The bill adds a third purpose to the two previously legislated purposes of land held under the Wellington Regional Water Board Act. The original two purposes related to the bulk collection of water from that land catchment and to forestry. They were the only two purposes for which the land could be used. This bill adds a third: the production of renewable energy—in all likelihood wind energy. The Wellington Regional Council does not see that such a purpose would threaten the quality of the water collected. With the enactment of this bill the council will be free to utilise the lands vested in it and to contribute to the region’s energy security and the nation’s sustainability and climate change goals. The council is investigating a small number of sites to determine their feasibility for wind generation. The purpose of the council’s study is to determine whether those sites are feasible from an economic environmental and social perspective. 
Changes to the bill make it clear that the bill provides for the construction of electrical installations and works for renewable energy. Also changes have been made to the bill so that it is to be read subject to any other enactment thereby ensuring that the protections that exist in other legislation such as in the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act 2002 continue to apply in respect of the council’s lands. In other words the community will be able to have its say if wind energy developments go ahead. 
During the debate on this bill the issue was brought up that maybe this bill was a sneaky way through Parliament of making a rates charge. That is not so. 
Darren Hughes 
: It was only silly old Roger Sowry. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes but the bill is very clear that a third party can build operate and maintain a renewable energy facility; it does not state that the council must build operate and maintain such a facility itself. Accordingly it leaves those choices open to the council. 
This is a useful bill for the region as a whole and for the council which supports the changes made during the legislative process. I make the comment that the more we can spend raise and generate energy closer to the cities concerned the fewer the transmission issues we will have to follow. I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee once again for its consideration of this bill which I commend to this House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—and I must say that it is refreshing to be able to say “Mr Speaker”—National supports the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill but we do have one or two reservations around it. 
It is a local bill. It directly affects only the Wellington Regional Council area and applies only to the land held under the Wellington Regional Water Board Act. The Wellington Regional Council is responsible for the supply of bulk water to the territorial authorities within the Wellington water region. The council is also empowered to establish forests and to carry out forestry operations. For those purposes certain lands were vested in or under the control of the council as water collection or forestry areas and the purpose of this bill is to allow the council to enter into renewable energy activities on those lands. 
This bill was passed to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 14 May 2003 so it is interesting to see that this small bill has taken so long to come to this stage. 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s very interesting. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: It is a fascinating piece of information for Mr Hughes and I am sure that he is paying rapt attention. 
Although National supports this bill we have some concerns about the extraordinary contradictions of this Government in that it is allowing renewable energy activities on land belonging to the Wellington Regional Council but it could not support a chorus of local government support for the Dobson dam in the northern area of the South Island. It is an extraordinary contradiction given the overwhelming support for that Dobson dam. Without exception everybody supported that proposal. 
This Wellington Regional Council bill supports renewable energy activities on land that is also considered to have some significant conservation value. Although this bill prescribes that that land is to be used for renewable energy activity there was no move on the part of the Government to accord the same advantage to those authorities connected with the Dobson dam issue. That still rankles with many people in that area and will continue to do so because there was absolutely no reason why that particular project could not go ahead. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before the dinner break the House was debating the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill. Sandra Goudie was speaking and she has 7 minutes remaining if she so wishes. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I am not Sandra Goudie but I am happy to take up the remaining 7 minutes of her call. The speech she was making was very important and I want to draw the attention of the House to the absolute risk that will be associated with the Wellington Regional Council— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the member but my understanding of the Standing Orders is that if a member is not here to take the call then a new call is granted and that member has a full 10 minutes. I am not aware that a member can have the 7 remaining minutes of another member’s speech. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. The member can transfer the call to another member of his or her party. That is quite correct. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I was not going to speak for 10 minutes so I thank Mr Shirley for the opportunity to allow me to speak for 10 minutes— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has 7 minutes. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I will just take the remaining 7 minutes. I want to make the point very clearly that this Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill will put at risk the community in which that local authority operates. What we will see is a move under the powers of general competence which came in under the Local Government Act of 2002 to put the onus on the ratepayers of this area if the council moves into a commercial venture and the venture goes belly-up. Who will carry the can? It will be the ratepayers of this area be they those on fixed incomes superannuitants or others. So who will pay if anything goes wrong? 
We said during the Committee stage of this bill and I mentioned it when I spoke in the second reading debate that that was a major concern we had. The bill allows of course for the regional council to move into the energy field and in particular into the field of renewable energy sources. Energy and roading have been identified many times as the major infrastructural challenges facing New Zealand. So we have an issue and a challenge with energy but we must also realise that the costs to be incurred could be very very severe indeed if something were to go wrong. 
I want to spend my time looking specifically at wind-power generation and wind turbines. Members will know that those turbines are a blight on the landscape if they have seen them. If they have been through the United States and have seen the wind farms there as I have they will know that they can be quite an eyesore. We have the challenge in the Waikato area of Transpower wanting to put pylons through our region that are up to 70 metres high which will also be a blight on the landscape. However in terms of wind turbines I believe that their towers will also be quite an eyesore. 
The efficiency of wind farms is not as great as many people might expect. In fact they can operate only when the wind blows between 5 kilometres and 25 kilometres an hour. They are very expensive to operate they have huge maintenance costs they are noisy and they are an eyesore. I have seen them in operation. I was in Australia in November looking at a wind operation there and I learnt that they are hugely expensive to operate. So at best they can be only complementary to the other sources of energy we normally have be they geothermal hydro—of which we have an abundance—or coal. I am not going to go into those sources in particular but I want to draw the House’s attention to an article that appeared in the  
Dominion Post  
today headed up: “Generation fluctuations put strain on national grid”. 
I want to quote from that article because it sends out some challenges in relation to wind generation: “Wind-generated power is putting more pressure on New Zealand’s already strained national grid. A study by State-owned national grid company Transpower shows that fluctuations in the amount of power generated by big Manawatuwindfarms affect the loading of transmission circuits. With Meridian Energy’s Te Apitiwindfarm and TrustPower’s Tararua farm both now working Transpower found that 100 megawatt (MW) increases in generation from rising winds could occur in any one five-minute trading period potentially causing imbalances in the system and affecting the quality of power received by consumers. Building more windfarms”—and this is a point to bear in mind in relation to what Wellington Regional Council might want to do—“along the Tararua Range as planned could double output and lead to 200MW surges in a five-minute period the report said.” 
The article continued: “There were also questions about the impact of clustering windfarms in one area and whether spreading them more widely might ease pressure on the grid.” Research is being been undertaken by MetService and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. They “were being asked to analyse winds across the Tararuas to find out how similar conditions were at the two windfarms. The report said wind peaks at the same time would maximise generation output in a five-minute trading period and other windfarm developments were ‘likely [to] exacerbate operational and market impacts currently observed.’ ” 
The report continued: “ ‘We’re concerned that more windfarms could cause quality problems both in getting electricity to people and the quality they receive out of the wall’ …The report also said the accuracy of forecasting generation output from the Te Apiti and Tararua windfarms was poor.” That is what it said—that it was poor. The efficiency of wind farms is not as great as people expect. They are only 40 percent efficient and many turbines are needed in order to generate the megawatts required. In our area we have at Huntly Genesis Power’s 1000-megawatt power station but we would need many turbines to compensate for what we could get out of coal or thermal generation. 
So we say that although we support this legislation we certainly want to bring to the attention of those in the Wellington region that if the Wellington Regional Council moves into a commercial arena with wind generation or with any other energy generation—the bill actually says the council can look at renewable energy resources which mean solar wind hydro geothermal biomass tidal-wave and ocean-current sources—then there is a risk. National supports the bill but I draw to the public’s attention that there is a huge risk associated with that sort of commercial development by a territorial local authority. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the third reading of this Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill. On behalf of my colleague Jim Peters who sits on the Local Government and Environment Committee— 
Government Member 
: Who? 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Not the Rt Hon Winston Peters; we know who he is—I will go over some key points that he pointed out. Firstly the bill allows for reserved land that had been set aside for water and forestry to be used for energy generation—namely wind power. We just heard from Lindsay Tisch with regard to wind-powered windmills. Of course where I come from in the Wairarapa they are seen on the ranges between the Manawatu and Woodville. Mr Tisch brought up some points with regard to their noise. I have not actually heard them but I have seen them generating power. Just recently in the paper there were reports of some that had blown down—in the country I think—and a point can be made that there is a danger of windmills causing harm. 
The second point Jim Peters brought up was that New Zealand First has had no objections to this bill in its progression through the House but we had an issue with the fact that the bill does not allow any developments to take place without a replication of the Resource Management Act and the normal consent process. 
Thirdly the stated intention of the Wellington Regional Council to provide for wind power is one that New Zealand First believes should be carried out by another agency or entity. We have to ask ourselves whether the regional council should be involved in generating power even though it is allowed to get a third party involved. The issue is whether the future of energy developments is to be one whereby individuals and councils independently set up developments or whether the Government has some overall embracing energy plan that will enable individuals entities and others to be part of the energy framework for New Zealand’s future. As we all know there is a problem with generating power—we have experienced that in the last 5 or 6 years—so there is a future for developments in power generation. But should regional councils be involved in the commercial side of that activity? As Lindsay Tisch said on behalf of National the brunt of some of the costs will be borne by ratepayers. 
In summary New Zealand First supports the bill wishes the Wellington Regional Council well in its endeavours and looks forward to ratepayers and citizens having full participation. That is important. Consultation with and participation by all those involved should be at the forefront of this proposal to generate power. New Zealand First hopes that the Government will address our energy issues within a planned national framework. 
I finish with reference to one point in the commentary: “Council may authorise third-party use of the land for renewable energy …”. I have touched on that in the points I have just made. I think it is important because the cost of generating power is colossal. The council told the committee that because of the high capital cost of developing sites for renewable energy generation it may wish to enter into such arrangements with the electricity industry. Jim Peters’ experience in these issues would have been most helpful to the select committee. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will also be supporting this bill but we join with other parties in expressing some concern about activities the local authority could potentially engage in that we believe would be inappropriate. As far as this legislation goes all it does is recognise that those lands vested in the Wellington Regional Water Board—which was formed in 1972 and incorporated into the Wellington Regional Council in 1980—that were especially designated for water catchment purposes and forestry operations may have an expanded land use. We have no objection to that in principle. We believe in multiple land use according to appropriate usage. Obviously the local authority in question has the keenest interest of all to ensure that the catchments that are used for harvesting water are maintained in a pristine condition. The principal water catchment areas are in the southern Tararuas above Kaitoke and the Hutt River and also in the Orongorongo Valley. Those two prime sources integrated with the artesian water of the lower Hutt Valley form the bulk water supply for the Wellington region. 
Much of the land that is vested in the Wellington Regional Water Board is not part of a water catchment at all. The Whakatiki catchment which extends from Upper Hutt to the backdrop of Paraparaumu and Paekakariki is an extensive forestry area. Indeed it is a commercial activity. The Wellington Regional Water Board has a substantial forestry operation. As a schoolboy many many years ago I worked for its forestry department and subsequently I was a water scientist there in the early 1970s after the regional water board was formed so I know the catchments particularly well. 
The issue here is that the council now wants to expand the purposes for which that land can be used to allow for what is termed “the generation of sustainable energy”. In this instance that specifically refers to windmills. I see no objection to that at all to the extent that those lands may lend themselves as suitable sites for wind generation. Unlike Mr Tisch I do not object to wind generation; I think it is part of the mix. What I do object to is the undue emphasis some are placing on the role that wind generation can play. If we quadrupled our existing wind generation it would still meet only less than 4 percent of our power generation needs. That is not to say that it does not have an important role to play and possibly an increasing role to play. But like other forms of generation it is not without problems and Mr Tisch outlined some of those. 
Wind generation is very intermittent. With water generation we can have some reasonable expectation as to when it might be dry; it is predictable. But wind generation is both variable and unpredictable and that certainly causes problems in electricity transmission and supply. It can lead to sudden pulses through the system. Thermal back-up is needed to support that sort of generation. So wind generation is part of the mix but it is not a total answer. That is why I take exception to some of the language and some of the notions in the explanatory note of the bill which states: “In the interests of sustainable development the Council wishes to be empowered to use lands vested in it or under its control … for the production of renewable energy.” 
We still have not managed to define what “sustainable development” actually means. It has been in the Resource Management Act since 1991 but experts in the field still do not know what it actually means. It is just a matter of meaningless mantras. To be repeating those mantras in this sort of legislation—pretending that somehow it is all wonderful because we used the right combination of words—is very foolish indeed. The principle here is what land uses should be permitted. The ACT party says that there should be multiple land use. No one has a stronger interest than the owners of the land in determining what is appropriate what is compatible with other uses and whether one use conflicts with others. 
Of course the Resource Management Act should be determining land uses. Part of any consideration under the Resource Management Act is to weigh up impacts on other uses so we could call into question the very need for this legislation. It is really just relaxing a constraint that was imposed at the time when this land was designated and entrusted to the regional water board and subsequently to the Wellington Regional Council. ACT has no objection to the legislation as it stands but I just point out that it is possibly unnecessary and that there may have been better ways to go about it than pretending that we are wrapping it up in some wonderful new concept which in fact we are not doing. 
The other point I would like to make is that this legislation would empower the council to engage in the business of power generation. I think that would be a retrograde step. I do not believe that it is the core business of an elected public body. It may certainly make the lands available for power generation. It may enter into a commercial relationship with a private sector entity. But I certainly do not want to see local bodies under their newly given powers of general competence getting back into power generation transmission and possibly supply. I believe that that would be a very retrograde step and there is a danger of it occurring under this bill. 
The ACT party will be supporting the bill but we have some concerns about potential effects that we hope will not come to pass. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have to applaud any opportunity to put New Zealand on a more sustainable energy basis. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: A modest one. 
MIKE WARD 
: It is a modest one but the idea of “Absolutely Positively Windy Wellington” having trolleybuses and trains powered by wind has a certain panache so we approve of that. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee has made a number of important changes. It specifies renewable energy. I am sure that that is what the council had in mind anyway and of course Wellington has plenty of wind to produce that renewable energy. As my colleague Ken Shirley said it is part of the mix. It is probably a very small part of the mix. 
It is interesting to follow Ken Shirley because in an earlier life we worked for the same outfit—a catchment board in Nelson. So he knows about water catchments and what happens in those places. We never contemplated these issues in those days. 
Any plans to capitalise on this bill would have to be notified and the public given the right to be heard. Could such a notification lead to refusal? I suppose it could. But what is more likely to happen is that it will lead to conditions being put in place to make sure that historic ecological landscape and recreational values are preserved. Every level of Government has a responsibility to look after the environment and none more so than regional councils which often take on names like Environment Waikato. That is upfront. As a consequence they normally do not have commercial enterprises or not too many of them. They do not tend to be resource users; rather they are resource managers. That is a very good thing because it means that they are not seen to be both poacher and gamekeeper. But in this case it is probably part of the reasonable efforts of this regional council to care for the environment. 
It is to be hoped that the Wellington Regional Council will look to New Zealand’s own industry to build its turbines. Windflow Technology is developing New Zealand - made wind turbines to do the job. It would be nice to think that those turbines might be employed in the water catchments of Wellington to provide power and jobs for the people of New Zealand. The unpredictability of wind complements the hydro-energy system very very well. Hydro can be turned off and on. There is storage available so that when the wind is not blowing hydro storage can be drawn on. 
The argument that Governments should not be active in commercial enterprises does not hold much water when one thinks that the hydro-energy network in this country was built by Governments and built brilliantly by Governments. When one looks at the history of the electricity industry over the last few years one would say that it has not done particularly well under a deregulated regime. So perhaps this will be a move in the right direction. 
This bill is not a blank cheque for any activities. Proposed activities will have to go through the resource management process and the resource management process requires that there be good plans in place. It would be nice to think that the councils will make sure that their plans recognise those historic recreational ecological and landscape values. Because if they do not then it is not possible to take them into account when resource consents are issued. So it is really important that both the regional council and the Wellington City Council put protections in place in their district plans for those other values. 
The Green Party is supporting this bill. It is interesting legislation that opens up some interesting possibilities including the possibility to make a small contribution to a future of sustainable energy for New Zealand. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is pleased to support the third reading of the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill. This is quite an important issue for the Wellington region and for the Hutt Valley in particular because the proposed use of wind power affects the Hutt Valley hills. That of course has consequences for Hutt Valley residents that need to be explored. In that context I am a little bit surprised at the absence of electorate MPs Trevor Mallard Paul Swain and Winnie Laban— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. The member knows that he cannot refer to the absence of members. The member will withdraw those remarks. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I withdraw the remarks. 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point I was making was not about the presence or absence of members in the Chamber which is the rule that I understand you are alluding to but rather it was about the failure of those members to contribute to this debate at any time. That is a different issue altogether. My understanding is that the Standing Orders do not cover that point. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Saying that members have failed to contribute to this debate and adding “at any time” is just another way of putting it. The member is still alluding to the absence of members in this debate. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I will accept your ruling Madam Speaker. The Wellington Regional Council has explored three areas in the Hutt Valley for the use of wind resources. It is worth reiterating to this House some of the results that have been achieved—in particular the discovery of the huge advantage that the Mt Climie area which is in the Tararua Ranges near Upper Hutt would provide in terms of wind power. There were three areas that the Wellington Regional Council looked at: Mt Climie which is east of Upper Hutt in the Rimutaka electorate; the Puketiro site which is east of Battle Hill Farm Forest Park in Pauatahanui; and the Belmont hills between Lower Hutt and Porirua. 
Of those areas Mt Climie really stood out—not only by New Zealand standards but by world standards. I quote from the report that was presented to Greater Wellington Regional Council on renewable energy after the investigations that were made by advisers to explore the likely benefits of those areas. Page 5 of the report states: “From a wind resource perspective the most outstanding site of the three is undoubtedly Mt Climie. Of the possible 63 turbine locations at Mt Climie approximately 40 could be subject to a wind resource that will allow a capacity factor of approximately 65%. For 8% of the time the wind speed is above 90km/h when turbines are normally shut down compared with 1% or less in a more average New Zealand wind generation situation. Harnessing some of this energy will increase the capacity factor. Provisionally the balance of the turbines could be located on a ridge of slightly lesser elevation than the main ridge but will still be subject to a very good wind speed. With one megawatt turbines and say an average capacity factor of the whole site of 55% then the site has a capability of producing 300 gigawatt hours of electricity a year. To put this in perspective it is sufficient to power about 35000 homes or one third of those in the Wellington metropolitan area.” Clearly Mt Climie is a standout site that could be of huge benefit to the Wellington region. 
It is notable that the Tararua wind farm which is generally regarded as being at the top level of international wind farms has a capacity factor of just under 50 percent compared with Mt Climie at 64.6 percent. The average wind speed at the Tararua wind farm is 12 metres per second compared with 15.7 metres per second at Mt Climie. The Tararua wind farm is regarded as one of the best in the world which shows just how good the Mt Climie site is in comparison and therefore how valuable the site is not only to the Wellington region but to the national grid in general. 
The importance of that in terms of the Mt Climie site being able to power a third of the Wellington metropolitan area cannot be understated particularly in the environment in which we are looking at our electricity capacity for the future. With the cancellation of hydro schemes and our coming to the limit of our ability to develop hydro schemes we are being forced to look at other forms of power generation. This bill which facilitates the use of land for wind power is therefore a bill of some importance for the national interest. 
There were really two issues that arose during the select committee process—a process of which I was privileged to be part. The first was the use of public-private partnerships for the development of wind farms so that private enterprises in particular could access sites in order to develop wind farms. The second issue concerned the level of public consultation and the need for close consultation because of the public interest in this area particularly with regard to the recreational use of the Belmont area and the Tararua Ranges. 
 United Future members have always been very keen on the use of public-private partnerships. It was one of the four cornerstone agreements we made with the Government in order to provide confidence and supply—namely that the use of public-private partnerships for the development of infrastructure would be facilitated particularly in the area of transport. That of course has happened in the term of this Parliament which is merely one of the things United Future members have achieved—among a list of many things—while we have been here. 
In this case the bill in its initial drafting provided that the development of wind farms would be done by council-controlled organisations or council-controlled trading organisations. We impressed upon the Government the need to widen that criterion so that effectively anybody could develop power facilities there. That was done through the amendment to clause 5 of the bill which effectively enables such functions to be carried out by “another person” and not to be restricted just to council-controlled organisations. We are very pleased to see that amendment because we envisage that the development of wind power given its risky nature and the fact that a lot of technological development is yet to come is really something that expert companies such as Genesis Power might develop—it has already expressed an interest in the sites—rather than a council body itself might want to embark upon. 
In terms of public consultation there was a bit of a concern that a limitation in the bill stated that the bill did not affect the Resource Management Act. That provision has been extended to state that the bill will not affect any other enactment either. In that regard I note that the land covered by the bill is to be managed in accordance with quite a large number of management plans including the interim Forest Lands Management Plan 1996 the Water Collection Areas Asset Management Plan 2004 the draft Forest Lands Management Plan: Future Water Catchment Areas 2004 the Plantation Forest Working Plan 2000-2010 the Kaitoke Regional Park Management Plan 1991 the Belmont Regional Park Management Plan 1993 the recreation policies for the Hutt and Wainuiomata catchments as agreed by the council in 1996 and 2003 and the Environmental Asset Management Plan. 
The eventuality therefore that a wind farm could develop on a site without much public attention is I think unlikely to occur in reality. Notwithstanding that the Local Government and Environment Committee did write to the Wellington Regional Council to ask it to provide a letter of assurance that any development whether by the council or by a private company would require resource consent public consultation and public advertising and those assurances were given. So we in United Future are certainly satisfied that if there is going to be any development of this land for wind farming then the public will get a full say in the way in which that will occur. 
United Future members are very supportive of this bill. We are certainly supportive of the facilitation it provides to the Wellington Regional Council in the development of this land for purposes that are definitely in the national interest. We will be delighted to see the bill passed. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 2 March. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Government will be opposing this bill. Normally in Government we have some sympathy for Opposition members who without the resources of drafting and of policy advice cannot always be expected to get a bill absolutely right. But that is no excuse for this bill which would be one of the most shocking examples of inept incompetent inconsistent inaccurate and downright dishonest legislation that I have ever seen—and I have been here for a while to judge a number of members’ bills. This one is an absolute shocker. 
Muriel Newman began her speech by claiming that the Sentencing Act took away the judge’s power to determine an offender’s sentence and handed it to the probation service and the Parole Board. That is simply not true. Under the Sentencing Act judges sentence offenders and the Department of Corrections administers those sentences just as they did under the previous law. But having said something that was not true Muriel Newman then stated later in the bill that she wanted to implement what she condemned at the beginning of her speech. In fact this bill would allow a probation officer who is supervising a community work sentence to add time to that sentence for non-compliance without reference to the court. That would pass over sentencing powers from judges to probation officers which is the exact opposite of what she said when she began her speech. 
Then—if one tells a whopper one tells a big one—Muriel Newman said that this Government had ignored the 1999 referendum on law and order. Now that is absolute nonsense. In 1999 92 percent of New Zealanders voted for a tougher line to be taken on law and order. That referendum was effectively a referendum on 9 years of the previous National Government’s incompetence and inaction. There were 9 years of police cuts. The very thing that the National Party now says that it is against it did for 9 years while in Government. Because of the INCIS blunder—the biggest blunder by any Government in recent history—National members were going to cut 500 police officers from the police rolls after the 1999 election. We have evidence of that. That is duplicity that is dishonest and that is just—I cannot use the “h” word in this House but I think Madam Speaker knows what I mean. We had 9 years of record high crime but we had absolute inaction on that from the previous National Government. 
Well we have turned that around with the Sentencing Act—an Act that for the first time does not talk about getting tough; it does get tough. It puts away the worst murderers in this country for a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. The previous National Government said it would get tough but did nothing. We have bail laws that state that if a person has a track record of serious offending and has continued to offend while on bail previously that person will be denied bail. Yes that has increased by a very large percentage the number of people who are held in custody while they are awaiting their court case but that is done for the safety of the community and I make absolutely no apology for that. We have a Parole Act that states that the first thing the Parole Board should look at is the safety of the community. That is its paramount consideration. We did that. National talked about it and did nothing and the ACT party was an absolute apologist for the last 3 years of that failed National Government. Perhaps ACT has recognised that because it is now fighting like cats and dogs with the National Party. If National cannot form a coalition in Opposition what sort of coalition could it form to create a Government? 
Muriel Newman then had the effrontery to talk about victims being sidelined by the sentencing laws. I point out that for the first time the Sentencing Act increased the role of the victim in the sentencing process. The Parole Act increased the victim’s role in parole and release decisions. We passed the Victims’ Rights Act and that Act is the first time since the last Labour Government that we have had legislation put in place to enhance the role of victims. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will also be opposing this bill. As I read through the member’s bill it seems to me that there is some confusion about what the different parts of the Sentencing Act are intended to achieve. So I would like to go through some of the clauses and highlight what I think are some of the problems with regard to the member’s bill. 
The first one is in clause 4 where sections 46 and 47 of the principal Act are repealed. Section 46 provides guidance on the use of the sentence of supervision and states: “A court may impose a sentence of supervision only if the court is satisfied that the sentence of supervision would reduce the likelihood of further offending by the offender through the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender.” I think that amendment relates to the comment in the explanatory note of the bill about the fact that the purposes of sentencing should include other factors. But if we go to section 56 of the Act which is about community work as opposed to supervision we find it is clear that when imposing a sentence of community work the court must give particular consideration to whether the nature and circumstances of the offending make it appropriate for the offender to make compensation to the community in the form of work in addition to or instead of making reparation and whether the sentence is appropriate having regard to the offender’s character personal history and any other relevant circumstances. I think that shows a confusion about the different purposes of supervision and community work in the Act. 
Clause 6(2) of the member’s bill proposes amending section 52(2) of the principal Act by inserting “(ba) conditions requiring the offender to submit to routine or random testing for the use of illegal drugs:”. 
It seems to me that under section 52(2)(c) of the Act that condition can already be applied. It states: “any other conditions that the court thinks fit to reduce the likelihood of further offending by the offender.” Clearly random testing for drugs would be a condition for someone where drug use is a contributor to his or her offending. I cannot see why given the enormous amount of time and money that would go into drug testing offenders one would use it unless it was for the purpose of reducing further offending. So it seems to me that this is a pointless provision to put in the legislation. 
Then clause 6(3) states: “Section 52 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (3).” which states: “No court may impose a sentence under this section that the offender pay any fine reparation or other sum ordered to be paid on conviction …”. I think again that shows some confusion because other parts of the Act are concerned with achieving that very purpose. It seems to me that the removal of subsection (3) would actually create confusion in the Act and confusion around the different types of sentencing. I do not think that amendment would be helpful. 
Clause 6(4) of the member’s bill proposes adding to section 52(5) of the principal Act which now states: “An offender does not breach his or her conditions for the purposes of section 70 if he or she withdraws consent to taking prescription medication.” The member wishes to add “ but the withdrawal may trigger the application of alternative conditions or an alternative sentence imposed at the time of sentencing or on application … .” Now let us be clear about this. For the purposes of section 70 the section in the principal Act allows a person to be given a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $1000. It does not state that there are no consequences if someone then withdraws his or her consent; it simply states that one cannot stick the person in prison or fine him or her. But clearly there is provision under section 54 of the Act already for a probation officer to apply for a variation or cancellation of a sentence of supervision. That is all laid out in section 54 of the Act. 
Again I think that there is some confusion in the member’s bill whereby she seems to be trying to put in conditions or clauses that are already permitted in the principal legislation. It really makes me wonder about the actual purpose of the bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party and for Muriel Newman whose Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill was drawn to speak in support of the bill. I worked closely with Muriel Newman in preparing the bill. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Oh that explains it! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I believe that Mr Tanczos would be well aware there are unlikely to be very many misconceptions on my part about what the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act do after the time that we put in to passing that legislation in 2002. I was not surprised to hear Phil Goff sing the same song that Mr Tanczos sang on this bill. The first thing Mr Tanczos turned to of course was the provision that suggested that people on parole—offenders under supervision—should be required to stay free of illegal drugs and that there should be random testing or that it could be imposed as a condition of parole. That is obviously a subject dear to his heart and though Phil Goff did not address it it was once a subject dear to Phil Goff’s heart. The Hon Phil Goff started his career as Minister of Justice with a ringing speech in which he undertook to reform the cannabis law. I think that Mr Tanczos will agree there was encouragement in 1999 for him to think that his moves to get cannabis legalised would get some official support from Labour. But that prospect seems to have faded as it became clear that the electorate would not support that. 
We have now had a series of speeches that tried to duck the real issues raised by this bill. First I say that judges no longer pass sentences. Judges instead send people off to the Department of Corrections and it is the head office in Wellington that decides what the real sentence is. When it comes to community work community work sentences do not mean a thing to many offenders. Community work sentences are essentially optional. What we have in some areas—and we cannot get accurate figures—is a completely demoralised probation service that organises supervisors to turn up. It has no idea how many people it will be supervising because community work now is based on people turning up if they do not mind doing so. In some areas the turn-up on a typical Saturday is as small as 19 percent. So a sentence that was supposed to be a punishment to deter offenders and that was supposed to make sure people felt a price was being paid for committing crime is now the very opposite of that. It sends a message to people—a message that Labour actually wanted to send—that the Government apologises for punishment. It sends the message that the community is a sucker. 
The bill also restores or tries to restore a power that was very effectively used in the days when New Zealand had a low crime rate—that is non-association orders. It states that people sentenced to supervision can be made subject to conditions against associating with gangs. Non-association can be a condition of remaining under supervision instead of going to prison or instead of going into a harder sentence. That is very important. At the moment the Sentencing Act makes it very plain that the only reason that a supervision order can be made is in the interests of the rehabilitation of the offender. So a supervision order cannot be used for example to ensure that the offender is properly punished. It cannot be used to ensure that the offender is not out there encouraging others to offend. This bill states that one of the express purposes of a supervision order should be to make it a condition to “reduce the risk of offending by associates of the offender;”. The whole focus of the supervision order in the Act is on the particular person who is being sentenced when the purpose of that kind of order should be focused on his or her associates: on the gang if it is gang offending or on those people whom offenders would encourage or mislead—the bad company that every community’s wisdom knows is the likely cause of problems for young people particularly. 
The bill also requires a judge when he or she is replacing an ineffective sentence of community work with a sentence of imprisonment to take into account the unexpired period of the community sentence. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to debate what I think is actually quite an important bill. I want to know from the Minister after listening to his speech why he is afraid to send this bill to a select committee to debate its merits openly. What is he frightened of? This bill actually talks about a lot of the things the public is talking about—but not the politicians who hide behind things. 
 Through things like the Norm Withers referendum the public wants answers to the very real crime crisis in our community. We can hide behind the silly numbers the police try to play down as far as the crime rate is concerned and we can try to hide and obfuscate things about how the court system operates but ultimately this bill is about some of the things we need to talk about. Whether or not the Labour Government decides to support the bill at least the bill should see the light of day through the select committee process in order to debate the very important issues it presents. 
The Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill restores discretion and power in relation to community sentencing back to judges for the sentencing of criminal offenders. This bill if passed will return to the judge the power to define the sentence of an offender before the bench rather than to have the judge be nothing more than the mouthpiece of officials from the probation service and the Parole Board. The real need for this bill has been brought about because the Sentencing Act of 2002 reduced to one-third the sentence that must be completed before parole becomes possible. Whether it does that is not what matters; what matters is the effect of putting that into the hands of the Parole Board. 
One of the things that is interesting for me is the fact that the Sentencing Act was much mooted by this Government as providing tougher legislation and a tougher regime than there was previously. But the fact of the matter is that the average sentence has been increased since 2002 since this Act by only 6 measly months. A lot of that can be explained sure enough by high-end criminals having had longer sentences but it does not explain that for the main lot of offenders sentencing still remains a joke. 
The fact is that the police pick people up and then there are 35000 cases still to go to court still to see the light of day. What does that tell offenders? It tells them that they are not accountable. What does that tell victims? It tells victims that they do not matter. I do not see any reason why bills such as this that want to try to put a bit of initiative back into the hands of judges ought not be discussed and pushed forward into a select committee. I think the Government ought to reserve the right to decide ultimately whether it supports the bill but at least we should have the debate. I say to the Government: “Don’t hide; don’t run away from the problem; don’t stick your head in the sand and pretend it is not there. Face it!” This bill is one way we can address some of those concerns. 
An obvious question to ask is why courts should have control over the nature and effect of sentences which is actually the question that Muriel Newman’s bill poses. Firstly the judge sees all the evidence. It equips him or her to decide on all the relevant information including the courtroom demeanour of the offender. Other than the defence counsel no one else from the criminal justice system has greater one-on-one time with the evidence. I think that is an important point. 
Secondly section 47 of the Sentencing Act provides that where a court imposes a sentence of supervision in respect of two or more offences the sentences must be served concurrently. That is absolutely against the interests of victims and against the interests of the law-abiding public. The bill proposed by Muriel Newman seeks to repeal that provision and I for one would absolutely agree with doing that. I think most members of the public would as well. We are sick and tired of people getting discounts for committing multiple offences simply because our criminal justice system is run by ideology rather than by common sense and the pragmatism shown by the public. 
Thirdly the bill allows for the court to require offenders to submit to routine or random drug tests if it sees fit. How can that be an abrogation of offenders’ rights? That is an absolutely key issue. If a drug culture is part and parcel of the offending it ought to be subject to the court’s discretion. 
The bottom line is that United Future will support this bill because we should demand sentencing that is appropriate and in proportion to the crime. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 This evening we are debating the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill which is sponsored by ACT’s Muriel Newman. I am chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and one of our early tasks after I became chair in 1999 was to consider the legislation leading to the Sentencing and Parole Bill and then to consider that legislation itself. Eventually that bill split to become the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. I guess one of the themes around that as both Marc Alexander and the Minister mentioned was the 1999 referendum. 
I think that Labour has delivered on the key elements of that referendum. One of the extraordinary elements of this Government is that we have succeeded both in terms of what one could see as the community-focus parts of the Withers referendum—particularly around building the rights of victims—and also in terms of increasing the sentencing for the worst offenders. I was fascinated when in conversation with Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust only a couple of weeks ago to hear him say that in his view this Government has done a massive amount in the last 5 years to implement the principles of that referendum. 
Given that I turn now to look at what the Sentencing Act was all about. A couple of things come to mind. The first was more certainty in sentencing. Before the Sentencing Act went through I can well remember people right across Parliament being very critical of judges being inconsistent. Yet this bill restores more responsibility to judges and as the notes about the bill say “reinstates court control over punishment.” So I am not sure that that is the direction we want to go in at all. 
The second thing that the Sentencing Act does is widen the range of coherent and structured options for courts to be able to use. Within that range supervision is one option. Supervision is designed to minimise reoffending while promoting rehabilitation and reintegration. Supervision is on the sentencing menu: it is flexible; it is relatively unrestrictive; and it is often imposed side by side with other more restrictive sanctions such as community work to address the rehabilitative needs of the offender. From a principled point of view I would say that if an offence warranted a highly restrictive response then supervision would not be appropriate. Reparation fines community work or imprisonment are always available. So in my mind supervision is one of the key elements of that range and I think it should be approached and amended only after great discussion. 
The intention of that sentencing legislation was clearly to give the most serious offenders and also habitual reoffenders longer sentences as well as to introduce those more imaginative options. If we look at the facts we see that there has been an astonishing success story since the Sentencing Act went through. We do by the way have the lowest crime rate in 20 years and I think these debates should take place in that context. 
Stephen Franks 
: Rubbish! 
TIM BARNETT 
: I prefer to look at the official figures rather than to listen to Mr Franks in that respect. We have the lowest crime rate for 20 years yet in 2003 which is the last year for which we have figures more offenders were imprisoned than in any year in the 1990s. The average length of a sentence was 16 months—up from 12.9 months under National in 1994. The average non-parole period imposed for life sentences in 2003 was 13½ years—3 years longer than it was when National was in power. For the first time on record over half of life sentences had a longer non-parole period than the standard minimum of 10 years. Under the Sentencing Act 23 percent of convicted violent offenders were sent to jail last year to serve an average sentence of 29.7 months—the highest figures on record. To me that is a sign that the legislation is delivering what it was intended to deliver. 
However a wise Parliament obviously looks from time to time at legislation so I came to Muriel Newman’s bill with an open mind—as I always do. But when I read in the notes to that bill that it reinstates court control over punishment and when I read the comment that the Sentencing Act turns the sentencing focus into a charade I knew this was nonsensical legislation. Labour opposes it. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not hear one of the comments and I want clarification. Was that an open mind or an empty mind? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think the member heard it. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to start by reminding the House that if there is merit in a member’s bill there is a longstanding tradition that the bill will be referred to a select committee for further consideration. New Zealand now has the highest rate of violent crime than at any other time in our history and that crime is an absolute key concern of New Zealanders so any bill that seeks to improve the situation to make New Zealand a safer society merits consideration. I would like the Labour Party members to take that into consideration when they vote. 
At the ACT conference at the weekend we heard from Ray Mallen. He is the Mayor of Middlesbrough and was a police chief for 30 years. He told us how zero-tolerance policing works; it brings down crime. But he reminded us that the key to good policing is that it is accompanied by appropriate sentencing. This bill seeks to improve sentencing in New Zealand—not custodial sentencing but community sentencing and supervision. 
In this country we are suffering from a soft-on-crime Labour Party that has undermined sentences since it has been in power. It cares more about the needs of criminals than victims; it has effectively eliminated punishment as the key purpose of sentencing; it requires offenders to be kept in the community as far as possible rather than locking them up; it has slashed the length of prison sentences; and it has given the power over sentencing to probation officers and the probation service—stripping it away from the judges. 
This bill brings back common sense into sentencing for community work and supervision. It gives judges the power to determine things like random drug-testing alcohol bans and the fact that offenders should not associate with known criminals. Under this bill the judge could require offenders to write letters of apology to people whom they have intimidated people whom they have shoplifted from or whatever; require people to clean graffiti off walls; and require offenders to be publicly humiliated if that is what the judge believes will actually bring about remorse in the offender. We have lost all those common-sense approaches. The bill also brings cumulative sentences instead of concurrent sentences. If an offender receives a sentence of 1 year 6 months or 9 months it is all added up instead of being done in one sweep. 
I think the key point is that a judge knows better than anyone else in the court what will work for an offender. Under this bill he will be able to use sentencing as a tool not only to punish the offender but also to send out a strong signal that will discourage crime. The bill seeks to make the sentencing of offenders an effective tool to reduce crime in New Zealand and because of that it deserves the support of this House. 
I say to the Labour Party that if it votes down this bill and does not allow it to go a select committee then it is simply sending out the signal to New Zealand that Labour is indeed soft on crime. This bill is a genuine attempt to make our sentencing laws better in this country and because it is a member’s bill the Labour Party has a responsibility to support such a bill to a select committee so that the public of New Zealand can come along and have a say. 
In 1999 the people of New Zealand overwhelmingly sent a message to the Government that they wanted a Government to be tough on crime. It is an absolute tragedy to see the way the Labour Party has undermined crime and punishment in New Zealand. This bill is an attempt by an ACT party member to improve the situation and I urge the Government to support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. At the appropriate time I will move that this bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee. 
In the 3 years since the royal commission reported back we have picked up a considerable amount of knowledge about genetic engineering and I would have to say that almost without exception it has been very bad news for the GE industry. As members will know I have sent each one of them a personal letter outlining some of my concerns about GE so I will not go into them in detail now. I want to concentrate on a couple of issues that I think clarify why I consider that this technology is fatally flawed in terms of exposing it to the wider environment in New Zealand. Perhaps the most damning thing of all has occurred from a research project called the human genome project. Members may recall that this project was designed to identify the human genetic profile and to understand the relationship between all the genes that we pass on from generation to generation—that is the heritable genes; the genes that give us eye colour skin colour susceptibility to disease and things like that. 
It was a fine ideal. The people working on that project identified that there is something like 100000 different heritable traits in the human body. They went on their way looking for the 100000 genes that relate to those outcomes. But the human genome project scored a spectacular own goal. Far from proving that this was a precise science and they could map all these genes to the outcomes one on one they found that instead of 100000 genes there were only 30000. So they could not map one gene to one outcome; they had to map one gene to multiple outcomes—on average about 3½ per gene. So they had multiple traits from one gene. 
What is now becoming clear as a result of this human genome project is that the genes do not work in isolation. They work with each other and they work with the proteins that exist in each cell. That is what determines the outcome of any manipulation. We now know that not only does this make it enormously more difficult to isolate a desired gene to have a particular outcome it is also impossible to know what additional undesired outcomes will come from the same gene. Let me quote from the US Government website: “Outcomes are specified by the gene sequence and by the proteins in the same cell.” It then goes on to say that studies of the relationship will be the focus of research for many decades to come. We are just in the infancy of this science. 
Members should think about it. If we take a gene from the human body each cell has the same DNA string. 
Every cell in our body has DNA. But our cells have different functions. The same DNA is found in our toenail cells as is found in our liver cells blood cells and eyeball cells. So if we were to take a DNA string from there and put it into some other animal for argument’s sake do we know how it will express? The answer is no we do not know. 
We lay people can take several things from this. First of all moving a gene from one location to another does not give a specific outcome. Despite what people in the industry say it does not give a specific outcome; it gives multiple outcomes. Secondly changing one gene in the sequence may lead to a cascading sequence of events—not just one event. The academic literature is full of words like “may” “appear” and “believe”. Clearly biologists do not understand the chemistry of life. This also will put to rest the idea of substantial equivalence—the idea that if it looks the same smells the same and tastes the same it is the same. It may appear that way but it is inevitable there will be other outcomes that we do not necessarily see upfront. For thinking people this surely is game set and match for genetic engineering. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Oh! 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: It is game over I say to the Minister. One simply cannot say that this is a precise science. In fact we have proved that it is a very imprecise science. 
If we take that bit of information in conjunction with the way consumers in our elite markets overseas treat genetic engineering we can see we are on to a loser. But we should think about what is happening to the biotech companies. Of the top 50 biotech corporates last year 38 made losses. Overall they lost $5.4 billion in 1 year including those that made a profit. The  
Wall Street Journal 
 that well-known left-wing rag describes the industry as having “yielded negative returns for decades and it generally digs its hole deeper every year.” 
The consumer resistance to genetically modified foods in particular is powerful for New Zealand. We are a market-driven economy. We must listen to the market signals of the people who buy our food products and those signals are crystal-clear. People simply do not want to buy genetically engineered food. Look at the example of the United States and Canada going back 5 or 6 years. America’s corn exports to the European Union declined by 98 percent in 2 years. The Canadian canola growers lost 100 percent of their market in 2 years and it has never recovered. At least those countries have a subsidy scheme so that the farmers actually survived. But in Argentina which started growing GE soy the whole economy has become a basket case. 
I urge members to think about this. We are at present trying to negotiate a free-trade deal with America. One of the conditions of any free-trade deal we may have with America is that it wants us to embrace genetic engineering. That is a bit strange. If genetic engineering were so good the Americans would be saying: “Hey look we don’t mind having a free-trade deal with you but you can’t have our really good GE stuff; we’re going to keep that to ourselves.” But to put it as a condition of a free-trade deal means there is something wrong with it—and the thing that is wrong with it is that they cannot sell it. They cannot sell it to elite markets in the European Union Japan Australia or anywhere else. They cannot sell it other than as stock feed. They cannot even give it away as aid to the Third World. 
They are now working in a different market from us. They do not sell the same products. Our products are seen overseas as being clean green pure natural and very highly sought after. The prices we get in our overseas market are extremely good. Primary production exports are booming despite the high dollar. We have a marketing opportunity made in heaven. Because we no longer compete with equivalent products from America Canada Argentina and to a certain extent Australia we can virtually name our price. They cannot sell their product. The only way they can get back into that market having gone down this one-way street of GE is to bring us down to the same level. That is why they want us to have GE in this country. It makes sense for us not to go the same way. 
I would like the Minister to pause for a moment and think about the ownership of patents. She is on record as saying that one day GE will pay for our health and education needs in this country. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: That’s not what she said. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I say to the Minister that it is in the  
Hansard 
; I urge her to check. Something like 97 percent of the patents are owned by overseas companies. So even if we did develop something in this country that was valuable we still would not make money out of the patents; we would simply export all of that profit. 
This moratorium gives us time. It gives us time to think to say: “Let’s have a cup of tea.” Does anybody actually regret the fact that New Zealand is nuclear-free? No they do not. Thinking people by and large do not. I recommend this bill to the House and urge members to support it going to the select committee. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 The Labour Party will be opposing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill. I want to remind members why we instituted a moratorium that prevented the Environmental Risk Management Authority from considering or approving applications to release genetically modified organisms. Labour assumed Government late in 1999. We had made a commitment to hold an inquiry or a royal commission into how New Zealand coped with the technologies surrounding genetic modification. One of the differences I suppose between the Labour thinkers in the Labour Government and the Green thinkers is that our minds were open. They were not predetermined. We are thinkers. 
The royal commission sat and produced a four-volume report much of which we have discovered has remained unread by many people. It made a number of recommendations including law change and research. We needed time to enact the recommendations of the royal commission. That is why we had a moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms. The moratorium was set to end on 29 October 2003 and it did. People undressed in this Chamber and lay naked on the lawn but the lifting of the moratorium did not result in flying pigs or potatoes with frogs’ legs as I can remember some of the advertisements portraying. It was absolutely the epitome of mis-education which really antagonises me as a teacher and as a believer in veritas. In fact no GMOs have been fully or even conditionally released in this country. Is there any acknowledgment of that by the Greens? Not on your nelly! They want to tell people that GMOs are all around them escaping under their chairs and in their mattresses. 
The Environmental Risk Management Authority has had no new applications for genetically modified organisms. It has focused on hazardous substances. During the endless debates I was told that supermarkets overseas featured GM-free products. In the summer of 2003 I went on a private visit to Ireland and I drove my daughter mad. At every town we stopped in we went into Tesco or whatever supermarket was there and around the shelves we went. I found fewer numbers of shelves containing organic foods than in the supermarket in Thorndon. One day in Tesco I found one cornflakes packet that stated in its small print that it contained no genetically modified organisms. Not only that I stayed on organic farms and discussed all these issues with the people there. I was not convinced of the strength of that marketing argument. 
I listened to the speech made by my good friend Ian Ewen-Street who talked about the human genome project. 
He said as though it were news that it told us that it is not a precise measurement that it is now clear that genes do not work in isolation and that it is complex. OK—is that not fabulous? Is that not absolutely fabulous? A key to 21st century biology will be understanding molecular regulation at a network level. Is that not beaut? That is a new way of moving forward. Is it not fabulous that we have a convergence of disciplines just as we have had in engineering? 
Why is it scary that we now have chemical genetics epigenetics and this convergence of new disciplines? I am not afraid of new knowledge. I embrace new knowledge. That is the real essence of learning. That is what I did as a principal by the way. My problem with this whole opposition to technology from the Greens is their conviction that they know that X is wrong. It is so non-scientific to say hand on heart: “I know it is wrong.” God save us! 
Rod Donald 
: So nuclear power’s safe too is it? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I will come to nuclear power. Then the member talked about the losses of some companies. But let us go to the point that those members have been asking for. I read an article written by Ian Ewen-Street that stated: “Let’s wait until we get to the fork in the road.”—the fork in the road being maybe the difference between genetic modification and smart breeding. I say to the member who laughs all the time that I prefer a case by case approach over blanket moratoriums. A case by case approach allows us to use our brain and to say that OK maybe this is not the time to genetically modify every dairy cow in the country. Also the two approaches that are being used on that fork in the road refer only to crop production. They are not about genetic modification which is used in a far wider way with animals and in other agencies. 
Finally what about the waiting? What about those moratoriums that are waiting until we reach the fork in the road? That is like telling us to wait until climate change happens before we do anything about it. That is a bit like telling us to say: “There is a cyclone coming. Oh my God—we’re in the Cook Islands!” and then telling us not to do what the wonderful people in the Cook Islands did which was manage the risk. That is what we are on about: risk management. 
There is another thing that those members sometimes complain about. Another Green member said that we should not be giving money towards looking at genetically modifying rye grass. That work of course is happening in Australia. Again those members say: “Don’t invest.” Well maybe it is too late. If we have the attitude that we know everything and that all those potential answers are wrong maybe it will then be too late to invest and to come up with an answer as to how we can reduce methane emissions through improved rye grass. That is a possibility. The member says: “No no I wouldn’t possibly look at that.” so the member is denying a solution to another problem. I do not want to make a personal comment but if the member had my hair colour he would know that things are no longer black and white and that is the nature of science and the nature of knowledge. 
There is another way of looking at this too. If we are looking at genetically modified rye grass—which I say to all listeners is not about to happen in New Zealand today; it may be 7 or 8 years before the research in Australia ever bears any fruit if it bears any fruit—and if we said that we would not look at any of those issues at all there might be an answer that we would miss about growing better animals so that there are fewer animals on the western side of Taupo and less nitrate going into our waterways because we are managing the issue more effectively. In other words if we were to stop research altogether and say: “I know it all. I know that genetic modification as a technology is absolutely wrong. I know it all.” we would deny any chance to answer a number of problems. 
I come to nuclear technology which is pretty dear to my heart. Yes there is a simplistic slogan that says “Nuclear-free New Zealand” but it is about weapons and it is about energy. Every one of us who goes into a hospital and has radiation treatment is subjected to the use of nuclear technology. In a whole number of ways we use nuclear technology. To say that we think any science or technology should be totally banned is absurd. Yes it is true that in New Zealand we do not need nuclear energy—I could probably have an argument with my good friend from ACT on that matter. However there is an even better reason for our stance which I explained to somebody the other day. As members may have seen if they read the  
New York Times 
 this morning President Bush has said that he will control all the sources of enriched uranium in the world whether it be for weapons grade or for energy grade. That would make us fairly dependent and we would become price-takers rather than price-makers. I would rather go into renewable energy. 
I am saying that there is no way to wipe out a whole technology so there is no analogy in saying that genetically modified - free equals nuclear-free. We said “nuclear-power free” we said “nuclear-weapons free” but every one of us who has a mammogram is subjected to the use of nuclear technology. Is that not right? Why do we not therefore choose case by case where we go with genetic modification rather than choose this absolutely slap-on and denying approach? I was brought up knowing about Galileo and about what the Pope did to Galileo when he said that he was evil because he tried to think outside the square. The Greens are like the Pope of that time who said: “There is only one answer. I know it and I have all the secrets.” That is so arrogant! This is about veritas it is about truth and it is about managing the risk. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I am feeling quite nervous as I stand in opposition to this bill tonight because I totally agree with everything that the Minister for the Environment the Hon Marian Hobbs has just said and that is amazing. It makes me feel quite nervous I have to say. I say to my honourable colleague Ian Ewen-Street next door that I know he is a sound thinker and that he does his research. We have worked together on select committees before. He is an honourable member. One can understand why he is leaving the Green Party and one can understand why he is leaving Parliament. He is an honourable member but he is totally wrong on this issue. 
This bill is wrong and it is wrong for a range of reasons. The first one is this. The Green Party campaigned in 1999 against genetic modification. Fair enough—it is a good slogan and the party represents the environmentalists. That is great and I have no argument with that. It is those members’ right to do so. Part of the deal when they came into Government as coalition partners with Labour was to set up a royal commission to look into the whole topic that they had been campaigning against. So the Green Party along with the Labour Government Ministers hand-picked the members of the royal commission. One can bet that part of the deal was that the Green Party had a major input into that and I am sure that Ian Ewen-Street may have had a view on that as well. That royal commission sat for weeks. It listened to international experts and local experts scientists doctors philosophers politicians—you name it. It went through an extensive exercise. At the end of it it came out with four volumes of findings and the Government implemented what the royal commission recommended. 
The Government basically recommended carrying on with what the royal commission recommended. Now who could argue with that? Surprise surprise—the Green Party which recommended that that would be its approach came out and vigorously opposed what the royal commission put forward. I say to the members of the Green Party that to the best of my knowledge there are no applications at all before the Environmental Risk Management Authority which arguably should be the best judge of whether something that could be a risk to our environment—or our future as the Green Party would put it—should take place. There are no applications before the authority. The authority’s job and what it is charged to do in life is to look at every case on its merits. There are no applications before it and it should look at every case on its merits. 
Let us go a little further. What we have seen here today is what the future Government will be like if—God forbid—Labour should win. We have seen a lot of media publicity about the odd spat that we on the right of centre may have from time to time in our ranks. There has been the odd little bit of media publicity about that but we never ever see reported the absolute fundamental differences that apply here in Parliament between the Greens and the Government. We never ever see that. I say to those who might be listening in radioland that that is an example of what they can expect going forward if—God forbid—Labour should win the next election. 
 I ask Phil Goff whether he thinks that Keith Locke would make a better Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That is my first question. Does he think that that would be the case? That is probably what will happen. I ask members to think about that for a moment. It is well worth a moment’s thinking about. I think that is a question the public should be asking. 
My good colleague Lindsay Tisch who is a very good whip for the National Party tells me that there are 3356 nuclear radiation apparatus licences in New Zealand as we debate today. Presumably there are apparatuses to match the licences—I am not sure. But whether or not that is the case 3356 radiation licences are in existence in New Zealand today. So the question is why if that source of energy is so dreadful the Green Party being the principal supporter of the Government allows those licences to continue. I ask Mr Ian Ewen-Street why the Greens have not got into that. Why have they not fixed that up and cleaned those out? That is a question I want to know the answer to. There is no basis at all for the arguments the Greens put forward—none zero. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 This has turned into a very spirited debate. I commend the Minister for the Environment; I think she gave a spirited speech. We have just heard my very good friend in the National Party Shane Ardern make a good contribution. One thing that did disturb me was his comment that he agreed with everything Marian Hobbs said. Although she said some things that were correct there was one glaring error in her speech. She said that our ban on things nuclear is a ban on weapons and energy and of course she was quite wrong. The 1987 legislation is specific to weapons and propulsion; nothing in the nuclear ban prevents nuclear energy. It is disturbing to realise that our Minister for the Environment does not actually understand that point. But she has come a long way. Once she upheld the mantra of banning everything nuclear and pretending that New Zealand was nuclear free. Of course it has not been. Our hospitals deploy nuclear technology as the Minister herself said. 
Then we had the Somers report in 1993. It was 176 pages long. The panel made up of a retired High Court judge Edward Somers and three top scientists—a medical scientist a physics scientist and a chemistry scientist—sat for about a year and heard public submissions. The panel’s conclusion was that there was no public safety or environmental reason for not having nuclear-propelled ships visit New Zealand waters. In fact the panel went on to point out that Auckland Hospital emitted more radiation—twice as much—into the environment every day than the entire US naval fleet and all its support services did in a year. That was in a formal report received by the Government of New Zealand. It just shows us how we have been captured by those mantras. 
The bill before us with the attempt by the Greens to extend the moratorium on genetic modification is just another one of those bumper stickers. It is a bumper sticker a mantra that science just blows out of the water. I am concerned that Mr Ian Ewen-Street put his name to this bill. I would have expected better of him. But he did join the Greens so that in itself may perhaps explain it. The moratorium was an interesting piece of policy work. A moratorium is really a political solution when something is too hard for a Government—it is a kick for touch. Members will recall that in this instance for political reasons the moratorium was extended. But we had a royal commission into genetic modification and I think that it gave a very good report. I do not agree with all of it but it was a very thorough report and there was some very good science in it. The bottom line was that we should proceed with caution. No one can argue against that; I think that with any new technology we should proceed with caution. 
Some of the rhetoric that has come from the Greens is nothing other than absolute bunkum. There has been an emphasis on New Zealand’s clean green nuclear-free GM-free label in Europe. Recently a survey was done on European consumers and it found they do not give a fig about that; it is a myth that we in New Zealand believe in. As far as the European buyers are concerned they buy on the basis of price and quality just as everyone else around the world does. That marketing research was quite clear and it exposed the Greens’ bunkum for what it is yet we have heard it here again tonight. The moratorium was extended once and the Greens now want to reinstate it. That is like putting one’s head in the sand; it is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It is just utter foolishness. 
Really there are some very good reasons why we should be embracing technology. We should be at the forefront of technology. That is where the comparative advantage for New Zealand is particularly given the scientific basis that underpins our economy in terms of our production from fishing forestry and farming. For sound environmental reasons we should be embracing technology. If we want to reduce our dependency on pesticides—and I think that there are very legitimate concerns about organochlorines and organophosphates—we should be phasing them out and GM is the technology that best enables us to do that. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this legislation going to the Primary Production Committee. But I suggest to people that it will be very much qualified support. If the bill goes to the select committee then we will be seeking to amend and change it so that any moratorium would apply only to products that may enter the food chain—in other words food stuffs—and only for applications for commercial release under those circumstances. 
I sat on the select committee that put the moratorium in place and I chaired the select committee that put the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill through which made sure that we had things in place once the moratorium came off. So I certainly have listened to many many hours of submissions on the issues around GE. I make the point that there has been no evidence either at the royal commission stage at the stage when the moratorium was put on or at the stage of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill that suggests there are any health risks in the use of GE foods. There is no evidence of that and I think that point needs to be clearly made. People will say that the research has not been done but in fact a lot of research has been done. There has been some shonky stuff but no research has demonstrated that there are health risks. 
The other thing we need to recognise is that as of September 2003 21 GE foods had been approved for use in Australia and therefore approved for use in New Zealand. We are eating the stuff anyhow. That is a point that needs to be made. 
Shane Ardern 
: You’re ruining your argument. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: That is not however the issue and perhaps if people would listen they might get the issue. At the select committee a number of submissions caused us to reflect. Those submissions related to research done in terms of economic modelling. The research was done by reputable researchers such as Dr Caroline Saunders and Business and Economic Research. That modelling suggested in terms of the behaviour of consumers overseas that there was a whole range of possible outcomes if New Zealand embraced GE foods. Depending upon the assumptions made in terms of the models those outcomes varied from a 10 percent premium for New Zealand to anything up to a 30 percent loss of gross national income or overseas trade. 
We have to remember that that is theoretical modelling so it is not actuality. That research demonstrated that we actually do not know what factors will affect consumer behaviour. We know for example that consumers in Japan are possibly more resistant than consumers in other parts of the world. Consumers in Europe are certainly more resistant than those in the United States. But we do not actually know what the factors are at this particular point in time. 
New Zealand First has taken the point that it is not actually the reality that is really important here; it is people’s perspectives of the reality. For example in the Middle Ages people may have thought that the world was flat but the fact that it was not flat did not make any difference to the fact that they did not take off to go sailing around the world. Because they thought it was flat it influenced their behaviours and the same goes in terms of the potential effect upon New Zealand’s trade. 
We have some evidence that non-food GE products or the use of them do not impact on trade in food. That evidence comes from the Australian situation where they have been growing Ingard cotton for some time but it seems to have had no negative impact upon their trade in relation to food products etc. 
But we also know that in Australia most states have put moratoriums on the commercial release of food products up to 2008. So we cannot know what the effects of the introduction of those in terms of their commercial release will actually be upon the trade of a fairly similar nation to ourselves. 
Therefore New Zealand First asks why we should risk the situation particularly when we are confronted by the sort of information the Minister gave in the House today—that since the moratorium was lifted there have been no applications for commercial release of any GE products let alone food products. Why should we signal to the world that we are ready to go when there have been no applications for GE field trials or any trials at all. That would suggest to some that possibly there have been some panic merchants out there. So New Zealand First asks why we should risk an impact upon New Zealand’s trade for something that is a long way away anyhow—probably not until 2008 at least. 
New Zealand First has a policy—and it has been a clear policy since we analysed the findings of the royal commission—that claims New Zealand needs to keep its opportunities open. We believe that the technology has potential particularly in therapeutics bioremediation and other aspects but that we should proceed with extreme caution. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill introduced by the honourable member Ian Ewen-Street. I agree that the member has good intentions perhaps in introducing this bill and I respect his deep feelings about this issue but as another member said earlier he is simply wrong about GE and about the value of reintroducing a moratorium in this country. United Future will be opposing this bill on its first reading. 
The Greens have some mantras and slogans that sound quite nice. They sound as if they could go somewhere but in actual fact when they are analysed a bit further they turn out to be meaningless statements. What is behind this reintroduction of the moratorium is this mantra of the Greens: to keep it in the laboratory. I want to examine that a little bit tonight because if we think about it we realise it is absolutely useless. What is the point of keeping in the laboratory all the research all the scientific knowledge that is gained if we can never use it for the benefit of society? If we cannot get it out of the laboratory why bother having it in there in the first place? Why would we ask people to invest their money into the research necessary in order to discover things that will be safe for the country safe for the economy and safe for human consumption if they can never ever test the results outside the laboratory? So there is an inconsistency there. There is actually a dishonesty really about that slogan that says to keep it in the laboratory and it will be OK. I think we need to expose that for what it is. 
Secondly there is an inconsistency and a dishonesty about the Greens’ position on some of these genetic modification issues. The Greens have been very passionate about the genetic modification of plants but when it came last year to supporting the human assisted reproduction legislation the Green Party supported the genetic modification of human gametes and embryos. I want to read it to the House so that we are all very clear. They supported a bill that allows for an advisory committee that must within time frames agreed by the Minister provide the Minister with information advice and if it thinks fit without ever referring back to this House recommendations upon the following matters in relation to gametes and embryos in human reproductive research cloned embryos donations of human embryos genetic modification of human gametes and human embryos. 
So I believe there are many people around the country who are asking themselves whether the Green Party is more concerned about genetically modified corn than it is about genetically modified human embryos and human gametes. We need to be consistent if we are to have strongly held beliefs and I do not believe that the Green Party is being consistent in its philosophy. Its voting record does not show it. 
Tonight I want to take the House back to some instances and press releases in 2002 that turbulent period before the last election when the issue of the lifting of the moratorium was paramount on the minds of all Green Party members. Some very very strong statements were made as in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
on 26 May 2002: “Green co-leader Rod Donald says: ‘For us it’s a matter of principle. We just couldn’t keep a Government in power that wants to end forever New Zealand being nuclear-free er GE-free.’ … The GE policy was a bottom line for the Greens because ‘unlike virtually anything else this one is irreversible.’ When the moratorium on commercial application of GE ended in October 2003 the country would lose its GE-free status forever. Donald admits the strategy is high-risk”—and boy was it ever high-risk—“The voters might revolt against a small party prepared to destroy a Government but ‘I’d rather risk being wiped out than stand by and watch the environment being wiped out.’ ” 
What has happened to that Green Party principle since that time? They just could not keep a Government in power. They would rather have seen a Government destroyed than see GE introduced into our environment yet we know recently that at their last conference the Greens decided they would abandon that principle in order to be able to pursue power with hopefully the future Government of this country—the thought of which we all dread. In the pursuit of power the Greens would be willing to abandon the principle that Rod Donald referred to and abandon their policy of having a moratorium on this issue. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak on the bill because I do not agree with it. I have a lot of respect for my friends in the Green Party and I agree with a lot of the things they say and do. But this is one area where I strongly disagree with the member who proposed this bill. Clearly I am one of those people who has some understanding of the issues because I have done a lot of research in agriculture particularly in the area of cropping. New Zealand as we know has done a lot of research and taken the lead both locally and internationally in developing a lot of technologies. We are an exporter of many of those technologies and have done very well in promoting and exporting crop seeds animals and animal and crop products over the years. I believe that for this country to survive economically and to raise our standard of living we have to be ahead of other competitors in the world in terms of creating new knowledge better technologies and better systems. We need to do this to increase productivity on the farm and to be able to export more and better quality products to the rest of the world. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: That’s rubbish. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: It is totally right I say to my friend. I have been part of it. We have been developing these technologies for over 100 years and we have taken the lead in many of the technologies used in farming today. 
I think that what my friend Ian Ewen-Street is proposing is a backward step. Clearly we have to do the science in this country. We have to be at the cutting edge of the technologies in order to understand the new frontiers of product development in this country. If we do not have that opportunity to develop new technologies if we let other people take those technologies develop them and have the patents we can never compete with them. The way the world is going ahead today only two or three major international companies are producing seed for example. They will have the patents and the copyright for that seed and they are the ones that will benefit. If we are left behind there is no way we will be able to compete because we are basically an agricultural country. 
We had the opportunity through the moratorium for quite a while to try to get consensus among ourselves in this country and particularly to bring our scientists with us. We had that opportunity. We discussed the issues thoroughly locally and internationally and we came up with the view that we need to have a case by case situation and look at what is appropriate for our conditions and our environment—at what we should be developing to suit our environment and our agriculture. To say that we in this country should not do the research should not test any of the new seeds and should not look at new organisms is totally a backward step. The Greens wish to keep a cleaner greener environment and we are all for that but unless we have the leading edge in developing technology we will not be able to add value to what we export to the rest of the world. 
I have done a lot of research on trying to understand the pitfalls and the disadvantages of having for example GE seeds. I have never to my understanding read any research papers—papers that are peer reviewed—from anywhere in the world that say for example that genetically modified seeds are no good. There is no study that suggests any adverse impact on the environment. There is no study that shows any adverse impact on human health or animal health. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask that member to show me some research. A whole lot of studies are mentioned in the newspapers but there is nothing to say that this is any worse. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I would like to congratulate Ian Ewen-Street on his good fortune. Of course getting a bill drawn from the ballot is purely a matter of luck but the fact that the bill was written is due to Ian’s good management. The Green Party wants New Zealand’s GE-free status to be due to good management too rather than good luck. We had good management when we had a moratorium. Fortunately good luck is still on our side. 
As a former organic farmer Ian understands better than most of us how crucial it is for New Zealand to remain GE free. We are a small nation at the bottom of the world and we must differentiate ourselves from the crowd in order to survive. That means identifying unique selling points to make our products more desirable than our competitors’ and ensuring that our visitor experience is unsurpassed. As Ian said New Zealand has found that niche. We brand ourselves clean green and “100% Pure”. It is our good fortune that we have so many natural advantages over other countries. It would be appallingly bad management if we were to stuff up those advantages. That is why we want to give this Parliament another chance to protect our advantages by reinstating the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically engineered organisms. 
Whether or not this bill passes we are proud of the fact that our campaigning efforts put GE on hold for long enough to stop the disastrous release of GE canola probably forever. That application was in the pipeline in 1999 but it did not proceed because our petition—which gathered 92000 signatures asking for a moratorium and a royal commission of inquiry—was heeded by the incoming Government. The royal commission disappointingly failed to engage properly with the science of GE but it provided the breathing space that allowed us to learn from overseas experience. 
It is now blindingly obvious that there is no possible way to stop the spread of GE canola pollen and seed. That means GE canola will never be approved under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. That counts as a victory. New Zealand is still GE free in the sense that there has been no release of such organisms into the environment or into New Zealand - grown food. We acknowledge and congratulate the thousands of people who made that possible by making submissions and marching in the streets. 
Reinstating the moratorium will not prevent the many useful applications of genetic engineering that do not require release into the environment and into our food chain. Laboratory-based genetics is vital in exploring why particular strains of crops have particular characteristics and then using this information to improve and short-cut natural selective breeding. It is vital that we continue to improve the genetics of our commercial plants and animals and that the technology is available to use genetic science to do this without creating transgenic organisms. 
Nor will this bill stop the majority of medical applications of GE because they do not require the release of a living organism into the environment either. GE insulin relied on by many diabetics is produced by bacteria engineered with a human gene. Those bacteria are never released from the laboratory. The insulin is purified from the bacterial culture tested and released as a medicine. It is not alive and cannot reproduce. This is the sort of smart science that the Greens support. It is not totally without risk but the risks can be controlled and the benefits outweigh them. 
The risk now is not primarily from GE food crops which have been shown to have little if anything to offer anyone in New Zealand—even the royal commission acknowledged that. The risk comes from this Government’s infatuation with the concept of medicines produced in food crops—potatoes containing vaccines and cows producing human proteins in their milk. This is a serious danger to our food exports because no one will believe that we can keep them 100 percent separate. Ian’s bill would be the best protection we could have against those risks. But if it does not pass its first reading today it is not the end. The Greens along with the GE-free movement will continue to monitor applications and alert the public when our well-being is threatened. Thousands of New Zealanders have shown that they will respond to the call if anyone is foolish enough to put our national security at risk. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member when he was speaking but on a number of occasions during his speech he referred to the sponsor of the bill in very familiar terms. As I understand Speakers’ rulings we refer to members by either their electorate or their full name certainly not by their first name. I wonder given the fact that you did not pull the member up whether there has been a change in that state of affairs. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It was remiss of me not to call Mr Rod Donald to order on each occasion when he did that. I thank the member for raising that point. There has been no change in the Chamber. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise. I would be very happy to read the speech out again using Ian’s full name—Ian Ewen-Street. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek leave for the co-leader of the Greens to have a further 10-minute slot at 5 past 10 to reread the speech that he has just read. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 This bill which has been drawn from the members’ ballot seeks to relitigate what this nation has been through ad nauseam over a very long period of time following the very lengthy Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. 
GE issues are difficult and serious health and safety issues do arise. There are difficult technical and scientific issues that are beyond the ability of many people to grasp because they do not have the training in the sciences that they need in order to get down properly to the nitty-gritty of the issues. 
The Government has all along taken the approach that issues like those which are so technically difficult ought to be decided through a robust process. That process started through the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification which was chaired by a High Court judge and which included representatives of the scientific community of ethicists—namely a minister of religion—and of representatives of tangata whenua. Their very very lengthy hearings and processes were thorough and anyone was able to submit to them. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: That’s not true. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I am sorry but it is true. I know of no one who was prevented from submitting and I know from having read many of the submissions that the full breadth of opinion was presented to the royal commission. 
I have no doubt that the commissioners were very well informed before they made the recommendations to Government that they did. The commission’s main recommendation was to proceed with a very strict regulatory regime but not totally to ban the potential future release of genetically modified organisms. Its recommendation was adopted by the Government. That recommendation was also the issue that was at the fore during the last election which this Government won so there is a mandate for the policy that has been put in place by this Government. 
It is worth noting the protections that are needed for the environment. I am one of those people who acknowledges that serious issues need to be addressed if and when any application is made for the release of a GE plant. But mechanisms are available through the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the legislation that created it to take properly into account the concerns that any interest group against the release of such plants might like to raise. 
There were criticisms about the robustness of the authority’s processes. Again those criticisms were highlighted by independent reviews and were not covered up. They were taken into account by the Government when it imposed an even stricter regime on the authority—so strict that one of the questions in the House today attacked the Government for the fact that the rules have become so strict no one can ever negotiate their way through them—that rather than being too lax they are too strict. 
I am comfortable with where we are at as a Government. We have a very strict regime under the Environmental Risk Management Authority. I do not want to relitigate what this Government and the public worked out in the 3 years prior to the last election so I for one will be voting against this bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that when we are debating members’ bills we follow the format. This speech should be the right of reply for the Green Party. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that issue. A number of speeches can take place. There is one speech short; Mr Locke is quite correct. On top of that the member who introduced the bill may reply if he wishes to but I will not bring it to his notice as he has already indicated he is aware of that. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. It is good that there are three Green Party speakers because as other participants in the debate have recognised it is an issue of great importance to the Green Party—and not just for the Green Party as a party with nine seats in a House of 120 seats but for a majority of New Zealanders. All the polls that have been taken show that the majority of our population—70 percent in one recent poll and I have also heard the figure of 67 percent; there are all types of figures but they are generally around 60 or 70 percent—do not want the release of GE organisms in our crops our food chain and our environment. That is the reality. So it is not as if the Greens are fighting against a big tide which is the impression people might get by listening to the debate in Parliament; the Green Party is surfing at the front of the tide of New Zealand’s popular opinion. 
New Zealanders were upset when the moratorium was lifted because we wanted to maintain our GE-free status. New Zealanders are not stupid. The arguments given by Ian Ewen-Street in his introductory 10-minute speech are common-sense arguments such as the argument he used about genetics. When I studied high school genetics and when I spent 2 years at university studying zoology it was quite clear to me that genes had multiple effects. Not only do genes have multiple effects but the effects they have depend on the context of other genes and everyone has a different set of “other genes”. 
As well the context varies according to the particular environment. We all know that genes express themselves differently at different times of the year. That is the secret of the cycle of life. The climate changes and genes express themselves in a certain way so that flowers grow. Autumn comes along and genes express themselves in other ways. So it is an area where there cannot be a one-to-one relationship of genes to outcomes which is what a lot of people who promote genetic engineering say. 
Dr Choudhary said that there is no science that proves negative effects. I think though that there is some science available about rogue GE weeds and crops taking over some of the countryside and pushing aside other crops and that that science makes absolute sense. If crops are being bred to be Roundup or herbicide-resistant or even pesticide-resistant obviously crops are being developed that might get out of hand. If a crop turns into some hybrid with another weed there will obviously be a super-weed development. The super-weed will then be Roundup-resistant. Or if a plant is bred to be resistant to certain insects and then spreads or mutates it could be difficult to use insecticides on it effectively. So that is the problem. 
There is also the intention of some of those companies using genetic engineering to benefit their own interests at the expense of the community’s interest. Recently there has been the whole issue of terminator seeds. Certainly people have said that outside of GE crops some hybrids do not reproduce. That is true. But the GE food manufacturers are producing seeds specifically through genetic engineering as terminator seeds—not to benefit people as a whole but to benefit their own profits. That is what it is about. People now have to buy seeds from such companies every year and they cannot collect seeds for replanting. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I was not going to mention the royal commission but my friend and colleague David Parker made a statement that I cannot allow to go by. He said that he did not know of anybody who had been refused permission to make a presentation orally to the royal commission. 
David Parker 
: I didn’t. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Actually the member did. I will tell the House a little story about myself. In making a submission to the royal commission people had to make it clear that they had an interest greater than that of the general public. I applied. I was called before the royal commission. I said that I was an organic farmer and my livelihood was at risk. I said that I was elected to Parliament on the basis of my opposition to genetic engineering and that I thought I had an interest greater than that of the general public. The commission said: “No you don’t. You can’t make an oral submission.” I discovered that after calling for submissions the commission decided that no individual could make an oral submission—not one. So there were 11000 people who wanted to make submissions and who made written submissions. About 9500 of those people could not make an oral submission—[ 
Interruption 
] I am afraid that that is what Mr Parker said. 
 Much has been made about the Greens being closed-minded about genetic engineering—that we are a flat earth society reborn or whatever the phrase is. I am a trained scientist and I like to think that I do have an open mind about this. Genetic engineering is not the way to go. We have never said anything about medicines. We are not saying that we should not use genetic engineering in the laboratory as a way of increasing scientific knowledge. If people are sick then I think it is incumbent on us to use whatever means we have at our disposal to help them get better. If that includes GE that is just fine. Our concern is about releasing live reproducing new species into our fragile and vulnerable ecosystems. Every time we come into New Zealand through the airports we get checked for biosecurity products. People bringing food products seeds or anything like that into this country are stopped at the border and relieved of them. What people fail to recognise is that although we spend hundreds of millions of dollars keeping alien species out of our ecosystems at the border genetic engineering is creating new species—and we know they are new species because the makers have kindly patented them. One can only patent something if it is new. 
So what we are doing is introducing alien species. We are putting a biosecurity risk into our ecosystems on a commercial scale. That is what we did with rabbits and possums in the early days. We thought then that we knew what we were doing but clearly in retrospect we did not know what we were doing. Possums are the greatest single threat to the economy of this country. If foot and mouth disease came into the country obviously the economy would go down the gurgler. We do not know what the impact of these alien species will be on our farming ecosystems. We do not and cannot know. 
New Zealand is GE free despite the best efforts of the Government. It has not been able to convince anyone to actually try to have a commercial release and the reason is that as soon as something like that happens 70 percent of the population out there will rise up in civil disobedience and pull out those crops. That is what the Government knows and what it does not want. That is also what the foreign companies know and that is why we have not had any applications through the Environmental Risk Management Authority. It is not because it is a robust regulatory authority as the Government likes to tell us; it is because companies know that the people of New Zealand simply do not want it. 
When I look at the National Party in the Chamber I see a party in total disarray. It is looking at electoral oblivion but here we have a subject area that has 70 percent support in the community. Surely there is some grain of intelligence in the party that says: “Hey here is an issue that’s ready made. We’ve got a constituency out there. The Greens have proved it’s 70 percent. If we adopted it maybe we’d be the Government next time.” [ 
Interruption 
] 
It is a tradition in this Parliament for bills to be read a first time so they can be recommended to select committees and debated properly. I sincerely trust that members in the House will vote accordingly. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 25 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 95 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Motion not agreed to. 
New Zealand Day Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Day Bill be now read a first time.  
I indicate at the outset of my speech to the House that if this motion is subsequently adopted I will move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. The one thing that a country ought to be able to be proud of is its national day. It is the one day each year when all New Zealanders whatever their origins their circumstances or where they live ought to be able to say this is the occasion for them to celebrate proudly all the things they uniquely bring to the national table of what makes them New Zealanders. It is a day to celebrate the differing strands that make up our nation. But sadly for too many people our national day as it now stands Waitangi Day 6 February has become a day to do either one of two things: ignore it or if the weather is fine go to the beach. I do not believe that the country’s nationhood can be founded on such apathy or can be celebrated with pride when for most New Zealanders 6 February has become a day on which to yawn and look forward to the next day. 
The New Zealand Day Bill proposes very simply that 6 February be renamed New Zealand Day and that New Zealand Day be celebrated on the Monday of the week during which 6 February occurs. The reason for that is this. I believe that the ability of people to get together to celebrate in the communities up and down New Zealand in their own way is greatly enhanced if the national day is regularised to occur on a particular occasion without the disruption that we now have because it occurs sometimes on a weekend sometimes mid-week or sometimes over a long weekend. When I introduced a similar bill in 2000 I observed that it was something that the late Norman Kirk had introduced into this House over 30 years ago. I recalled some of the words that he used at the time to promote the nation’s national day as New Zealand Day. I think those words bear repetition this evening because even though time has passed by their wisdom still stands. He said New Zealand Day 6th February “is not just a day for the people of Northland”—and we should bear in mind that in those days it was not even a public holiday—“nor for Maori but it is a day for all New Zealanders to celebrate the unique gift we possess by virtue of being New Zealanders.” That theme is what lies behind this bill. 
Some people have said that I am trying to downplay the significance of Waitangi and of the Treaty of Waitangi. In fact if one looks at the purpose clause of this bill clause 3 one sees that it states: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for the observance of 6 February in each year as a public holiday to commemorate both the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand’s national identity.” So that argument goes out of the window.Others have said that this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to unfortunate events that have occurred at previous Waitangi Day celebrations. I would say two things in response to that claim. Firstly Waitangi Day sadly over the last 10 15 or maybe 20 years has become a day marred by protests dissent and division. It has become a day that increasingly New Zealanders have felt alienated from. So it is not just a sudden occurrence. 
Secondly at the same time we are again starting to see in this country the emergence of a sense of nationhood. Partly it is because our population has become diverse. The new communities that have come to New Zealand over the last 10 years have brought new cultures and new aspects that we all seek to embrace. The Lantern Festival that marks the commencement of the Chinese New Year would never have been considered even worth noting in New Zealand probably 5 years ago. Now it is a prominent feature of our calendar. Similarly there is Diwali the Indian lights festival in October. Celebrations that mark the different cultural contributions of many different groups in New Zealand such as the Pasifika events of last weekend are becoming more and more part of our mainstream. What is happening is that as these events go on New Zealanders are becoming more excited about them. We are on the verge of shaping the New Zealander of the future as a person who is at ease with all those cultures and is unique in that respect. I therefore believe very passionately that in terms of our nationhood and in terms of our future as a country we ought to be bringing our national day together as one where all New Zealanders feel they have a part to play. That is not the case at the moment. 
Some people have also suggested that while the notion of what I am proposing is correct the day is wrong—that Waitangi Day is a special day and should not be tampered with in this way. I am open to suggestion—and if this bill goes to the select committee as I believe it will maybe this is something the select committee can examine—as to whether there is another more appropriate day. But the difficulty I have is that when particular days start to be suggested it is very difficult to find one that is adequate. Anzac Day has a special significance for New Zealanders. I do not believe we would want to see that tampered with as a national day. I think the implication of changing the Queen’s Birthday celebration to a national day celebration carries some other connotations that people may not want to consider at this stage. Many have suggested the old Dominion Day 26 September as a more appropriate day. Again if we are celebrating our nationhood our diversity and our future is making our national day the day on which we became a British dominion the appropriate day to celebrate our nationhood? As I say I am open-minded on the issue but as I have looked at it I cannot think of a better day than Waitangi Day. 
My colleague Mr Field reminds me that Norman Kirk at Waitangi in 1973 when he first talked about New Zealand Day also talked about New Zealand’s unity coming through the recognition of its diversity. I think that this country 30 years on is at the point where we have the confidence and the maturity to be able to confront these issues properly and rationally. We should not be bashful about stating proudly as our colleagues across the Tasman do as the United States does and as many other jurisdictions do that this is our national day. It is a day for all New Zealanders. It is one where people from the strands that make up our national fibre come together as one celebrate their differences but recognise that fundamentally they are New Zealanders. It is New Zealand Day. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The National Party supports this bill going to a select committee for further consideration and we do so for a number of reasons. The first is that there should be a day on which we celebrate what New Zealand is now—that is a society of many different cultures with many different backgrounds and many different days of celebrations. We should bring those together. The particular days can still be celebrated—for example the Chinese New Year which is a great day of celebration; the Indian day of celebration; or the Pasifika— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: The Indian day. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Absolutely! I have already mentioned that. There are a number of days including Waitangi Day that should still be recognised but we should set aside a special day where everybody who has a view whether it be Scottish heritage or whatever it may be can have a chance to say: “This is our ethnic background. This is where we came from and this is what we’ve contributed to New Zealand.” It should be a day when we all come together. 
Indeed one of the things that we will want to address in the select committee when we consider this bill is whether the suggestion in it that merely moving the commemoration of 6 February to the Monday most closely associated with 6 February will do enough to achieve that outcome. If we are to have a day of celebration recognising what this country is I think that we would need to seriously consider whether it would not be more appropriate that Parliament and the public of New Zealand pick another day—a fresh day—that does not have any association with any linkage of the past in that sense. We could pick a day where everybody can say: “Well it has no particular association. This we will make New Zealand Day. This is the day we can all come together. We can all celebrate our diversity and our uniqueness and our unity.” That is probably something the select committee would want to give serious thought to. 
The problem we have at the moment is that Waitangi Day is considered our official day of celebration as a nation. There are a number of reasons why that has historically been so. But the tragedy of it is that the protest—the “honour the treaty” issue—has become such an issue that it has taken away from the celebration of Waitangi Day our day of recognition as a country. When I look at Waitangi Day and go to Waitangi Day celebrations as I have done regularly for a number of years now it disappoints me to see on the news that night and the next day that what is portrayed as being what happened at Waitangi was that it was a day of protest and a place where people went to make their different points—which they do. But what is overlooked is the fact that many people go there to enjoy the day. They do not get involved in the day of protest or have issues that they want to raise but merely go to have a day of enjoyment and that still happens. The day is actually a fun day. In Northland 6 February is a fantastic day for anybody who wants to go and enjoy it to participate in the celebrations and to see what Northland can portray and what is portrayed on behalf of New Zealanders. It is a day on which we can enjoy the uniqueness of our country. But sadly it is overshadowed by what the media portray of what they see of the day because somebody stands up and says something about the Treaty of Waitangi. 
For that reason we need to take the day of New Zealand away from Waitangi Day. If there is to be protest then let it happen but let it happen because of the Treaty of Waitangi not because it happens on New Zealand Day. Let us choose another day. This bill gives us the opportunity to debate that issue. 
I want to make one other point. The thing that worries me with Waitangi Day is that it is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to go to Waitangi and start politicking. We must take that opportunity away from the Prime Minister Helen Clark. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.