Volume 631 Week 17 - Tuesday 13 June 2006 
Volume 631 Week 17 - Tuesday 13 June 2006 
[Volume:631;Page:3455] 
Tuesday 13 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 8 to Minister 2 May and Question No. 3 to Minister 3 May 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 It has come to my attention that my answers to oral question No. 8 on 2 May 2006 and to oral question No. 3 on 3 May 2006 were incorrect. In answer to questions from Phil Heatley MP I said that the chair of Housing New Zealand Corporation had informed me promptly of allegations made by a former contractor. I also confirmed my answers in reply to a written question from Mr Heatley. Mr Snedden the chair has now advised me that he has discovered that he was sent a fax containing the settlement agreement on 24 March 2006 12 days earlier than he originally advised. I am therefore taking the first available opportunity in the House to correct my answers. I have also lodged a corrected answer to the written question asked by Mr Heatley. 
Questions to Ministers 
Energy Minister—Confidence 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Energy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she have confidence in the security of power supply to the Auckland region; if not what steps will she take and when will she take them so that she can express such confidence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Like all Aucklanders I am very concerned that this single event did trigger a stop in the supply to Auckland. Accordingly I have asked for a report to be at the Cabinet policy committee tomorrow morning. The Minister of Energy is asking Ministry of Economic Development officials the Electricity Commission and Transpower to supply reports as quickly as possible. If there is a need to change policy that can be done but it may be that Transpower needs to speed up some investment around the Otahuhu substation. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why when Dr Keith Turner Managing Director of Government-owned Meridian Energy advised last year that “New Zealand’s electricity grid is so overworked that some lines cannot be taken out for servicing. That is unheard of in the Western developed world.” did no one in her Government take this to be a serious warning from a very senior energy expert and why is it that in the intervening period no one in her Government has taken any action as a result? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On the contrary improving transmission on the grid into Auckland is a very high priority for the Government. It might be rather nice if National MPs like Judith Collins and Lindsay Tisch did not put every obstacle in the way. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is she aware of the statement made by her Minister of Energy to the Parliament last November following Dr Keith Turner’s observations that “the problem is not as bad as the member would have others believe” and does this still represent the official position of her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The transmission system needs an upgrade. The Minister however has not had an outage unlike the Leader of the Opposition who took 23½ hours to put out a statement on the matter. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Prime Minister sought any costings of what it would take to ensure that every electricity system in the country was duplicated so that even a freak storm bringing down a wire could never cause an outage and has she had any advice from the leader of the National Party as to whether they would be prepared to forgo tax cuts in order to pay for it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think the cost of doing that doubling of all systems would be absolutely incalculable but I understand that voodoo economics as proclaimed by the National Party says we can cut taxes and spend more on absolutely everything. So voodoo economics lives on in the National Party. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How many years does Labour have to be in office before it starts delivering solutions instead of procrastinating and prevaricating? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This Government has delivered immensely more investment in energy. 
Housing—Families 
2.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What steps is he taking to ensure families have access to quality affordable housing? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Budget 2006 takes the total funding for State house acquisition to $659 million over the next 3 years when we plan to acquire an additional 2000 State houses. The Labour-led Government believes quality affordable housing is fundamental to the health and well-being of families and communities—unlike National which sold 13000 State houses in the 1990s mostly to developers not tenants. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister received on the value of State houses? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen a report that describes the building of State houses as “economic vandalism” and states that land has a lot more potential than just somewhere to build a bunch of State houses. I have also seen a report that states that housing policy is not important does not require a party leader’s time and does not have financial implications. The first statement was from John Key who by the way grew up in a State house and the second admission from Don Brash confirmed that the National Party cares only about money not people. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena tatou te Whare. What strategies has the Minister developed to ensure a Maori person earning the median income of $23600 can service a mortgage of $275000 which is the median price for a house in the Waikato Bay of Plenty and Gisborne region at 8.2 percent over 25 years? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: This Government has embarked on addressing the needs of low-income people in a wide variety of ways—not least of all the Working for Families package which brings a lot more cash into low-income families. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister received any reports of any National Party MPs who grew up in very expensive houses opposing building very expensive houses in their electorate or is it only people who grew up in State houses opposing State housing developments that he has heard about? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: None whatsoever. 
Electricity Supply—Energy Minister’s Statement 
3.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he stand by his statement “I do recognise that it’s my responsibility to ensure that … the lights don’t go out in New Zealand”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Yes I do. The situation in Auckland yesterday was unacceptable—as I said then. The Government is taking steps to prevent it from happening again. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept he was wrong on 17 November last year to minimise concern about New Zealand’s electricity system when I put to him the concerns of Dr Keith Turner his own Ministry of Economic Development and Treasury and he replied: “… the problem is not as bad as the member and others would have us believe.” and how bad will it have to get our having had 700000 people and our economic capital brought to their knees for this Minister to accept we have a problem? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I accepted at the time and accept now that we have a problem. The issue on which I disagreed with the member at the time I think related to assertions that Auckland was equivalent to a Third World city which is just not correct. 
Maryan Street 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that the situation in Auckland yesterday does not happen again? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will get a report within 2 weeks on why the wider system did not cope with the consequences of yesterday’s line failure at the Otahuhu substation. It will be urgently considered and remedial action will be taken promptly. As a priority we are investigating whether an additional substation is needed to share the load at Otahuhu. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister tell the people of New Zealand on  
Campbell Live 
 last night that a new circuit from Pakuranga to Penrose of 220 kilovolts was approved when that is not the case when that proposal is not budgeted for and when no resource consent has been applied for; why did he mislead the people of New Zealand last night? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I did not. I was referring to the fact that it is approved by Transpower and is part of a request for information that it presently has out and is consulting upon. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You said it was approved. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is approved by Transpower. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that New Zealanders basically require three fundamental factors which are first a significant amount of new electricity second a fair and competitive price regime and third security of supply; and is he in a position to assure the House that those three factors will be delivered upon in this term? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I agree; they are three fundamentals that we are striving to achieve. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning that he had requested Transpower “to investigate separating out parts of the Otahuhu substation under its plan to upgrade transmission into Auckland after 2013.”; and does he believe that the people of Auckland should put up with insecure power supply for another 5 years under his incompetent Government? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I do not accept that characterisation of it. What I did was refer to the current proposals that Transpower had already planned for the separation of some of the lines at Otahuhu to another part of the site so as to achieve some physical separation and I went on to say that I had asked Transpower to consider whether it should advance that plan or whether indeed there was a need for another substation at some distance apart. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When—and I ask in the interest of learning from past experience—was there last a power blackout in Auckland how many days rather than hours did it last who had been in power for 8 years at that time and which party did the then Minister of Energy come from? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Because the member over there—the Government’s little lapdog—has referred to history— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know that it is the first day but when members are speaking to points of order they are entitled to be heard in silence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before we deal with that point of order an expression used by that member was absolutely unparliamentary. It should be ruled out and it should not be repeated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has withdrawn and apologised. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker my point is in the interests of history and to assist you to work out whether that was a reasonable question. It is worth pointing out that the power failure in Auckland in 1998 was due to a large transmission line owned by Vector Energy not by any State agency and it had nothing to do with the Minister of Energy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member of Parliament has taken to raising points of order throwing in some bad language that is totally outside the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings and getting away with it. Madam Speaker if I began my response to him by talking about “Mr Cellulite” or “Teletubby” you would stop me in my tracks immediately and rightfully so. He should be warned that if he carries on like that he will not get to make a point of order or ask a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members. As I said we are starting a new sitting so let us keep the points of order that are raised to actual points or order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: To help the member who has asked the question I seek the leave of the House to table Mr Winston Peters’ speech in the urgent debate on the 1998 power failure when he said National could not be held responsible for it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] The question can be addressed Mr Brownlee. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The year was 1998. The number of days was more than five times seven—because it was more than 5 weeks—so it was more than 35. As a consequence of the dire straits of many parts of the New Zealand infrastructure inherited by this Government we are spending lots of additional resource on roads and public transport. In relation to capital upgrades to transmission lines the amount of the capital works programme is more than five times the size of that which we inherited from the National Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister believe that this Labour Government has invested sufficient in New Zealand’s electricity infrastructure when it has taken over $2 billion in profits from consumers and spent less than 10 percent of that money on new infrastructure? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The amount being spent on upgrades in and around Auckland this year is $83 million the total amount being spent throughout New Zealand in the coming year is more than $300 million and the total being spent over the next 3 years is more than $1 billion. If it takes more than that to do it to a higher standard and a higher standard is necessary we will spend that additional money. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that Transpower pays the Government dividends—albeit a modest $10 million last year—and in the light of the Auckland problems will he recommend to the appropriate Minister that the Government forgoes the dividends until the Auckland problems have been completely fixed? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The answer to that is evident in the question. A dividend of a mere $10 million is not a capital constraint that is holding back Transpower’s investment in the grid. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has the Government ignored the calls from Transpower in the 2002 annual report the 2003 annual report the 2004 annual report and the 2005 annual report that the Resource Management Act must be reformed if Transpower is to be able to maintain and upgrade the grid in a timely way; and will this Government reconsider and reform that Act so that New Zealand can have infrastructure that will service a modern economy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not accept the proposition that the Resource Management Act is to blame for either the problems we had in South Auckland or the transmission upgrades we need to make through the Waikato. Further I would note that practical progress is being made by the acquisition of land on a voluntary basis through the Waikato. If and when Transpower believes that it actually needs assistance to compulsorily acquire land from those who are holding out I have no doubt it will come to the Government and ask us for permission to use the Public Works Act compulsory acquisition route. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports of the likelihood of his receiving an attack today from a political party that was responsible for a 35-day blackout in respect of a Government that is responsible for a 5-hour blackout? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Incredible though it seems I expected it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table Transpower’s annual reports for the years 2002-03 2003-04 and 2004-05 and its 6-monthly report all stating that the Resource Management Act needed to be reformed in order for Transpower to be able to upgrade our transmission system. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the statement made by Dr Keith Turner in February last year that New Zealand’s electricity system was so bad that some lines and specifically the lines into Auckland could not be properly maintained because they could not be taken out of action for servicing. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister’s response earlier—in answer to my question to him about his having said that the problem was not that bad—that he had said that comment in response to my referring to Auckland as being of a Third World standard was not correct I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 from 17 November last year in which the Minister disputed Dr Keith Turner’s concerns and said that the problem actually was not that bad. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister received any messages in the past 24 hours regarding the power blackout in Auckland from the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues; if so what additional measures has he put in place for Auckland; if not is he surprised that he has not heard from the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I have; indeed the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues sought and had an appointment with me to discuss her concerns that the outage of a line at Otahuhu could cause such a widespread power blackout in Auckland. She is very keen to be kept informed as to the remedial measures I propose. 
Ageing Population—Financial Implications 
4.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the likely impact of an ageing population on New Zealand’s finances? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That is not a personal question. I recently received a Standard and Poor’s report that concludes that this Government’s programme of debt reduction and provision for future superannuation costs has made New Zealand one of the best-placed nations in the world to cope with the costs of an ageing population. The report also noted that tax cuts on the scale of Australia’s would be “very short-sighted” and questioned whether they would be sustainable. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koutou te Whare. In light of the significant difference in life expectancy with Maori dying an average of 8 years earlier than non-Maori what reports has the Minister received outlining the impact of that disparity on the economy and is that a concern for the Government or is the Minister pleased to be saving money? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is very doubtful that that disparity saves much money given the higher health-care costs that are incurred as a consequence of low health standards amongst many Maori. I can report that publications due to come out in the near future will show that those disparities are being reduced under this Government. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that one of the most important ways to prepare our economy for the demographic changes is to have a skilled and motivated workforce here in New Zealand and can he also confirm that one of the most debilitating factors for our economy has been that so many skilled and motivated workers have in the past 6 years got up and moved to Australia because the wage gap has widened from 20 percent to 33 percent under his watch; if he cares so much about those issues what does he intend to do about them before he retires? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and no. I can confirm that we have maintained net in-migration of 10000 a year that we show a net in-migration of skilled people and that throughout every year in the 1990s under a National Government out-migration to Australia increased in net terms including in the 2 years after tax cuts. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports on why alternative strategies may be short-sighted and unsustainable? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. The Monetary Policy Statement from the Reserve Bank highlights the current inflationary risk facing the economy. In such an environment it is clear that large-scale tax cuts without corresponding expenditure reductions would fuel inflation and increase interest rates as a former Governor of the Reserve Bank would himself have said when he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
Terrorism Suppression Act—Designations 
5.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she designated any individuals or organisations as terrorist entities under section 20 of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 apart from those designated under United Nations Resolution 1267 (1999); if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. There has been no advice that such designation is justified at this time. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the case that Rayed Mohammed Abdullah also known as Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali who was expelled last week under section 72 of the Immigration Act was on an alert list held by the New Zealand border authorities and managed to slip past them or that he was not on any such list at all? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I will not comment in the House on who is or is not on lists but I can say that this man presented as a Mr Ali which was not information the Government had. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Why did the Prime Minister ask the House to pass the Terrorism Suppression Act in the wake of the September 11 attacks to provide special powers for the authorities in dealing with terrorists designated by her under section 22 of that Act if she did not actually intend to designate any such terrorists; can she explain why Australia has designated 88 and Canada over 50 non UN - specified terrorists under their legislation while she has designated none? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a matter for those Governments acting on advice. I will act on advice if I receive it but I am not going to designate at whim. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What confidence can New Zealanders have in our security arrangements when Rayed Mohammed Abdullah who was named in the official September 11 commission’s report as someone who flatted and trained with one of the September 11 hijackers and who made extremist speeches at the local mosque was not designated under the Terrorism Suppression Act or apparently placed on any other list of potentially dangerous individuals as someone whom we did not want to have in this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The confidence the member should have is that this man was detected and summarily deported. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm media reports that Rayed Mohammed Abdullah managed to get past the New Zealand authorities simply by adding the word “Ali” at the end of his name and should any terrorists out there take that as a signal that regardless of any alerts held against them they can gain entry into New Zealand simply by adding the word “Smith” at the end of their names? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would not recommend trying that no. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has it crossed the Prime Minister’s mind that when Australia has used its post - September 11 anti-terrorist legislation to designate 88 separate terrorists or terrorist organisations Canada has designated over 50 and the New Zealand Prime Minister has designated precisely none she may just be giving the impression that New Zealand is a soft touch on matters of national security; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would not have thought that the Order in Council enabling the deportation of a Mr Ali would lead anyone to conclude that. 
Keith Locke 
: Would it not have been a bit silly to designate Mr Abdullah or Mr Ali when the United States interrogated him intensively after September 11 and did not see a need to deport him even though he was not a US citizen and could she without disclosing operational details give us a bit more of an explanation of why he was deported in view of the fact that the United States did not deport him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is the same as the member’s: that this man was not deported from the United States. Personally I consider it a no-brainer that someone who has been a roommate of a 9/11 terrorist and who is having pilot training is here for no particularly good purpose. He seems to have had perfectly adequate English. He applied to come here to learn English. That is not what he set out to do. And he has gone. 
Finance Minister—Confidence 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she agree with Dr Cullen’s statements that Television New Zealand and three of the countries largest newspapers were biased in their coverage of the debate over tax cuts and were running a personal agenda in favour of tax cuts; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Dr Cullen and I would not be the only people in New Zealand who thought the media had something of an obsession with this issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did she have any discussions with Dr Cullen following the broadcast of television footage showing him criticising a number of senior journalists for stories about tax cuts and did she give him any counsel about the inadvisability of shooting the messenger? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes we did have a discussion. The main conclusion of that discussion was to not trust that particular journalist again. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has she told Dr Cullen that while 63 percent of New Zealanders believe he could have given tax cuts his attacking journalists for doing their job simply reinforces the view that he has no acceptable reason for his heavy taxation burden on New Zealand workers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not know how many times the National Party has to be told that New Zealand is not a heavily taxed country. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she accept that the poor response to the “Bondi Budget” is in large part due to Dr Cullen’s failure to deliver much-expected tax cuts and can she confirm that it will take the retirement of Dr Cullen for Labour to deliver on New Zealand workers’ expectation that they will get tax cuts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I expect Dr Cullen to keep on delivering better services and infrastructure—all the things that cannot be done if everything is thrown away in tax cuts as the National Party wants to do. 
Food Standards Australia New Zealand—LY038 High Lysine Corn 
7.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Does she have confidence in the recommendation in the draft assessment report by Food Standards Australia New Zealand to approve the sale and use of food derived from LY038 high lysine corn? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I have no opinion on the draft assessment for the setting of the standard of LY038 corn at this stage as the application is part way through the process of consideration. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is she aware that high lysine corn is substantially different from normal corn in that its high level of lysine when cooked with the sugars in corn produces highly hazardous compounds and is she concerned that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has made no attempt to assess this demonstrated food hazard that results from cooking or processing? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am aware of those comments and they have been made in a submission by Dr Heinemann to Food Standards Australia New Zealand. His submissions will be taken into consideration. 
Darien Fenton 
: What steps need to be followed before a standard may be finalised? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As noted in the original answer the assessment is still at the draft stage and the application for approval of LY038 corn is still in progress. When this is completed a final assessment report with recommendations will be made and considered by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council. The ministerial council will consider a draft standard. It can either accept the recommendation made by Food Standards Australia New Zealand or request two reviews before a final decision is made on a draft standard. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why on earth is Food Standards Australia New Zealand considering approving for human consumption something that has only ever been approved for animal feed and does this mean that in future anything that has been approved for animal feed will now be allowed in our food supply; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The answer to the last part of the question is no but the reason this corn is being considered is that Food Standards Australia New Zealand wants it assessed to see whether it would be safe for human consumption if it should accidentally get into the food chain. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When she meets with the Australian Ministers to make the final decision will she be asking why the New Zealand Food Safety Authority used controls to assess the corn that do not comply with its own rules or with World Health Organization standards and is she concerned that this decision would set a precedent that Food Standards Australia New Zealand does not have to follow its own rules or those of the World Health Organization and set a precedent that testing for animal feed can substitute for testing for human food and set a precedent that hybrids from this new corn would also be legal human food without further testing? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is a lot of water to go under the bridge before it reaches the ministerial council including an assessment of the final submissions on this application. This application will take account of those matters raised by Dr Heinemann—the very matters the member has mentioned. I am assured the council will consider them. However Food Standards Australia New Zealand disputes the fact that it has not followed its own rules. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table in the interests of veracity and truth a speech I made on 24 February 1998 on the question of granting a full inquiry into finding out why there had been a blackout in Auckland. In particular I stated that we intended to discover what kind of operation Mercury Energy had been running and who was responsible for what had happened. It is as simple as that—rather than being the totally obtuse piece of misinformation given by Dr Nick Smith.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I assume that that is the same speech for which I sought the leave of the House to table so perhaps I should read its first line: “One would not have thought from that speech that in 1986 the Labour Government decided to deregulate the electricity industry.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to table that speech or is this a point of information? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a point of information. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that is not a point of order. There was objection to the tabling of the document so we will now move on to question No. 8. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it very clear that Dr Smith was objecting to the fact that one cannot seek to table the same document twice in 1 day. Dr Smith previously sought to table the speech that Mr Peters wanted to table but in fact he had leave to do that denied by Mr Peters. So it is not possible for him to seek to table it again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes one can table the same document twice in the same day so that is not a valid point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is an exact illustration of what I mean about the National Party. The National member sought to table the speech but now that the member has actually read it the National Party does not want to table it again. National is wasting Parliament’s time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member. He has made his point but that was not a point of order either. 
Health Sector Strike Action—Junior Doctors and Radiation Therapists 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the latest estimate of how many patients will have their specialist appointment or operation disrupted as a result of strikes by radiation therapists and junior doctors and what will happen to these patients? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 District health boards advise that more than 10000 patients will have their specialist appointments or operations postponed should both strikes proceed. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What did the Minister mean when he told district health board chief executives earlier this year that the Government has an appetite for industrial action in the health sector this year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have never made any such comment. 
Ann Hartley 
: Does the Government agree that an average working week of 55 to 58 hours needs to be addressed and is that not a feature of the junior doctors’ claim? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes the Government does agree—which is why the Doctors in Training Workforce Roundtable was established last year. The number of hours worked by registered medical officers has fallen steeply in recent years but it can fall further. The issue at the heart of this debate is how to do that and the choices appear to be either to reduce rigidities in the system or to seek to increase further the number of junior doctors. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What advice or parameters has the Government given district health boards or their negotiators dealing with the junior doctors’ strike? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are no parameters offered by the Government and the key piece of advice for all parties is to remain within New Zealand’s industrial law. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What is the Government’s preference: to get the extra junior doctors needed to cover the hours released by reducing the working hours of junior doctors or to deal with the rigidities in the contract? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think it needs to be acknowledged that 10000 New Zealanders will have their out-patient appointments or surgical interventions postponed if this strike proceeds and I regret that. I urge both parties if they can see the possibility of a way forward to resolve the issue before the strike begins on Thursday. If the strike is to proceed—and that seems to be distinctly possible—then of course all lifesaving procedures will occur nonetheless because the law requires that. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: When hospital nurses won a 20 to 30 percent pay increase did the Minister really expect that other health professionals would settle for 3 percent and did the Government not foresee that it was triggering a domino effect of industrial action? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will be aware that in the case for example of physiotherapists significant pay increases have been awarded since the nurses’ settlement. However in the case of radiation therapists and resident medical officers district health boards are of the view that their significant pay increase preceded those for nurses by some years. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why have things got so bad on this Minister’s watch that he has caused a domino effect of strife throughout the health sector where the radiotherapists are on strike the junior doctors are on the verge of a nationwide strike pharmacy negotiations are in trouble and general practitioners are rebelling against the Government’s plans to control their businesses; why is it all now such a mess when Annette King kept it so quiet? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This Government faces a range of challenges and vicissitudes every week and has done so for 6½ years and always attempts to approach its challenges with common sense and equanimity a couple of features that I would commend to the member who seems easily riled. 
Building Code—Review 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: What reports if any has he received on the review of the building code? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports supporting the Government’s review of the building code. The Construction Industry Council said the review will “ensure that New Zealanders get what they want from their buildings.” The Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand “welcomed the review.” The Auckland City Council also welcomed the review for “the opportunity it provides to bring in new standards and targets which are better suited to the modern building environment and sustainable development.” I have seen one other commentator however clearly still in denial over the terrible consequences of the building industry deregulation in the 1990s who claimed falsely that building regulations would ban “the do-it-yourself builder.” That is wrong; they are protected. That commentator of course was the National Party building issues spokesperson Nick Smith. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Why is it necessary to review the building code? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The existing building code is over 15 years old and reflects that which I spoke about—the attitudes of the 1990s. The new code will set out a modern performance-based set of rules and standards for building design and construction so our homes and workplaces are built right the first time. It will have an emphasis on energy efficiency and sustainability to reflect what people expect from their buildings in the 21st century. I encourage people to get involved in the review—if the members opposite can swallow their pride and admit they were wrong I am happy for even them to submit. 
State-owned Enterprises—Scope 
10.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Is he confident that expanding the scope of SOEs will result in broader benefits to the economy when the Treasury the Government’s main policy adviser says “the benefits of expansion are unlikely to be substantial” and CCMAU says “that new initiatives can and should occur within the existing operating framework for SOEs”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes because—unlike the National Party—I do not take everything Treasury says as gospel and neither comment is correct. 
Katherine Rich 
: So in backing this risky plan what does the Minister know that the combined brains of Treasury the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit and the Ministry of Economic Development—all of which have expressed concerns—do not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would have thought that being the day after yesterday today is a very bad day to put a lot of confidence in people of that background. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is very interesting to hear about this day being the day after yesterday but pointing out that obvious fact cannot possibly be regarded as addressing that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did address the question. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does the Minister believe that the boards of State-owned enterprises have the expertise necessary to give effect to this latest policy change; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. The boards of our State-owned enterprises contain a lot of very experienced and talented business people many of whom were appointed by the previous National Government. I note that John Key has said he believes that board chairs are Labour Party cronies. I wonder whether he told Wayne Brown Wayne Boyd Alison Paterson Brian Corban or Jim Bolger that they are Labour Party cronies. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why when one of the lessons of the 20th century is that Governments are not good at running businesses does the Minister steadfastly cling to State-owned enterprises having 100 percent State ownership when a minority sale to mum and dad investors has the potential to revitalise those businesses lift local savings and investment and advance the transformation of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Looking at Air New Zealand Telecom Tranz Rail and other wonderful assets that were hocked off in the past in a way—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister cannot be heard. As I said interjections are permitted but not barracking to the point whereby other members in the Chamber cannot hear the answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This time I would back the governance and management of State-owned enterprises against that of the privatised companies that have not been doing very well recently. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the Minister has just expressed confidence in the current stable of State-owned enterprise directors does he share the Ministry of Economic Development’s concerns “about the ability of the current governance arrangements to cope with this new direction” and that “State-owned enterprises would require greater and different kinds of commercial acumen to that which is currently expected of State-owned enterprises boards and management”; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We have been doing a lot of improving over the last 6 or 7 years. People like Michelle Boag a former National Party president who is very close to the National Party; Michael Cox who was the partner of a Minister at the time; Lindsay Tisch who was at that time a recently failed MP; Margaret Moir who was in a similar category; John Armstrong; and Graeme Reeves were all hacks who were put on to State-owned enterprise boards and we are cleaning them out pretty well. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Could the Minister please advise the House in referring to Telecom Air New Zealand and New Zealand Rail which of those companies if any had a partial minority sale down to mum and dad investors of New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: From memory Telecom did and that— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It had a monopoly. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Telecom was partially a trade sale. There was a float within New Zealand by way of application and a lot of mums and dads bought into it. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister stand by his Cabinet paper that indicates one reason for encouraging State-owned enterprises to diversify is that “… we do not want SOEs to get into a rut to become too predictable and boring for those who work in and with them.”; and since when has risking taxpayers’ money been about creating a workplace that is not boring or a State-owned enterprise that is not boring to work with? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Frankly a “steady as she goes” “no change” approach has caused us to lose some talented State-owned enterprise executives. I would prefer their jobs to be challenging and sometimes that involves those State-owned enterprises having a bit of skin in the game. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is the Minister saying that is an OK reason to embark on a risky expansion programme to create a workplace that is not boring and does the Minister know the difference between a State-owned enterprise and a social club? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Clearly that is not the only reason one moves in that way but I think if it does hold talented executives in State-owned enterprises then that is another good reason for doing what is good transformational policy. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that one example which has already been undertaken was Meridian Energy’s expansion into Australia which enabled it to purchase wind power at much reduced cost and also led to a very substantial profit on the sale of those Australian assets? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: From memory it was either $600 million or $800 million in profit which I think has made a very worthwhile contribution to Auckland roads. I know that members opposite opposed it at the time but that does not surprise me. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm on the question of State-owned enterprise management sale or otherwise whether he recalls the sale of the BNZ which at that time had 60 percent—[ 
Interruption 
] History is important for a young lad like that member. It might pay to learn some. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just ask the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He should be shot out of the House. He intervened while I was asking a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is actually right. All members are entitled to the courtesy of not being interrupted when asking their question. Would the member please start again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister remember the sale of the BNZ in October 1992 by the National Government which was then led by Jim Bolger when the BNZ had 60 percent of New Zealanders as banking customers and the subsequent taking up of the job of heading Kiwibank by one Jim Bolger and is that evidence that the National Party has learnt something from its past experience or—going by that question today—that it has learnt nothing at all? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for National Party members but if it is within the responsibility of the Minister in terms of the chair and it is addressed in that narrow way then that should be within the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a very very loose interpretation of the Standing Orders. It would lead us to the point where somebody who is sympathetic to a position the Government wanted to advance could ask any old question. A Minister could then attempt at least to give an answer that might placate both the proposer of the question and the Government’s own ends. Question time should be to question Ministers about things for which they are responsible. This is hardly one of those questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The fact is that Jim Bolger was the National Party Prime Minister who sold the BNZ. He is also the former National Party leader who took a job as the head of Kiwibank. Surely as he was not included in the list of hacks explained by the Minister that is a fair question to ask. The question is whether the Minister takes that as evidence that some people learn from their experiences. He made the appointment after all not them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not have any responsibility for what National Party members may learn from their experience so the question from that point of view is out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do though I think have responsibility for what State-owned enterprise board chairs learn from their experience. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That may well be true but that was not the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was actually. It was about the Kiwibank chair Jim Bolger. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member like to redirect his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member has made it his responsibility to get up and raise totally nebulous silly and irrelevant points of order and he should not be allowed to get away with it. The fact is that Jim Bolger did sell BNZ against a lot of opposition in this House. He then took the job as the head of Kiwibank and my original question related to the matter of experience. After all that Minister belongs to the Government that made the appointment and I am entitled to ask whether he thinks it has got anything from it. The fact that the National Party is deeply embarrassed by it is neither here nor there. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can confirm that Jim Bolger was the chair of New Zealand Post. He subsequently became the chair of Kiwibank. He is a very good chair and is someone who understands the role of State-owned enterprises expanding in order to add economic value. I do know that both at the time and subsequently National Party people opposed that expansion because they just do not like the New Zealand taxpayer owning anything. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister guarantee that State-owned enterprises will not diversify into markets already served by private sector businesses? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I suggest that the member reads the Cabinet paper and the press statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. If the Minister would like to expand on that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is made very clear both in the press statement and in the Cabinet paper that there is a requirement for spillover benefits. Shunting a private sector company out of a small niche market is something that just would not be acceptable under those criteria. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Copeland asked the Minister a question during the course of that questioning about whether Telecom had been partially sold down to mum and dad investors. There was quite a lot of noise going on in the House and I am not sure I heard the Minister correctly but I think he said that yes Telecom was sold in part in a trade sale and in part to mum and dad investors. My recollection is that Telecom was sold outright in 1990 by the Government of which Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister at the time to a series of large American corporates and a small number of—I think two—New Zealand wealthy investors. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It would be very helpful to have all the facts. The member got as far as his memory took him; however he forgot it was a condition of that sale that there was a subsequent on-sale down on the New Zealand sharemarket. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is all very interesting but I want to rule on this point of order. They were not points of order though they were points of information. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a prospectus for the privatisation of Auckland airport signed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table all the surrounding publicity for that sale which was exclusively to the New Zealand market in respect of those shares that went on the market that day at a price way above anybody’s expectations—so one could say it is the only successful privatisation this country has ever seen. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Aotea (Great Barrier) Marine Reserve—Tribal Fishing Rights 
11.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Is he satisfied that the tribal fishing rights of Ngati Wai have been satisfactorily addressed in the process of creating a proposed marine reserve off Great Barrier Island? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Fisheries) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Fisheries 
: I can advise that the Minister does have some concerns about the potential impact the proposed marine reserve at Great Barrier Island could have on the customary fishing rights of Ngati Wai. These concerns along with all other potential impacts of the proposal on fishing activities are currently being considered by the Ministry of Fisheries. 
Pita Paraone 
: How many marine reserve proposals for the Northland area are currently being considered and at what point does the Minister of Fisheries become involved in the evaluation and consultation process of marine reserve proposals? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I do not know the exact figure for marine reserve proposals in Northland but I do know that the Marine Reserves Act 1971 requires the Minister of Fisheries’ concurrence with the Minister of Conservation’s decision. This ensures that fisheries stakeholders’ rights including customary rights are taken into account before marine reserves are established. 
Pita Paraone 
: Will the Minister of Fisheries assign a weighting to the Ngati Wai tribal rights in his consideration of whether he should give his concurrent consent to the establishment of a marine reserve off Great Barrier Island; if so how? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: On 23 May 2006 ministry officials also met with the Ngati Wai Trust Board—Ngati Wai in Whangarei—which is the iwi authority recognised by te iwi o Ngati Wai under the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 to discuss customary fishing around the region of Aotea. He is looking forward to more information from the officials. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I should not have to raise this point of order but the Maori affairs spokesman for the National Party shouted out: “Who are the Ngati Wai?”. Well they are the people of the sea—unlike the people all at sea which is the party he belongs to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Taito Phillip Field—Conflicts of Interest Report 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When does she expect to receive the Ingram report on alleged conflicts of interest involving Taito Phillip Field given that she originally set the deadline for 4 October last year just 9 working days after she first established the inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 When it is finished. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Has the Prime Minister’s maintenance of “regular contact” with Taito Phillip Field led her to stand by her statement of 14 September last year: “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Indeed I think he was but I am awaiting a full report. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When Taito Phillip Field told the media: “Only God knows the truth of what is going to happen … you should ask him” did she take that as a commitment to his remaining a member of the Labour Party; if not what commitment has she received that he will remain in the Labour Party in Government? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That question relates to the Prime Minister as a party leader not as the Prime Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That question goes right to the heart of the Government’s ability to maintain a majority. I do not think the matter can be dismissed as being a Labour Party issue; it is very much an issue for the Government. Everyone knows that if Taito Phillip Field leaps to some other party as he is entitled to do then the Government would suddenly need to have a different set of arrangements to maintain a majority. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This is a very important point because of course if that question is allowed it is equally in order for us to ask questions of Dr Brash in his role as leader of the parliamentary National Party about members of his caucus. The fact that there is a differentiation in role between being the leader of a party and being the Prime Minister is fundamental to the way in which question time can operate. If the member cares to consult the Standing Orders he will find that it is possible to address questions to a private member in relation to his or her parliamentary responsibilities and if that question is allowed in the form in which it has been asked then we can ask that member—and I am sure we would like to frequently—questions about his colleagues and his responsibility for them. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: The reason why I believe that that question falls within the Standing Orders is that the Prime Minister also has a responsibility to maintain the confidence and supply of this Parliament—in other words a majority. If one of her members has an intention to leave her party that brings into question her ability as Prime Minister to maintain a majority in this Parliament. She is responsible for that. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please! This is an important point. The Prime Minister can certainly be asked about whether the Government has the confidence of the House but the issue is about the individual member in terms of his party membership. So I ask the member to try to redirect his question towards the issue of ministerial responsibility. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Prime Minister told the media that Taito Phillip Field’s position is that “he is working through the issues in the report but I have no reason to doubt his membership of the Labour Party.” was she saying that regardless of the seriousness of any of the findings in the Ingram report no actions of her former Minister while he was a Minister could be sufficiently serious for her to question his continued membership of the Labour Party in Government? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That relates to when the member was a Minister so if the Prime Minister can address any confidence she has at that level not after the time when he stood down from being a Minister then that would be acceptable. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is not a Minister so I do not have responsibility for his actions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: During her “regular contact” with Taito Phillip Field did he discuss with her the reasons that the Asian crime unit may have been investigating his activities? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My contact with Mr Field is as the leader of the party not as Prime Minister. I have responsibility here only as Prime Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: In ensuring that she maintains a majority in this Parliament does she have any standards at all that she expects of members of her administration in meeting the normal legal requirements of this country or are there no standards at all and would she accept any behaviour in trying to maintain the confidence and supply of this Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mr Field is not a Minister and in terms of standards Dr Smith would never make the cut in this Government either. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just heard a most serious allegation made against a member of this House. I would have assumed that such a serious allegation would be backed up with some proof or documentary evidence or with something to verify the reason that that question was asked. The question was not asked accidentally; it was planned. I do not know whether there is such evidence but Dr Lockwood Smith owed it to this Parliament to provide some evidence before he asked a question in such a cavalier fashion implicating a member of Parliament in a possible crime. I ask him to give us that evidence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation under the appropriate Standing Order of this House. I want to make it clear to this House and to the member that has just asked those questions in relation to a possible investigation that the only thing I am guilty of is to go overboard or to go the extra mile in order to help people who came to me in a desperate situation. I want to make that quite clear to that member who has on various occasions in the last few months questioned the Prime Minister with regard to that issue. I want to make it quite clear that my statements to the media last week in relation to the question the reporter asked me about my future meant that I do not have a crystal ball. All I said in response to that question was that only God knows the future and that the reporter should ask Him. If the member wants to make something out of that statement in relation to my loyalty to the Labour Party then he is going down the wrong track. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
State-owned Enterprises—Expansion into New Business Areas 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a number of applications seeking a debate under Standing Order 380. The first from Gordon Copeland relates to a change in policy for State-owned enterprises regarding their expansion into new business areas. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not feel that it requires the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to explore the implications of this change.  
Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali—Expulsion 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The second application is from the Hon Murray McCully relating to a decision to expel Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali. The expulsion is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However again I am unable to see why the decision to expel this particular individual requires the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. These applications are declined. 
Urgent Debates 
Power Outage—Upper North Island 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The third application is from the Hon Dr Nick Smith relating to the power shortage that occurred yesterday affecting the upper North Island. This is also a case of particular occurrence involving a ministerial or administrative responsibility of the Government and given the nature of the incidence I think it is important enough to warrant the attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. I therefore accept that application and call on the Hon Dr Nick Smith to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. The scale and the cost of yesterday’s power failure was enormous. Over 700000 people—25000 businesses 380 schools 300 sets of traffic lights eight hospitals and rest homes and two universities—were affected. Critical hospital operations were cancelled dozens of people were trapped in lifts for hours and hundreds of thousands of people were grossly inconvenienced. The tragedy is that it did not need to happen. The direct losses will top over $70 million. The damage to Auckland’s confidence and respect will be far more. 
This is Third World stuff and it is a disgrace for this Government. It is just not credible for the Prime Minister to blame the weather as she did this morning. This was not a major storm event in Auckland. The winds were high but they were not extreme. Not a single roof in Auckland was lost yet our power infrastructure was so poor that it was brought to a halt. It simply is not acceptable. 
The technical explanation for the blackout is that a single overhead earth wire broke. It fell on to Transpower’s 110-kilovolt switching equipment bringing the whole system down. No doubt there will be technical questions to resolve over why the wire failed whether the wire was properly maintained and whether the design was appropriate. But the real question that we must get to the bottom of is why Auckland’s power was so fragile that the failure of a single wire was sufficient to bring the economic capital of New Zealand to its knees. And that is a political question for which this Government must be held accountable. On taking up the role the Minister of Energy said: “I do recognise it is my responsibility to ensure that the lights don’t go out in New Zealand.” 
Hon Member 
: What did he say? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He said that it was his responsibility to ensure the lights do not go out in New Zealand. Well I say to Mr Parker that they did and he has failed. The tragedy in all this is that Labour has to take responsibility for the situation because it has been warned so often. 
Engineers have repeatedly said that our creaking electricity infrastructure is just not up to the grade. Last year—over 16 months ago—Dr Keith Turner who has a PhD in electricity transmission and happens to be the chief executive of New Zealand’s largest electricity company stated: “New Zealand’s electricity grid is so overworked that some lines cannot be taken out of action for servicing.” That situation is just unheard of in the Western World. At the Commerce Committee National asked Dr Turner what lines he was referring to and he said quite specifically they were the lines at Otahuhu that service Auckland. What did the Government do about it? It did absolutely nothing. But that is not all that was said.  
On  
Campbell Live 
 Dr Turner said: “We are running just too close to the wind in this country particularly on transmission.” We could not have had more prophetic words. And what was Minister Parker’s response to those concerns from Keith Turner? He said: “The problem is not as bad as the member and others believe.” Well I ask the Minister how bad is it when 700000 people lose their power? Then we had warnings in the briefings to the incoming Government from Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development. Both specifically mentioned concerns about transmission. We had the Commerce Committee report from last year which stated that lines could not be serviced because transmission was right at the limits of capacity and again Auckland was specifically mentioned. So we have a paper trail from State-owned enterprises from select committees and from independent commentators all warning the Government that it had a problem—and it did nothing.  
Today we should also scrutinise what the Minister’s response has been in the last few hours. On TV3 Mr Parker said that the Otahuhu to Pakuranga and Penrose upgrade was not only under consideration but was also approved. Well was it approved? No it was not. That Minister misled. The very specific words he used last night were: “That line has been approved.” It was not. There is no budget for it. There is not even a Resource Management Act application for it. 
 The Minister went on to say—as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning—that he had asked Transpower to investigate separating out parts of the Otahuhu station under its plan to upgrade transmission into Auckland after 2013. Are the people of Auckland prepared to wait around until 2013 to fix this problem? Let me make it very plain that National does not believe that we can wait until 2013 to fix this problem. As Keith Turner said last year National wants “all black” to refer to who takes the Rugby World Cup not the state of the city of Auckland. Nor is it sufficient for the Minister to try to explain himself by saying that the Government is committing tens of millions of dollars to upgrade the transmission system. The reality is that the Government has taken over $2 billion in profits from electricity companies and has spent less than one-tenth of that sum on new investment. 
Yesterday’s power failure also exposes the failure of the Government’s whole energy policy. Pete Hodgson should be in the House today. In 2001 he said—with all the bells whistles and spin—that we needed his flash new National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. The Government said it was better to spend money on reducing electricity demand than on transmission or new generation. It spent $100 million on that energy efficiency strategy. Do members know how much has been achieved—how much has been saved? Well in the March review this year the Government showed that the “improved” energy efficiency since it brought in the energy efficiency strategy and spent the $100 million was worse than energy efficiency was when we did not have a strategy. The Government was banking on a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency so it did not bother spending money on new generation or new transmission which is why we are so deeply in a pickle today. The reason is that the Government’s whole energy policy approach has been a failure. 
Let us go through it and see how badly Labour’s energy policy has delivered. Over the last 6 years we have seen a 40 percent increase in the average price of power. At the same time— 
Hon Annette King 
: So deregulation works does it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Annette King chips in. I tell her that when the Government introduced its energy reforms in 2002 it said the policy had three aims. The first was keeping the price of electricity as low as possible. The price has since gone up by 40 percent. The second objective was to use more renewable energy. The Government has failed on that front because the amount of renewable energy we are using has actually been in decline. The Government’s third aim in relation to its electricity reforms was to improve the security of supply. It has not done that—as 700000 people in Auckland found out yesterday. And today the Prime Minister said that this issue is not damaging New Zealand’s investment reputation. That is garbage! Dick Hubbard was absolutely correct to say that the power cut was “very very damaging”. 
The key question is what National would do to get our electricity system right. National says that the very first thing to do is to invest in our infrastructure. We should be investing in roads and investing properly in electricity. 
The second key thing we say is to reform the Resource Management Act. The Government puts its head in the sand and pretends that the Act will enable us to build the infrastructure our country so desperately needs. It will not. Transpower has said—in 2002 2003 2004 and 2005—that it cannot maintain and upgrade the grid without reform of the Resource Management Act. I say to David Parker and the Prime Minister who have refused to reform the Resource Management Act that they are signing New Zealand up to more blackouts like the one we had yesterday. 
The third issue we need to address is the confusing and failed electricity policies Labour introduced in 2002. What sort of nonsense do we have when transmission decisions are made not only by Transpower but also by the Electricity Commission and the Commerce Commission? Everybody knows that those reforms are a failure. We need a clarification of the roles of those agencies. National says we need a single agency to be responsible for ensuring that the transmission system can keep the lights on. 
The last point I will make is that I believe and National believes as Don Brash suggested last year that it is time we had a ministry of infrastructure. The Government has so neglected the infrastructure of New Zealand that—I never thought I would say it—Auckland’s electricity system is as bad as its roads and that is a disgrace. Labour got rid of the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Energy. National’s view is that we need a ministry of infrastructure to make sure that we properly plan and provide for infrastructure. 
I say again that what occurred in Auckland yesterday was a national disgrace. It was a disgrace for this country to have 700000 people without power. It was a disgrace that we lost $70 million worth of economic activity. Responsibility for that disgrace rests fairly and squarely with the Government. It has neglected our infrastructure neglected the legislation ignored Transpower and ignored multiple warnings that the system was on the blink. It relied on a vague warm fuzzy energy efficiency strategy that did not work. The people of New Zealand and particularly Auckland are paying for that. 
I say to the Minister that he must accept responsibility for his mess. Last night on TV the Minister made an analogy with the state of Queensland. In the state of Queensland the power cut involved only 250000 people and the relevant Minister resigned. If this Minister wants to follow the example of Queensland he should tender his resignation because he Trevor Mallard and Pete Hodgson have failed to listen to the proper warnings and have let New Zealand down. It is a disgrace. This country deserves better. Sadly it will not get that until we have a change of Government. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 That was the voice of the modern National Party. Don Brash is an Auckland member. Why could he not speak? The rumour is that he was so busy consulting the Business Roundtable yesterday that he did not notice that the lights went out. 
That was the voice of the modern National Party and it is one of the reasons why Ministers on this side are not even bothering to learn the names of the back-benchers opposite. When they have leadership on a serious issue like that from a member like Nick Smith we ask why they bother. Why could they not get a competent member or an Auckland member—one of the two—to put the letter in? Why did Nick Smith not start his speech by saying that when he was a Minister Auckland went 35 long days without power under the reforms of the National Government and its management and governance rules for the electricity system? 
Let us get the facts straight. At 8.32 yesterday morning an earthing cable broke. Why did it break? We do not know. It could have been one of two reasons or a combination of both. It might have been wind. If Gerry Brownlee was around it was almost certainly wind. It might have been poor maintenance. My view is that in the end the investigation will show that it was a combination of both because even with the sorts of winds we had in Auckland yesterday a properly maintained earthing cable should not break. 
Then what happened was that the earthing cable wrapped around two lines. One part of it hit the 110 kilovolt line out of the substation earthed that and the other hit the 220 kilovolt line out of the same substation damaging that as well. That meant that power— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How could that happen? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Actually relatively simply. The cable broke. One bit hit the 110 kilovolt line and another bit hit— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Auckland powered by one cable! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Actually Auckland was de-powered by one cable. The member cannot tell the difference between powering and de-powering which is an indication of why he is the deputy leader. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am quite happy to have their interjections. We do not need the level of protection that you are attempting here. Transpower is now investigating why that cable broke. We will have an answer to that—a report on the Minister’s desk—within 2 weeks. He has already written to Transpower requiring that and that report will be reviewed by an expert who is independent of Transpower. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: More committees no action. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is not a committee actually. It is one report and someone will review it for the facts. I want to be very careful saying this about a State-owned enterprise for which I am responsible but I would prefer to have Transpower’s report reviewed independently than to rely totally on Transpower’s views about what happened. I think it is important that an independent expert checks the Transpower report that will be coming out in the next 2 weeks. 
The next thing that has to happen is that there must be— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why are you speaking? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I just happen to be the ownership Minister for Transpower. It is something that is vaguely important. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh that old problem. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Tau Henare is chipping in. Why did they not put Tau up? I see they wanted a sober member. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is unacceptable that a Minister who is unable to give answers to the House should resort to the sort of comment that Trevor Mallard just made. I think that if he reflects on it himself he will not be objectionable and he will choose to withdraw and apologise for that most unparliamentary remark. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Can I just say Mr Brownlee that members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. It is a personal reflection that is out of order. If the member himself had chosen to take exception I would have intervened. The member himself did not. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He did and I am happy to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is clear why the National Opposition did not put up Tau Henare. It did not put him up because he cannot make a sober argument. National did not want Nick Smith or Tau Henare. The person who should have spoken— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Where’s Tuku’s diary? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Tuku’s diary? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s the one. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: When is Tuku going to pay his legal bills? The member’s brother-in-law has $50000 worth of legal bills. I am being diverted Madam Speaker and I will stop from being diverted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mallard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Madam Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Speaker. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is important that we remember that this Government has been putting more investment into infrastructure than any other Government has in the past. I accept that in the area of electricity infrastructure we progressed at a faster rate than National but not nearly fast enough and that is the case here. 
I do not know whether there is a systemic problem as far as Auckland’s electricity infrastructure is concerned. I know that there is in relation to the routes into Auckland—there is no doubt about that. I am not an expert and I do not know whether there is a systemic problem in Auckland. If there is it will be fixed. 
Hon Members 
: When? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It will be fixed depending on its size as soon as possible and with the investment that is necessary. This Government has made it clear to Transpower that the Government’s dividend requirements do not override the important capital expenditure that it is doing. 
However one point that should be made is that this is the first grid-related blackout in Auckland since 1998. It was not a 35-day blackout of the sort that occurred then. It does not mean that we have a Third World power system. I just ask people to work— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s what Keith Turner said. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is what who said? I think that until the member gets his voice back he had better loosen something off or just settle down somewhat. Madam Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Speaker. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well actually Madam Speaker. You are acting for her. Madam Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please desist and continue with his speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Madam Speaker— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You just asked the Minister to desist from referring to you as “Madam Speaker”. That is a perfectly reasonable request given that you are a bloke. Immediately the Minister got to his feet he again referred to you as “Madam Speaker”. I think you should call this Minister who has been doing everything he can to avoid debating the issue back to the point and to comply with your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It was in the heat of the moment and I understand where the member is coming from. I ask the Minister to desist and to continue with the debate in the proper manner. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Acting Deputy Assistant Speaker—is that right? Mr Speaker— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take grave exception to that Minister’s insult to the Speaker. You are the Speaker while in that Chair Mr Assistant Speaker and I think that insult is a grave reflection on this entire House. I believe that you would have the support of the entire House to demand that Trevor Mallard withdraw and apologise to you—and indeed to the entire House—unreservedly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I inform Mr Mallard that when I am in the Chair I am the Speaker. I would like him to look at Standing Order 28. I expect him to stop trifling with the Chair and to refer to me by my correct title. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Deputy Speaker— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I thank the member. Mr Mallard— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry—Mr Assistant Speaker. I will get it— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member please be seated. I suggest to him that while I am on my feet he might like to look at Standing Order 28. For his benefit I will read out the relevant paragraph: “(2) An Assistant Speaker performs the duties and exercises the authority of the Speaker while presiding over the House.” That means that when anyone is sitting in this Chair whether the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Speaker that person is referred to as “the Speaker”. I would expect a member with the long standing of that member who has been a Minister for some considerable time to know better and to show some leadership and courtesy. Thank you. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that I have dealt with the issue. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think you understand the point I was trying to make. We have a situation where a senior Minister of this Government has attempted to insult and intimidate the Speaker. That is an attack on the entire House. I say to you that I take grave exception to that. I told you—and I do not think there was a murmur of dissent—that we expect you to ask Mr Mallard to withdraw and apologise to the entire House for his behaviour here this afternoon. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that I was not intimidated. I have dealt with the issue and members cannot reopen it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government is—[ 
Interruption 
] No I am making it absolutely clear to members opposite that I do not share their views on some matters. Madam Speaker— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Gutless! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I heard that. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. He knows that the use of that word implies someone lacks courage and that is out of order. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Of course he was probably referring to Gerry Brownlee. 
This Government is committed to investing in infrastructure. There has never been the level of investment put into transmission and into generating infrastructure over such a short period of time as is occurring right now. If one looks at the wind farms being put in and at the preparations for the Transpower cables through the Waikato one can see that major investment is occurring. 
It is clear to every member in this House that what occurred yesterday in Auckland— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Was a disgrace. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
:—was disgraceful and unacceptable. It was clearly the case of infrastructure being either not strong enough or not properly maintained. We will have a report from Transpower within 2 weeks which will be independently reviewed and acted upon. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me start by alerting this House to the fact that if members want to play politics with this issue then we are doing ourselves no good whatsoever. A number of questions were asked this afternoon that were to some degree flippant. We had allegations made against the Rt Hon Winston Peters that were totally untrue and I would like to dispel them right now. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Prove it! 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Henare that this is the copy of the speech that Nick Smith wanted initially to table— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How do you know? 
PETER BROWN 
: How do I know? I know because he came across and gave it to me. That is how I know. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to ask this member to stick to the debate in front of us. The debate is an urgent debate so that Parliament might express its views on the crisis that occurred in Auckland yesterday as a result of a Transpower failure at one of its plants. For Mr Brown to get up and start reading a 1998 speech from Winston Peters I think stretches it in a way that makes us look silly. He has just asked us to put politics aside and to start debating the issues. I think you should invite him to do exactly that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for drawing it to my attention and suggest that under Speakers’ ruling 44/3 people are given some leeway when they first start. The member can bring that speech into the debate providing he makes it relevant. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Speaker I can assure you it is relevant. 
I want to read a couple of extracts from Winston Peters’ speech. He said: “The Government is doing all that it can in this crisis. The Minister of Energy has done all that he can in this crisis. Every alternative source of energy has been looked at and we are still looking at alternative ways of helping the Auckland situation.” He goes on to say: “I will tell the member what our policy is.”—I remind members he is talking about a New Zealand First - National coalition Government—“We are going to have an inquiry. That is No. 1. We are going to have an inquiry because the people of Auckland want one.” 
The reason I raise those statements is that they are relevant today. Nothing really has improved for Auckland people in particular since 1998 and nobody should be sitting here chastising one side or the other of the House. Collectively we have missed the boat. As I listen to National members I can hear that they still do not have a clue on how to address the electricity problems we are facing in this country. If they listen for a little while I will tell them exactly what needs to be done. First and foremost we need a good deal more electricity. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is nodding his head. 
Secondly we need greater investment in the industry. Thirdly we need to be able to guarantee security of supply. Finally we want a competitive environment so that prices are fair reasonable and competitive. 
Auckland itself needs power from more than one route and from more than one wire. It is not good enough to have in the 21st century a majority of the power coming in from one route. We need greater investment. I listened to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises with interest and it saddened me that he got on to so many sidetracks that I thought he did himself a disservice. 
Transpower pays the Government a dividend which was $10 million last year and $40 million the year before. New Zealand First will be encouraging the Government to forgo that dividend and reinvest it in particular in Auckland. 
 Electricity is a very important commodity for the average New Zealander and for New Zealand businesses. If we take a closer look at what happened yesterday we see that people were jammed in lifts and calling out the fire brigade conditions were as black as pitch so that people could not see anything and did not know where they were people were having to walk down 28 flights of stairs it was freezing cold and businesses were closing up and sending people home. We are told by Business New Zealand that businesses lost $50 million - plus in takings. That is how serious the problem is. That is the issue is that we have to deal with—and we have to deal with it in some urgency. 
It is small satisfaction to say this was a blackout of some hours only whilst in 1998 the blackout lasted 35 days. That is a non-issue—the blackout should not have occurred. I do not know how it occurred or exactly why it occurred. A wire snapped and entangled itself around other wires and blew the whole of Auckland into a blackout. Frankly that is the issue we should address with a degree of urgency because it is not acceptable for New Zealand’s foremost city in terms of size and population to have a blackout just because a strong gale is blowing and a wire breaks. 
We will have to bring in power from a number of sources and a number of areas and we will have to give consideration to having more generation produced locally in Auckland. I know the Government is very keen on wind power and New Zealand First will support an encouragement of wind power. But we are also sitting on billions of tonnes of coal in this country so we believe we should be examining coal as an option for producing electricity at a reasonable price for New Zealanders. There is potential up north with the Marsden B power station and there is potential elsewhere in the country. 
We can all go on television or talk on the radio and we can ratchet the issue up but at the end of the day New Zealanders want us to address it with absolute urgency. We can ask people to write reports—we can have reports ad infinitum—but unless we actually get down to investing in our energy industries then this problem will occur time and time again. It might not happen next year but it could well do so—or it could even happen next week given the way the weather is going in this country. But ultimately unless we get more power—particularly coming into Auckland—from a variety of sources and routes we will face more and more problems in the future. 
We should be looking at all the options of generating electricity. Hydro generation produces 60 percent - plus of our electricity and gas something like 22 percent. Coal produces a measly 8 percent and as I said earlier we should be making greater use of the billions of tonnes of coal this country has at its fingertips. The wind produces a modest 2 percent of our power yet the Government is hell-bent on developing wind energy. New Zealand First applauds that but wind is not the only source of energy. 
This is a crisis that should not have occurred; this event should have been identified as a possibility years ago. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It was—Keith Turner pointed it out. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well Keith Turner might have pointed it out but Winston Peters pointed it out in 1998. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No he didn’t. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Winston never mentioned Transpower in ’98. 
PETER BROWN 
: He pointed out in 1998 that we had to do something. It is no good those National members screaming their heads off because this is an issue we have sat on in Parliament. We cannot rely just on Keith Turner’s words; we have known of the problem for some time. We knew when the Labour Government produced that electricity legislation last term that it was not going to fully address the issue. New Zealand First is on record as voting against those bills because of that very situation. We did not believe that the legislation in this country was coming to terms with the problem. 
We have to take this problem seriously and there must be moves afoot to address the issue within a relatively short time frame. I can assure the House that New Zealand First will cooperate with any willing party that wants to solve this problem to the benefit and advantage of New Zealanders but to sit here and play politics with the issue is not the way to get things done. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to take a brief call to say it is really nonsense that we are having to have an urgent debate in the House today on the Auckland power cut yesterday. That is not to say that it was not a very serious situation that arose. I lived through the 1998 Auckland power crisis trying to keep a large organisation afloat for weeks without power while providing medical services to thousands of people with a generator out on the footpath. So I am well aware of how difficult it is and my sympathy goes out to all the people and businesses that suffered yesterday. 
But I think it should be obvious to all of us in this House that it is not viable to have a power supply system that is invulnerable to freak events. To have a duplication of all systems supplying power to Auckland much less to the rest of New Zealand would be prohibitively expensive. All countries even those much wealthier than us have electricity outages at times that are caused by freak or abnormal weather events. Building a 400 kilovolt line through the Waikato for example would not have prevented what happened yesterday. 
However we obviously do need some urgent analysis that can identify the weak points in the system—not just the one that happened yesterday but others as well which I feel sure exist—in order to look at how those can be strengthened and improved. Obviously we should also look at how maintenance of the lines can be improved. From what the Minister has said just now I understand that a report is expected very urgently from Transpower—within 2 weeks—and that there will be a review by an independent expert. I also understand from the Government that on its part urgent action will be taken. 
Transpower must ensure that its lines are maintained properly and that they are adequate for the large loads they are carrying into our largest city. There should be more buffers in the system where possible. 
We accept that the Government has taken urgent action and is going as fast as it can to ensure the reliability of Auckland’s supply. I also think that those of us in the House—all of us here as MPs—and others should accept that we are ordinary mortals and that we cannot control the weather. We have to accept that at times weather events happen that are completely out of our control. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I say from the outset that I was a victim yesterday. My electorate office was plunged into darkness at 8:30 a.m. and my staff and I sat in the dark trying to work anything we could with a pen and paper until about 1 o’clock. 
But the question all members of the adoring drive time audience stuck on Auckland roads will be asking right now—the question people right across the Auckland isthmus will be asking right now—is where is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? Where is she in a debate that is about Auckland’s power failure? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I am here. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes she is in the House; I am not saying she is absent. But when will we hear from her about what she is doing because—let us see it was a power crisis and it was in Auckland? Does that seem to suggest that it might involve the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? Where is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? She is here in the House but from her there has been not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper. 
I heard the member from New Zealand First get up and say we should not be making politics out of this issue. Well it was Winston Peters during question time who tried to make some cheap politics. My colleague Nick Smith brought him straight back into his bottle when he suggested he read from the Minister’s speech of 1998—which I have here but which was unable to be tabled. I will quote from it though because Mr Peters went on about what a good job the then Government was doing. He said: “The Government is doing all that it can in this crisis. The Minister of Energy has done all that he can in this crisis.” He went on to say: “I am proud of that and so are members of the coalition.” He said: “We in this Government will not sit around making petty lousy little political points of the type emanating from the other side.” He also said: “We will get our priorities right unlike Labour members who guilty as sin stand here trying to find a political angle. The people of Auckland and the businesses of Auckland are owed better than that.” 
That is what Mr Peters said back then and let us get it clear why there is a significant difference between then and now because Labour in its typical blurring of the margins has tried to say: “Oh well look this was only for 5 hours; back then National caused one for 5 weeks or whatever it was—that is right; 5 weeks; 5 times 7 is 35. Well let us get it clear so that the adoring drive time audience knows the difference. 
The big problem back in 1998 was a company called Mercury Energy—it has now become Vector. It was a separate company that was not owned by the Government or controlled by the Government; it was actually controlled by a consumers’ trust in Auckland. It was the failure of Mercury Energy—the lines company that was not in the Minister’s ambit not a State-owned Enterprise and not controlled by the Government—to invest in new lines and new equipment that actually caused the 1998 blackout. It is quite clear the Minister in charge had no say. No Minister in this House had the powers to direct a private operation that was owned by a consumers’ trust. 
Well was that the case yesterday? Is there a difference? Yes there is. Because this tiny little wire that broke yesterday—the pathetic little strand that members can see in this picture—is part of the Government’s operation called Transpower. That is the difference. That is the way the responsibilities lie. I will never hold a Minister in this House responsible for an organisation he or she is not in charge of. The Ministers in this House are not in charge of what is now Vector—what was Mercury Energy—and never will be. But the Ministers in this House are responsible for Transpower. 
What have we heard? We heard people such as Dr Keith Turner telling us in February of last year that there were serious problems with one small wire carrying everything and the company could not do maintenance on it because it was so integral to Auckland’s supply. Dr Turner specifically identified the Otahuhu substation as the problem. So it is not a case of: “Oh goodness what happened yesterday? We didn’t know this could happen.” The Government was warned of it last year. It is a Government-owned agency unlike in 1998 when it was not the responsibility of the Government and I thank Winston Peters for telling us all that. 
Today I saw a letter that was written just under 2 weeks’ ago by the chief executive of Vector. Let me quote this letter which the Government should have been listening to for some time. “Without wanting to be alarmist I think I should put on record our concerns. We think that crunch time—the point where demand can exceed peak capacity—may be closer than the Electricity Commission assumptions because the system is already under some pressure. Little new transmission has been built since the 1980s but electricity use has been rising exponentially on the back of strong population growth strong economic growth and rising living standards.” The Minister has been getting that sort of advice from so many different quarters for so long that it is unacceptable for him to now come to the Parliament and say: “Oh gosh a wire snapped and brought the economic powerhouse of this country”—the place that Dr Cullen calls a dead weight on New Zealand’s shoulders but I do not believe that Auckland is that—“to a standstill.” 
I know a number of businesses that lost a lot of money. Will they get some compensation? Will the Government tell businesses that lost money by having to pay staff to go home and take the day off that it was a Government agency’s fault—it was Transpower’s failure—and compensate them? No of course it will not. It should but it will not. Then the Minister had the audacity to bring up an example about Brisbane and what happened there! Well let us look at what happened in Brisbane. Far fewer people were affected and guess what? The Minister resigned because of it. So I think the Minister is dead right. We should take Brisbane as a good example; we should go by the letter of the Brisbane example. The Minister should tender his resignation. 
I am telling this House that not having some sort of a back-up a redundancy or an alternative switching mechanism is simply as stupid as flying a Boeing 747 without a second set of controls—because if that set goes out of control the captain would have to say: “Sorry passengers we’ve only got the one steering wheel it’s broken and we’re going to die.” That is what is stupid about the Auckland arrangement and it has been for some time. The Minister has been warned of that in all the advice I have seen going to him. Keith Turner was very clear. The Minister says: “Oh well I don’t accept it I don’t accept his advice.” He should tell that to the little restaurateur across the road from me who lost his entire day’s takings yesterday. Maybe my colleague is right. He has just passed me a note saying: “Ministers can’t actually resign twice in the same year—that might be a rule around here—so he will have to wait until next year to resign.” I say it is not acceptable for the Minister to say he did not know because he has been briefed. 
It is not acceptable to say it was a once-in-a-lifetime occasion. I tell members that the storm in Auckland yesterday was not the worst storm I have been through in Auckland by a long way. I have been through a number of storms in Auckland and as a local member I have gone to see various houses in my electorate that have lost their roofs. Not a single roof came off yesterday. I have seen a number of trees come down. About 2 years ago a massive tree fell across the Pakuranga highway and workers had to get chainsaws to cut it up as fast as they could to get the traffic flowing again. It did not matter because the traffic was blocked up on the motorway and could not get through anyway! That is what happened in a storm 2 years ago and 3 years ago there was a real cracker of a storm. Yesterday there were just strong winds. It was not a one in 100-year storm; it was not even a one in 20-year storm. It was probably about a one in 6-months storm. During most beginnings of winter as the southerly swell starts and the barometer drops we get those sorts of winds. 
I tell the Minister to look at this picture. For this pathetic little shoestring wire to snap and bring Auckland to a standstill is an outrage. It is a Government responsibility—it is the responsibility of Transpower which is owned and operated by the Government and of the Ministers who approve capital expenditure in the Government and who have the say. It is not like 1998 when a completely separate entity which no Government Minister had any responsibility for had the say. 
I want to know when the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues will get up and tell us what sort of Cabinet paper she will be drawing up because we have seen a lot of coverage on the TV in the last week about Cabinet papers she draws up. We will be looking to see the Cabinet paper from the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues about what she believes. Because I do not think there is a bigger issue in Auckland. I know that transport is bigger on most days but right now Aucklanders are saying: “Actually we don’t worry about transport if we can’t get there.” Let me give a final warning: at the next Rugby World Cup people will not be worried about the fog blocking one’s view. If the lights are out the games will be played in the dark! It is grossly unacceptable. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena tatou te Whare. The Maori Party rises today to speak of the outrage of our constituents in homes and businesses throughout the greater Tamaki-makau-rau and Tainui region who were plunged into chaos yesterday through a major power blackout. A blackout caused by a failure at Transpower’s Otahuhu substation caused chaos in the central business district which affected an estimated 700000 people. 
We must make every effort to secure New Zealand’s power supply. The Maori Party has been speaking ever since its establishment about the need to develop an energy strategy for Aotearoa to ensure the best use of the available resources. We have raised our concerns about the fragility of a city’s power supply and the need to take responsibility for ensuring New Zealand’s future in a low-energy sustainable world. There is one thing that no one can deny: weather issues will always present risks. But we do not need to take the risk of just crossing our fingers and hoping we are prepared. We need to plan for the ever-present threat. 
This is not just a trivial matter ripe for personality politics as we have seen already in this debate. This was literally a case of life and death with Auckland City Hospital and Middlemore Hospital operating for emergencies only. The Auckland District Health Board has confirmed that during the power outage the emergency department had to turn people away. Some elective surgery was postponed due to the crisis. And what have we had here this afternoon? Accusations of alcohol use by members. Is that really how low the debate has become? 
The crisis yesterday was a case of business and investment strangulation. Let me remind this House of the grim facts of yesterday. The Employers and Manufacturers Association has stated that the outage was unacceptable and Transpower must fully investigate it. The Auckland chamber of commerce said that an alternative supply line is needed. Alex Swney from the business promotion group Heart of the City said that uncertainty over the power supply risks Auckland’s status as an international city. There was physical environmental economic and social desperation—and what has the Government been saying? It has been making allegations and accusations regarding who should speak in this debate and the legal bills of former MPs. 
Many in the House have had enough of the frivolous way in which these matters are being dealt with. Less than 5 years ago the nation and in particular the nations of Ngapuhi were devastated at the fires in Kaikohe and Herekino which it appears were started from candles. Both houses involved were without electricity and the occupants had turned to candles for alternative sources of light. In the aftermath of those tragedies Northland Ngapuhi leader Sonny Tau called for urgent talks with the Minister of Housing describing the houses of hundreds of Northland people as death traps. So we have already had that fatal experience in the north whereby families had no power and lost their lives. That experience provides a solemn warning to all members when considering what could have happened as a result of yesterday’s power outage. 
I absolutely agree with the honourable member who spoke earlier in the debate and urged us not to be flippant and not to play politics. It is critical that we prepare now for a pending energy crisis. We must work together as a nation in a collaborative approach to set up a time line for action and we must do that in this House. 
Last year the Maori Party proposed the establishment of a cross-party parliamentary commission. We believed that this commission would signal that Parliament was prepared to take a collaborative united approach towards the most critical issue facing our future sustainability. We need to be innovative to look at wind generation to look at alternative sources of supply and to work together for the good of our nation. Yesterday when I heard the chair of the Electricity Commission Roy Hemmingway suggest that he will talk with Government agencies and Transpower about how to proceed with an inquiry into the power crisis I was heartened. When we talked about the cross-party parliamentary commission we suggested that it should have the facility to co-opt independent advisers such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment or to have representation from specialist groups such as the Sustainable Energy Forum. We need to pull together our best brains—our most creative energy—to guarantee that the power supply can be secured throughout all of Aotearoa. 
One of the brightest moments of an otherwise bleak crisis occurred when a young Auckland town planning student responding to the desperate calls for help from senior citizens who were trying to negotiate the traffic stepped up to the challenge walked out into the middle of the road and started to direct traffic. I admire his initiative and courage in trying to do what he could to assist the community—and in particular vulnerable members of our society—in a time of crisis. 
I call today for all members of the House to rise up to that same challenge—to stride out into the storm and to think about how we can work together to ensure that sustainable energy is generated and sustained for the future needs of all the peoples of Aotearoa. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The Helen Clark Government has failed Auckland and sadly having the opportunity of an urgent debate on the chaos inflicted on Auckland yesterday the lead Minister Mr Trevor Mallard never once addressed the issue. He did everything he could to talk about everything else including bringing this House into grave disrepute. He did anything to avoid discussing the issue and what the Government’s response would be. Auckland is the only city to have its own Minister—we have a Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. That Minister has not spoken here today. The Government failed Auckland when the power crisis occurred but it is failing Auckland and the country again by its complete failure to give an adequate response. Auckland roads are clogged and yesterday the city was plunged into darkness. 
It is bad enough that one earth wire could shut down Auckland’s power supply and shut down Auckland but what is astonishing is that it took an entire day to restore power to large chunks of the city. I would have thought that members of a Government that cared—a Government that was actually interested in helping the country—would be here today to take the opportunity to outline what they are doing. Did we hear one thing? No. All we heard was Trevor Mallard hurling abuse at everyone—including his own colleague the Assistant Speaker—and saying that there will be an inquiry to find out what happened. The reality is that there is no surprise about what happened in Auckland yesterday. This Parliament Ministers select committees and the public had been warned of this issue for months if not years. Our infrastructure did not get into the mess it is in overnight. It takes years to run down infrastructure to the extent that ours is now run down. It is so run down that an earth wire can flip in a slight storm and blank out our largest city for a day. 
The Minister of Energy has refused to accept any responsibility. The Minister of Energy has spoken in this Chamber as though the situation were a big surprise yet he was told of the problem by experts such as Keith Turner. What was David Parker’s response back then? It was: “Oh it’s not that bad.” That is typical of the spin from this Government. There has been a failure to deal with the facts and a failure to deal with the issues so Auckland and the country suffer. 
We heard from Mr Peter Brown of New Zealand First about what needs to happen. That was a constructive input to this debate. We do need more energy supplies but that means actually having a planning system—a resource management system—that allows our energy resources to be developed. Mr Brown said we needed more investment—that means having secure property rights whereby if people invest in New Zealand the investment is safe and will not be pinched from them as happened in respect of this Government and Telecom when $3 billion of shareholder value was pinched. Mr Brown said we needed security of supply. That is true; that is an issue for the Government and the people of New Zealand. Again we have heard nothing from this Government. Mr Brown said we needed a competitive pricing system so we can afford the energy. That too is true. After the chaos that occurred in our largest city would it not be nice to have Government members who were prepared to come to this House to explain what they are doing to address those issues? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I will just respond to one point that Mr Hide made. I did not disagree with Mr Turner’s comments; I disagreed with Dr Smith’s characterisation of them. Turning to the issues today what happened yesterday has been well traversed in this debate. An earth wire broke and flipped on to the Otahuhu substation. The question the Government is asking is why the wider system could not cope with that line failure. There is another question as to whether the line was properly maintained and I am sure that will be answered in due course but the more important question is why the system did not cope with that line failure. 
I will say another thing about that. One of the first questions on this issue that was put to me in this House was whether I recognise that it is my responsibility and the Government’s responsibility to keep the lights on. The answer is yes. I have made those comments previously and I made them again today. That is to be contrasted with the position taken by Mr Williamson some minutes ago. Even now after all of the events years ago when we had a 5-week power outage in Auckland he denies there was any Government responsibility for that event. We do take responsibility for righting what has happened. 
What have we done? First of all I have required a report to be with me within 2 weeks from Transpower as to its analysis of what went wrong and particularly as to why the wider system did not cope with the consequences of yesterday’s line failure. I have already made it clear that I am engaging another expert probably an international expert to provide me with expert advice on that. After taking that advice remedial action will be taken promptly. 
What are the likely avenues that we will explore? It does concern me that we are overly reliant on the Otahuhu site. Transpower already had plans to separate some of the facilities on that site. The  
New Zealand Herald  
today reported me as saying that would be done after 2012. There has been a bit of a misunderstanding between myself and the journalist. What I intended to impart was the reality that already Transpower plans to separate some of those facilities by 2012. The question I am asking is twofold: firstly should that be done sooner and secondly should we have a separate substation from Otahuhu in order to further give us greater capacity to survive events like this one? 
I want to turn more generally to the condition of our infrastructure. Before National took the reins in the 1990s transmission was planned in advance to keep ahead of demand growth. Staged investments were made. They were expensive but they stood us in good stead for many many years. But in the 1990s what changed was that National restructured Transpower. National appointed its own board and pursued an ideological agenda that it could not achieve in the reform of producer co-ops where the farmers fought back but it could achieve in respect of Government-controlled entities. It said that the market would give us pricing signals that would tell us if and when we should invest more in transmission capacity. 
Of course history shows that that model was just bollocks. What National planned to do then really beggars belief. What it was trying to say was that the market would deliver and that there was no need to plan. Of course the market did not deliver; all it delivered was inadequate investment. That was not just on the transmission front but also in roading in public transport and in every area of infrastructure that one can find including telecommunications. We have been left with that legacy. 
What have we done to remedy that legacy? This year in and around Auckland alone we are spending $83 million. In the coming year $300 million will be spent on capital works over and above maintenance. What were we left with when we inherited the system from National? About $50 million per annum was being spent. It was completely inadequate. National now cries crocodile tears. Perhaps the even greater fault of those years was not the amount that was spent; it was the fact that National was not even planning to spend more. It did not know what needed to be done and when it needed to be done. Labour has stepped in and it is spending money on critical infrastructure. As I have said five or six times more is being spent on transmission lines each year than National spent—a billion dollars or more over the next 3 years. It may not be enough. If it is not enough we will spend more but that will not be because we have some ridiculous view of the market giving pricing signals as to when and where extra money should be spent on the grid. 
Dr Smith said there were three problems that the Government should remedy. He said firstly there should be more investment in electricity generation. That is interesting is it not? He was a member of the National Government that with Mr Bradford as the Minister took those decisions from the Government and said they were for the market to make. It is interesting that Dr Smith says today that we are not getting enough new electricity generation. Obviously the market model that he foisted upon us has failed if he is right in that assertion. 
Secondly Dr Smith says that the Resource Management Act is the problem. He quoted those references in the Transpower reports. Dr Smith overstates the Resource Management Act problem. The problem was that no money was being spent and there was no planning for money to be spent. There were some imperfections in the Resource Management Act. We have eased the call-in procedures so that where there are projects that go across territorial authority boundaries there is now a legislative vehicle that enables the likes of Transpower or someone else who wants to put in important infrastructure to come to the Government and say that those matters should be called in. That step has not yet been taken in respect of the Waikato project that is proposed in order to lead more power into Auckland or indeed any other substation projects but it may be. If such an application is made to us and we think it is appropriate we now have the tools to enable that to happen.  
Thirdly Dr Smith says that the Electricity Commission is the problem. The OECD organisation the International Energy Agency has exactly the opposite view to Dr Smith’s and it is right. I will read from its report this year which came out a month ago: “The establishment of the Electricity Commission … provides much needed regulatory oversight to industries that had previously been left to self-regulation.” I do not need to say anything more than that to demolish that point.  
It is true that what happened in Auckland yesterday should not have happened. It is true that it is the responsibility of the Government to remedy it and the Government will. Thank you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that not a single Government member from Auckland has chosen to participate in the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes it is if you will let me finish. I understand from the Clerk that there is only one further opportunity to speak so I seek leave for a further slot of 10 minutes to be made available so that Judith Tizard— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot seek leave for another member. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is for an extension of the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please be seated. He cannot seek leave for someone else to have an extension of time or to speak. He cannot do that on behalf of someone else. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am seeking leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues) 
: 
 It is my joy and I thank the member of Parliament on the other side for giving me a chance to speak. I am delighted at his very late interest in Auckland. One of the joys of being part of the Labour-led Government is that Auckland has a third of New Zealand’s population and represents about one-sixth of its land area. This is a Government that accepts that Auckland’s infrastructure is vital not only to Aucklanders but to all New Zealanders. That is why this Government works across the Government on Auckland issues. It is my great joy as MP for Auckland Central and Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues to be a constant nagging adviser to all of my colleagues. I am delighted to report to the House that they give me a great deal of time. When I rang David Parker’s office yesterday we had some discussion with his senior advisory staff. I have had a number of discussions with him. Indeed I had a briefing from him this afternoon as soon as I had accepted a large petition out on the steps of Parliament. 
I tell the House that this Government does not think it is acceptable that the infrastructure of this country has been run down to the point where one wire breaking puts the well-being of the whole New Zealand economy and the whole Auckland economy at risk. I say to this House that this Government has been working now for nearly 7 years to find out what the problems are and to address them. We understand that good infrastructure is the basis of a good economy and a good society. That is what we are working towards. I am proud of what this Government has done. I am proud of what Ministers across this Government do—the time they spend in Auckland and the number and the range of people in organisations in Auckland whom they speak to. I am delighted to say that Auckland is getting the best service it has ever had from any Government in the whole history of this country. 
The Prime Minister started out this year as she did 6 years ago by saying that Auckland matters; Auckland matters to New Zealand and Auckland matters to Aucklanders as well. We are not prepared to see Auckland bulldozed so that roads can go willy-nilly with no concern about local communities. We are not prepared to destroy Auckland as an environment for people to live in. We are not prepared to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the matter that we are urgently debating. It is the power failure yesterday that affected over 700000 Auckland people. I have been listening very carefully to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. She has made absolutely no mention of the power failure yesterday. I would like the Minister to address the issue of the urgent debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I take note of it. I actually heard the member as I was coming to the Chair making reference to the topic that is being discussed. I just remind the member that during points of order there will be silence. He should stand and apologise properly. 
Phil Heatley 
: I apologise. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am entitled to rebut the nonsense we have heard from members across this House who are abusing Auckland and this Government for what they cannot see is the mote in their own eyes. It is time this House and this Government were given the credit for recognising that Auckland’s infrastructure does matter. 
Phil Heatley 
: There were power cuts yesterday. Does the Minister know? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: If the member for Whangarei would calm down for a minute I would very happily tell him what the problem was in Auckland yesterday. I live in Ponsonby. I was out at a meeting then I came home and put on a load of washing. It had just finished so I put it in the drier and the power went off. So I went up to Ponsonby to see whether it was a general problem or a very local one. I rang several people around the city to find out whether their power was off and I listened to the radio—as one is required to do in civil emergencies generally. I discovered that it was a major problem so I rang Wellington and asked my office to ring the Minister of Energy—actually they could just walk across the corridor. 
This Government is a good Government that in all the time it has been active has been addressing New Zealand’s infrastructure problems. Auckland is just a subset of that. This does indicate that when a storm comes through Auckland and our infrastructure does not stand up to it it means that Aucklanders suffer. But I want to point out to the baying people across the House that this affects all New Zealanders and it is something we have to work on together. 
I feel really sorry right now for the rural people in the South Island whose energy has been off not just for 1 day—as we in Auckland were relatively lucky to get away with—but for days. They accept that because they live in some of the most beautiful and isolated places in New Zealand there is a risk—but they are well prepared. I say that this Government is determined to see that in future Auckland will be well prepared so New Zealand does not suffer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the International Energy Agency report on New Zealand that specifically identifies the issue of transmission into Auckland stating that this was a problem ignored by the Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate has finished. I call on Government order of the day No. 1. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. United Future is yet to have a call in this urgent debate. A little while ago I did ask the person in the Chair Ross Robertson whether I could take the final call in the debate and I would like to do that if possible. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The time for the debate has expired. All that the member can do is seek leave. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House in view of those circumstances—an obvious misunderstanding about the matter—to take a 5-minute call in the urgent debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. We will go back to the urgent debate. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Transpower has a number of questions to answer in respect of the blackout that occurred in Auckland yesterday. It is in truth a national embarrassment. I have spoken today to members of a number of multinational companies who have received considerable inward email correspondence in the last 24 hours most of it making New Zealand the butt of international jokes. Those companies include some of the largest and most successful corporations in the world and they are now beginning to assign New Zealand to Third World status when it comes to security of electricity supply. It is simply not good enough. I also mention to the House that just a little while ago we had a power cut in Bowen House here in Wellington; we seem to be in a season of power cuts. 
Questions have to be asked about why the blackout was allowed to happen. It is inescapable that there must be some accountability in our system and that those who are responsible for this unacceptable event should be asked about it and brought to account for it. 
I mention Transpower in particular because as others have mentioned this situation was foreshadowed for some time by Keith Turner of Meridian Energy and by a number of other people who have come to see me in my role as United Future’s energy spokesperson. They have been saying to me for the last couple of years that there are similar problems in terms of getting power into Nelson and other parts of the country that the job is not being done that we have not maintained our electricity grid that we have not done maintenance when it was needed and that we have been gambling as it were with the electricity supply to both commercial and domestic consumers in this country—to my knowledge for the last couple of years. 
It gets worse because as we all know the proposal for a new 400-kilovolt line into Auckland that was put forward by Transpower was rejected by Roy Hemmingway of the Electricity Commission because in his view it involved inadequate analysis of the problem and inadequate consultation with the affected people. Transpower has therefore been forced embarrassingly to come back with a new proposal. 
I am talking about an organisation that has the highest ratio of highly paid executives of any State-owned enterprise in the country. That is to be expected because they are professional engineers but notwithstanding that reality one can look at it the other way—that it increases the level of responsibility and accountability that should apply to this organisation. We have to ask ourselves whether they are earning their pay and adequately serving the interests of New Zealand’s electricity grid. I think that on a number of things now—at least three different matters that have come up—the organisation has been seen to fail. 
We really have to set right this quite unacceptable situation in terms of electricity going into Auckland. It beggars the imagination that Transpower’s planning with all of its expertise and brainpower could have been so inadequate that one single line going down could bring our largest city to a blackout for 5 hours. It is not good enough and I am very pleased this matter is being debated in Parliament today because we have got to get that message across. I say to the Minister of Energy that I think it is time some people were held accountable for what has gone on. How else do we ensure that we do not face this again somewhere else in some other city—Wellington or elsewhere—in the near future? God forbid that it should revisit Auckland if we have as is forecast in some cases further inclement weather and further weather bombs as they are known during this winter. 
I am very very concerned indeed about the great damage that has been done to Auckland and also in particular to New Zealand’s international reputation. In my time as energy spokesperson for United Future I have had multinationals say to me that they are moving to Queensland because there they can enter into long-term electricity supply contracts. They pay more for electricity there than they would in New Zealand but at least they have security of supply which they cannot get in New Zealand. Here they cannot enter into contracts for security of electricity supply for a period of time which would give them some payback on their initial investment. That is a disgrace. 
I think the Government has to take some responsibility for what has happened and to admit that it has got to lift its game and sort out these problems; otherwise we will see inaction excuses double-ups and bureaucracy continue to weigh down this country’s economy and that is just not good enough. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time. 
Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Housing 
: I move  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill provides for information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. It authorises the corporation to disclose to the ministry information relating to the corporation’s tenants and tenancies. 
The bill has been reported back from the Social Services Committee. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill. There were two written submissions on the bill and I thank those submitters. The select committee recommended that the bill be passed with one minor technical amendment. References in other Acts and regulations to the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 need to be amended to reflect the new name of the principal Act. Subsequent to the introduction of the bill the Social Security (Temporary Additional Support) Regulations 2005 were promulgated and the bill has also been amended to include reference to those regulations. 
The information match between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development follows initiatives in Budget 2003 and Budget 2004 for new and extended information-matching between various Government agencies and the Ministry of Social Development. The ministry has completed the implementation of higher-priority information matches with other agencies. Those matches have resulted in savings to taxpayers and have maintained the integrity of the social assistance system. The ministry has now engaged with Housing New Zealand Corporation to implement an information match. As with previous matches between Government agencies and the Ministry of Social Development this information match is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Privacy Commissioner will report back on the operation of the match. 
The information match will help to minimise the overpayment of benefits and student allowances help with the recovery of beneficiary and student debt that arises from any such overpayment and help with the detection of fraud. In addition to minimising benefit overpayments the information match may benefit tenants their partners and their dependants by enabling the Ministry of Social Development to address situations where people are not receiving their full entitlement to social assistance. For example the Ministry of Social Development may make a tenant who is leaving a Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancy aware of the accommodation supplement and other assistance that may be available from the Ministry of Social Development for private sector renters. 
Information-matching rules under the Privacy Act require that individuals who will be affected by the programme are notified. Housing New Zealand Corporation will undertake targeted publicity before the implementation of the information-matching programme and throughout its operation to comply with the information-matching rules in the Privacy Act. All new and existing Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants will be made aware that certain information supplied by the corporation may be provided to the Ministry of Social Development for information-matching purposes. The bill does not allow for the ministry to provide the corporation with personal information regarding tenants and their partners. 
The bill renames the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 to make it clear that the Act provides for tenancy matters. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Privacy Act to include Housing New Zealand Corporation and Housing New Zealand Ltd as specified agencies for the purpose of information sharing. 
In closing I say the bill extends information matching between agencies so as to improve the integrity of the social assistance system and as such it should be welcomed by all. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to support the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. The two main purposes of the bill are to amend the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 by renaming it and inserting in it information-matching provisions that authorise Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about tenants and tenancies to the department responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act 1964. Why would members not support this bill? It is interesting to note that National introduced this legislation in 1999. At that time Labour did not see the light or see the importance of having information matching with Housing New Zealand and social security services. But Labour does see the importance of that now and we welcome its progress on the matter. 
The bill increases transparency and openness in the State’s social services agency. Of course Housing New Zealand Corporation is a social services agency. State housing is a social service—and who would argue that we should not have social housing for the needy—as is the Ministry of Social Development with all the sorts of social services that it provides. Those social services include the unemployment benefit the domestic purposes benefit and other benefits that those who are struggling require from time to time—hopefully just for short periods. 
So the bill increases transparency and openness. The Minister has canvassed the issue over privacy rights being protected. I know that the Greens oppose the bill and perhaps we will hear a bit more from Sue Bradford later on the reasons for that. I know that part of the Greens’ reasoning concerns the fact that privacy rights should be given over voluntarily and not be required by legislation. Our concern of course is in respect of the ratbags out there—and they are a minority—who are ripping off the system whether it be in the Housing New Zealand portfolio the State housing portfolio or in the area of receiving benefits from the taxpayer. Why would those ratbags want to voluntarily disclose their private information? They would not want to voluntarily disclose information that would have them caught would they? No. They would not want to voluntarily disclose information that would make the public see through their sinister games ripping off the taxpayers of this country would they? 
Georgina Beyer 
: Of course not. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: No. They would not want to voluntarily disclose information that would point to fraud and fraudulent activity—absolutely not. That is why we see the need to pass legislation—and I acknowledge the Minister’s comments—that will compulsorily bring transparency and openness. 
It is not transparency in the sense that the information will be printed in every newspaper in the country or anything like that; it is simply disclosure between one State organisation Housing New Zealand Corporation and another State organisation the Ministry of Social Development. So that should happen. I talked about the needy people who are receiving taxpayer support as they struggle from time to time. A minority of those who are getting such support rip off the system. Those people give everyone else who needs social support and who is genuinely needy a bad name. That is an absolute shame and the National Party finds that appalling because we on this side of the House believe we should have social services the unemployment benefit the domestic purposes benefit and State houses for those who are in need—absolutely. I say to those who seek to rort the system—whether it is the people who receive those benefits or Labour which wants to purchase votes—that we on this side of the House find that absolutely appalling and we oppose it. 
I will give members an example and as we are talking about Housing New Zealand Corporation I think it is quite a poignant one. What about all those State house tenants who have boarders? People who are listening in—and I know that many hundreds of thousands of people are listening in to this speech tonight—may not know that Zealand has roughly 63000 State house tenancies. Do listeners know that 7000 of the 63000 State house families take in boarders? We are providing State houses to 7000 families and their boarders. Is it right that we are doing that? Well the National Party accepts that a family in a State house might have one boarder because that boarder could be their 18-year-old son who goes to polytech. Of course such families would have their son as a boarder. The National Party accepts that a State house family might even have two boarders because it could be that grandma is also living with them. She may be 75 be on a pension and have nowhere else to go. 
Of course such families would have living with them their sons who attend polytech and their grandmothers who have nowhere else to go. There is nothing wrong with that. But do New Zealand taxpayers think it is acceptable that some State house tenants in this country have three four or five boarders or as in one case—the worst case in New Zealand—six boarders? I say to the Minister that that is three times two boarders—six times one boarder. That State house family takes in six boarders. Does he understand? Do New Zealanders think it is acceptable that taxpayers should provide a State house for a family—apparently a needy family—that takes in six paying boarders? That is an absolute outrage particularly when voters for the Maori Party—for Tariana Turia—who are often in large families and need large State houses are on the waiting list while another family runs a boarding house business with six boarders in their home. 
I hope that the passing of this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill catches ratbags like that because there is no way that the taxpayer ever intended providing a State house to a family that would also have four five or six boarders living under their roof. 
There is also no way that the taxpayer ever intended providing State housing for those who earn in excess of $70000 $80000 or in fact $95000 a year after tax. It was revealed in this debating chamber only a few months ago that a State house tenant was earning $95000 after tax—in other words around $130000 gross—and occupying a State home in New Zealand. Was that State house provided by the taxpayer intended for that person? No way! That State house was intended for Tariana Turia’s voter—the one who is struggling in need and has a large family. It was never intended for the tenant who takes in six boarders and it was never intended for the tenant who earns $130000 a year. I hope that this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill catches that ratbag too. Yes Labour wants to buy votes—and it will throw cash and houses at anyone to get those votes—but the reason for National supporting this legislation is our hope that it will bring some honesty and transparency to the State house sector. That is why on behalf of the National Party I commend this bill to this debating chamber. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak in the second reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. I was also very pleased the Social Services Committee which I chair received this bill and took it through the select committee process. The bill was referred to the committee on 13 December 2005. Submissions closed on 27 February 2006. We considered two submissions and were grateful for the advice we received from the Housing New Zealand Corporation the Ministry of Social Development and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Also I would like to thank all my colleagues on the select committee for their effort in dispatching this bill back to the House as rapidly as they have. 
The bill authorises Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose to the Ministry of Social Development information relating to its tenants and tenancies. The Ministry of Social Development will use the information to determine eligibility for all forms of financial assistance granted under the Social Security Act 1964 and the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 and to recover debts owed to the Crown in respect of those benefits. This is the result of the 2003 and 2004 Budgets in which Cabinet approved information matching between those two agencies in order to improve the integrity of the income support system. The sharing of information will minimise benefit and student allowance debt overpayments by Housing New Zealand tenants and also help with the recovery of overpayments when they occur. This information-matching programme is another layer in the Government’s effort to protect the integrity of the benefit system. This will result not only in savings but also in an enhanced credibility of the benefit system. Information matching could lead to an anticipated saving of around $1.4 million a year. Expected savings are made in overpayments of benefits and allowances and debt recovered less the cost of recovery. 
People can from time to time find themselves quite inadvertently at times at odds with regard to their benefits or allowances—perhaps having been overpaid and not acting quickly enough to rectify the situation. Debt accrues and people can find themselves in quite a lot of trouble. I believe that this kind of legislation will assist in minimising that situation. Also it is worth remembering that when people have quite purposefully gone about trying to defraud our benefit system it is incumbent on any Government that happens to be in office at the time to maintain uphold and improve upon the integrity of the welfare benefit system for all New Zealanders. This bill certainly addresses the loopholes that can sometimes occur for some people. 
Just as I head towards concluding my brief contribution to this reading I recall one effort made in the late 1980s by the then Labour Government relating to the incredible benefit fraud that was being detected throughout the system at the time. It was what I call quite an innovation in liberating some people from being caught up fraudulently in the benefit system. The then Labour Government instigated over a period of a couple of years an amnesty that cleared the decks enabling many people to unburden themselves of debts they had accrued or of fraudulent activities that had not yet been detected. It liberated many people enabling them to start again with clean slates. This legislation will minimise any possibility of people being able to defraud the benefit system and information matching will assist in that. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to speak as a member of the Social Services Committee in support of the second reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. 
The bill we are debating today does a couple of things: it changes the name of the legislation to that very long mouthful of words—but a more accurate description—and establishes information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. That is a one-way information-matching system. The Social Services Committee was given four reasons for the necessity of that matching: firstly to assist the Ministry of Social Development in minimising and recovering beneficiary and student debt from benefit and allowance overpayments secondly to provide early intervention in cases that could result in the creation of substantial debt thirdly to assist in the detection of fraud and to help to track people who are in debt to the Ministry of Social Development and fourthly and finally to identify beneficiaries who are not receiving the correct income support entitlements. In other words we are looking to uncover fraud prevent the accumulation of excessive debt and make sure that people receive their correct entitlements. 
National supports this bill for three reasons. The first reason is that we tried to introduce legislation similar to this bill in 1999 but Labour opposed it. We raised at that time concerns about fraud about people accumulating debt—getting themselves into a position they could never see a way to get out of—and about ensuring fairness so that people received what they were entitled to receive. If we were a bit churlish we could perhaps say today to Labour members that we told them so. However we are supporting this bill because it is well overdue. 
The second reason why we are supporting the bill is that it increases transparency and openness. I refer to the analysis in the report of the Privacy Commissioner to the select committee which states: “Very large sums of money are paid out by the Ministry of Social Development in delivering welfare assistance. We readily accept that the department’s objectives which seek to protect that money relate to matters of significant public importance.” National certainly accepts that analysis and agrees that the transfer of information should be seen to happen clearly and transparently. 
Some discussion took place about information sharing outside any agreed protocols. In particular the submission from the Dunedin Community Law Centre highlighted concerns around informal information-sharing between agencies and expressed fears that allowing such information sharing to happen with the consent of the State had the potential to further undermine respect for the code of conduct. I disagree with that. I actually think this legislative change to formalise and make very transparent and clear the transfer of information makes any informal sharing of information and ignoring of protocols much tougher. 
The third reason why National supports this bill is to address some of the issues my colleague Mr Heatley raised around State house tenants benefiting from boarders and thereby supplementing their incomes fraudulently. The statistics quoted by the Minister of Housing at the end of last year show that nearly 7000 State tenants had paying boarders. Members may ask what is wrong with that. Actually I have no great problem with it if it is done within the rules. I accept what Mr Heatley said about a tenant having six boarders; I think that is excessive. But in my office this week I saw an elderly gentleman who lives in a State house on an income-related rent and really stretches to make ends meet. He lives up the East Coast so he has relatively high transportation costs. All his provisions cost more than they would elsewhere because he lives in a remote rural area. All he wanted was to be able to have a relative board with him and supplement his income in order to make his benefit go a little further. Nothing is wrong with that at all; it is quite within the rules. All he required from me was to get that set out in writing by Housing New Zealand Corporation to make sure he was covered. I applaud that gentleman for his efforts to make sure in his words that he was not “ripping anyone off”. 
National has no problem with people who play within the rules. But a large number of tenants in State houses receive money from boarders and do not declare the rent they receive from them as part of their income. One of the major outcomes of this information sharing is that if people do not declare such income and that income cannot be considered in the annual review of State tenants carried out by Housing New Zealand Corporation then it will be found they are defrauding the New Zealand taxpayers who are helping them. The outcome of this information sharing is that if Housing New Zealand Corporation knows that more people than its tenants are living in a house and some are paying board then that information can be sent to the Ministry of Social Development which can then make its own inquiries about the income that is actually being received into that household and alter the income-related rents accordingly. That is a fair way to deal with people who receive assistance from New Zealand taxpayers. So National supports this bill for those three reasons. 
The select committee received only two submissions on the bill. One was from the New Zealand Property Investors Federation Inc. which supported the proposals. I thank it for its quite comprehensive submission. The property investors supported what was being proposed—of course they did—but also wanted the bill to be extended to enable the Ministry of Social Development to supply the Ministry of Justice and its officials with specific address-for-service data to improve the tracking and enforcement of court-ordered money orders. The officials ruled that that was outside the scope of the bill which was a bit disappointing. 
The property investors referred to the 2003 agreement that under a tenancy tribunal judgment creditors could be given assistance to trace tribunal debtors by the provision of access to some Government-held address information. They made the point that private landowners are owed between $5 million and $6 million in rent arrears and at least $43 million for damage. They are continually frustrated at their inability to track down tenants who have disappeared but are still within the State system. Many of those tenants are known to the State and still actually receive benefits from the State whilst owing millions of dollars for both damage and outstanding rents to people who have provided them with accommodation. It was a great pity that that matter was deemed to be outside the scope of the bill and to learn that the 2003 agreement is obviously not working. 
The second submission was from the Dunedin Community Law Centre. It was concerned about how to protect individuals from multiple investigations by agencies. It cited the stress and trauma experienced by individuals and families when a number of agencies is investigating them. That matter too was dismissed by the officials on the premise that there would not be a two-way match and that the information matching would be between only the two organisations. 
The select committee largely supported this bill; I think only the Greens dissented. This legislation is well overdue. National will not say too loudly or too often to Government members that we told them so but we support the second reading of this bill. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I make this contribution to the debate on behalf of New Zealand First and I want to say from the outset that this House has an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that the legislation we pass particularly in relation to taxpayer funds provides a protection from fraud. New Zealand First will support any bill that protects and ensures the credibility of taxpayer expenditure. Notwithstanding the reasons previous speakers have provided to the House for supporting this bill we support it particularly in terms of the credibility of taxpayer expenditure. I quote from the background to the bill set out in the Bills Digest: “The Bill has been introduced to ‘help minimise overpayments of benefits and student allowances help the recovery of beneficiary and student debt arising from those overpayments”—I suggest that some of the comments about the use of overpayments were that it was actually fraud—“and help the detection of fraud. More generally the match will be another layer in the [Ministry of Social Development’s] efforts to protect the integrity of the benefit system’.” 
This bill amends the Housing Restructuring Act of 1992 and as a consequence the Privacy Act of 1993. It enables Housing New Zealand Corporation to disclose information about tenants and tenancies to the Ministry of Social Development as the department responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act. New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill because we believe it will help to prevent further abuse of the benefit system plus minimise the opportunities for fraudulent use of taxpayers’ money. It will also help to detect and minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments. 
During the first reading we expressed concern about the privacy issues this bill raises and the ease with which this age of electronic information affords intrusion into people’s private lives. The age of Big Brother is well and truly upon us now and we need to exercise the utmost caution and vigilance when applying to legislation what technology now allows. Just because the means are there does not mean we need to use them. However we are satisfied that any information sharing carried out under this legislation will be subject to strict controls and sought only for the purposes outlined in the bill. Checks and balances are vital in the exercise of democracy and this bill is no exception to that. The rules relating to the use and disposal of information as laid out in Part 10 of the Privacy Act certainly apply to this legislation. 
The information age is a double-edged sword in the sense that it enables unnecessary and abhorrent intrusion into our private lives which we must do all we can to prevent. However it also allows for better detection and prevention of abuse of systems and fraudulent use of taxpayers’ money. Too often in the public sector the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Now that we have the technology that allows us to detect and prevent fraud or conversely departmental errors we should use it. 
New Zealand First is satisfied that the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand Corporation as the two Government departments affected by this bill will use that technology sparingly and that they will use it to maximise people’s benefit entitlements as well as to detect fraud and that they will apply the legislation with the intention with which it is written. 
I want to comment on some things that have been said about the number of boarders some State tenants have. Although some allusion was made to certain supporters of certain political parties I suggest that some of the families they talk about having two three or six boarders actually number six eight or 10. If we are going to be pedantic about that we need to define what constitutes a family. I know that in the case of some of my relatives although eight 10 or 12 people may be living in one house they are all related. Some of them are descendants of the same mother and father. We talk about addressing the social issues our country confronts. Without exception everyone talks about the support of the family. 
Therefore I bring that to the notice of the House. Although we make those general comments some families have those numbers but they do not fit the description of the word “family” as it has been applied in this debate. 
This bill should be seen as a forerunner for other similar communications between Government departments. I refer to the issue of those who owe outstanding fines and who are about to flee the country. I refer to the immigration laws and hopefully during the review process of the Immigration Service these sorts of things will be picked up. At the end of the day I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for this bill. We see it as another way of ensuring the prevention of fraudulent use of taxpayer funding. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party continues to oppose this bill and I believe at this stage that unfortunately we are likely to be the only party in the House to do so. Although many members of the public and members of Parliament are quite quick to get upset about what they see as infringements on the privacy of citizens in general when it comes to beneficiaries not many of us will stand up for their rights to any form of protection at all. The Green Party believes there are already other means whereby Work and Income can find out endless details about the private lives of beneficiaries including their rent details without information-matching programmes being extended so that the Housing New Zealand Corporation can disclose information about State tenants to the Ministry of Social Development. 
This bill is neither desirable nor necessary nor has it had the sort of public scrutiny I think it deserves. It is one of those small pieces of legislation that fall between the cracks of public consciousness and I believe that because submissions were called for over the summer period and over a very brief time frame we ended up with only two groups making submissions and having any input. That is not democracy at its finest. However we now live with the consequences which are that the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill is going to pass through this Parliament with very little public scrutiny awareness or questioning of what it contains at all. 
There are a number of reasons why the Green Party continues to oppose this bill. First of all we have a broad concern about the proliferation of information-matching programmes operating between Government departments and agencies. Those have grown from 20 such formal arrangements in 1995-96 to around 72 in 2004-05 according to the 2005 annual report of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. All these programmes mean that the State is intruding more and more into the lives of ordinary New Zealanders at a level of which I think most of us are unaware. I think that Parliament should take a close look whenever parts of the State seek to extend their information-sharing powers whatever class of citizens might be affected and members should very carefully consider whether the new extension is actually necessary. 
 Otherwise we may as well all end up being microchipped—with all relevant data implanted inside our heads or wherever—as we go through life and be done with it. That is not as silly as it sounds. For example in America there are over 100 medical centres and hospitals that use the first human implantable passive radio frequency identification microchip. There is mother and baby tagging which is a huge growth area with some 900 US institutions using it. The Mexican Attorney-General has had himself and several of his staff microchipped. The Colombian President has suggested implanting microchips in Colombian workers to ensure they return home after working in the United States. In Cincinnati a company is requiring any employee who works in its secure data centre to be implanted with a microchip. Some might be wondering why I am talking about microchipping of humans in this debate. It is because I fear that if we start down that road in this country—and dogs are only the first step—prisoners and beneficiaries will be the first classes of citizens to be microchipped because very few people in this place will stand up for their rights to privacy and human dignity. It is not just dogs that we need to worry about when it comes to microchipping. 
The second reason why the Green Party does not support this pernicious little bill is that it deliberately puts Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants into a separate category from any other class of tenants. People who rent from a private landlord a city council or a community sector housing provider will not be subject to the new information-matching measures with Work and Income but people who are in State houses will be. We believe it is inappropriate to establish two classes of tenant in that way each with different privacy rights from the other. There is simply no logic to it although of course we would not support the extension of these provisions to all landlords. There is a fundamental principle at stake however and that is that all tenants should be treated the same with regard to the privacy of their personal information regardless of the identity of their landlords. 
Thirdly the Green Party questions whether this bill is really necessary. At the moment when someone applies for a benefit from Work and Income endless details about personal circumstances—including details about the person’s accommodation to the nth degree—are required to be supplied. If on top of that the Ministry of Social Development wants to acquire information directly from the Housing New Zealand Corporation all it has to do is to ask for written authority from the person concerned so that tenancy information—for example how much the rent is—can be shared and confirmed. That sort of information is shared and supplied all the time on the basis of informed consent which is far preferable to a system of going through some shadowy information-matching programme that most people affected by will have no idea exists. 
In response to those in the House today who say that in some cases the Ministry of Social Development might need those extra powers to extract the required information I say that in fact such powers already exist under the Social Security Act. The Ministry of Social Development can investigate the circumstances of people who may not voluntarily agree to such information being already shared by their Housing New Zealand Corporation landlord. Section 98 of the Privacy Act 1993 contains guidelines to the Privacy Commissioner’s role in relation to information-matching arrangements. One of the things that is supposed to be considered when looking at whether to set up a new programme is the question of whether the programme’s goals can be achieved by other means. This bill should not be quietly slipping through with such widespread support in the House when in fact those means exist already. 
Finally the Green Party also believes that one of the main justifications for putting up this legislation is far from convincing. During the select committee process officials were at pains to tell us that one of the reasons for this bill was that by sharing that information between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development people were more likely to get their full and accurate benefit entitlements. Although it is possible I guess that that could happen in a tiny fraction of cases I would have a lot more faith in such a rationale if most if not all beneficiaries were getting their full benefit entitlements already. In fact despite the good work that has been done in recent years to improve the culture and practices at Work and Income there is still a wide variation around the country in the way people are treated in terms of different offices and different case managers. Many beneficiaries still need help from advocacy groups and from social service agencies in order to access their full entitlements and I believe that Work and Income puts a far higher priority on ensuring people do not rip off the system than it does on making sure people get every dollar of support to which they are or may be entitled. 
The extension of the data-matching powers of the State contained in this bill are uncalled for and unnecessary. Arguments that it is really about helping to maximise people’s benefit entitlements are I think misleading and far from convincing so the Green Party will continue to oppose this bill through all stages. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena tatou te Whare. The Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill is a sad case of “Play it again Sam.” without a happy ending. In its capacity to instruct the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development to look at the relationship between the income support systems and tenants it takes this nation back in time. 
Fifty years ago in this House similar debates were being held on the future of housing and tenancy. In Opposition from 1949 to 1957 Te Uri o Hau and Ngati Whatua leader and politician Tapihana Paikea relentlessly highlighted the inability of the National Government to reduce Maori housing waiting lists. He described to the House the realities for post-war Maori who were living in fowl houses disused stables and market garden shacks. There is very little difference between then and now. Titiro ki muri kia whakatika a mua—those who ignore the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. 
Paikea also drew public attention to the racial discrimination that was common in housing. Three months ago a United Nations special rapporteur reported on the significant disparities that continue to exist between Maori and non-Maori in areas such as housing. The Government’s own  
Social Report 
 revealed that housing costs in excess of 30 percent of income are more common in households that include at least one non-European adult. This House needs no reminding that people who spend more than one-third of their disposable income on housing costs are likely to be in poverty. And who are those people who spend more than one-third of their disposable income on housing costs? They are of course the poor tangata whenua Pasifika new migrants and the proletariat on low wages—those who traditionally ensured that their party the Labour Party would always stand by them. Yeah right! 
The housing profile is not the glossy Taubmans tale that Labour would lead us to believe. In actual fact the proportion of Maori households who find that they have spent more than a third of their disposable income on housing costs increased from 8 percent in 1988 to 21 percent in 2004. That is a 13 percent increase in the number of Maori households experiencing significant household costs. The only difference between then and now is that the fowl houses and the market garden shacks have been replaced by derelict cowsheds and abandoned vehicles including buses and caravans. 
So what is different? The difference lies in the remedy. Fifty years ago an exciting new scheme was introduced to respond to such disparities. The desire of whanau to own their own homes was realised through capitalisation of the family benefit. This scheme placed the opportunity of immediate homeownership before those families who were previously unable to find the deposit to assist with the cost of a house. I can safely say that the families of my colleagues from the Maori Party here in this House had their family benefit capitalised which enabled their parents to put a roof over their kids’ heads—a roof that they owned. When one’s first child turned 1 whanau were able to instruct the Social Security Department to accumulate the benefit without interest. The accumulated lump sum of family benefit was then added to the amount available for housing. 
Maori applicants who wanted to arrange their whole housing proposition through the Department of Maori Affairs could apply to that department for capitalisation of the family benefit at the same time as they lodged the application for loan finance. It was a one-stop shop. The Department of Maori Affairs dealt with the Social Security Department on behalf of the applicant rather than the applicant running the gauntlet of officials or automated call centres that might be encountered today. It was a highly successful scheme—a scheme that many of our whanau still talk about as providing them with a step towards self-sufficiency. 
The idea of self-reliance was also extended to those who might have experienced greater financial constraints such as widows or couples whose only income was the unemployment benefit. In those circumstances the department had special provisions for dealing with people’s housing needs—options that meant that people might not have had to capitalise a desperately needed family benefit in order to obtain a new home. 
Although I am resisting the tendency to say that they were the good old days I believe that it does make for fairly grim comparisons when one contrasts the policy of capitalisation of the family benefit with this latest housing restructuring legislation. The sadness is that although this nation has got richer the gaps between the rich and the poor have widened and for some families the benefits of the trickle-down theory never arrive. What has trickled down to the poor is poverty and the leaky home syndrome of the poor—a leaking roof a broken sewerage pipe polyurethane “Weet-Bix” as floorboards and inferior workmanship. 
Although in the 1950s the Government of the day was pursuing remarkably active policies to help citizens achieve self-sufficiency in 2006 these new policies turn instead on the tenants whose greatest misfortune has been to turn to the Housing New Zealand Corporation for help. The snooping surveillance strategies that will be set in place by this bill target a particular group of tenants with increased monitoring. It is unnecessary it is intrusive and it is discriminatory. The bill introduces a two-tier system of tenancy. It creates different sets of rights for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants as opposed to other tenants. And is it not interesting that the Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants that are targeted are those receiving benefits and student allowances? The focus is not about ensuring the capacity of every citizen to belong to and participate in a caring community; the bill is purely and simply as my colleague Hone Harawira called it at the time of its introduction the “Snooping on the Poor Bill”. 
This bill does not address the critical issues of rent reviews budgeting basic home maintenance entitlement reviews or the over-inflation of rent that arises from extended whanau living arrangements. This bill does not address overcrowding it does not address increasing the amount of homeownership by the poor but it does address the ability of the State to carry out surveillance on the poor. 
It fails to answer the call from a whanau living in a four-bedroom Housing New Zealand Corporation house in Otara who came to the Maori Party for help to raise the issue of the housing crisis. In that one home 14 people are currently living including one daughter four sons two nephews and five mokopuna. The family do not want to shift as they are established in local schools and in the wider community. They do however wish to extend their home by building on a couple of sleepouts in order to accommodate all the children but the Housing New Zealand Corporation has declined their request. I ask the House how ridiculous is that. 
In the good old days that I mentioned before that whanau could have capitalised their family benefit in order to build extensions and still maintain their family home. But with this bill nothing in their situation will change except that they will be even more vulnerable to Big Brother snooping around. 
The Maori Party wanted to let this bill have a fair reading and that is why we agreed for it to go to a select committee. We wanted to be convinced that the bill was not just a new scheme to gang up on beneficiaries—to use information from one department to deny them rights from another. We wanted to be convinced that this bill was not just another part of the ongoing saga of the attack against beneficiaries but sadly the two—and only two—submissions received by the select committee did nothing to give us any confidence that the bill will make a difference for the better. The Maori Party will therefore oppose this bill as being unnecessarily invasive and another model of meddling for unforeseen purposes. It whittles away the rights of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants many of whom are beneficiaries. It fails to address the real issues in the sector and it does nothing to achieve genuine progress for a caring community. And that we can never support. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand to speak to the second reading of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. The opening statement by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in its report on this bill to the Social Services Committee accurately describes the bill’s need and purpose: “This bill will authorise Housing New Zealand to disclose tenancy information to the Ministry of Social Development for use in an authorised information-matching programme. It aims to address double-dipping whereby tenants obtain more financial assistance than they are entitled to from the two Government departments.” The Office of the Privacy Commissioner then explains that the proposed information-matching programme has been measured by the office against the current Privacy Act—against its rules guidelines and principles—and concludes with this comment: “In essence we conclude that the programme accords with the information-matching guidelines.” 
The office notes that the legislation is sufficiently broad in nature to allow the Ministry of Social Development to match against all forms of the ministry’s assistance and it queries whether that is completely necessary if the double-dipping of subsidised housing through the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the payment of accommodation assistance is all that is being targeted. It queries whether the legislation requires such wide-ranging provisions. The concern of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner however does not appear to be sufficient to sound any real alarm and it seems to believe that the normal monitoring operations of its office will be able adequately to keep a watchful eye on the application of this amendment. 
One of the advantages this amendment facilitates is that as well as picking up quickly on anyone who may be attempting to deliberately double-dip from two Government departments it also provides the chance for an early intervention with anyone who has misunderstood his or her entitlements and who is at risk of accruing substantial debt. Disappointingly we received only two submissions but they were good submissions. Both generally supported the provisions of the bill but did raise some ongoing concerns that future legislation could well consider and address. I would like also to suggest that some of the concerns mentioned by both the Maori Party and the Green Party may fall within future considerations. 
Perhaps the issue that cropped up that was of most interest to me was the current difficulty that exists in enforcing rulings from the tenancy tribunal. That certainly falls outside the framework of this amendment but it may well be worthy of some future consideration. It is interesting also to note that when we talked about the cost of this proposal we were told that it would cost about $200000 to set up the programme within the Housing New Zealand Corporation and $346000 to administer. The expectation from the Ministry of Social Development is that it will save $1.4 million in the 2006-07 year and the out-years based on the information matching that will start on 1 July 2006. I guess I am saying that I hope the ministry is right because those sums are of course estimates. 
I note there is a similar set-up between the Ministry of Social Development and the Customs Service and the set-up cost alone for that was $2 million. So I want to signal a bit of concern that this programme from a financial point of view could end up costing more than it will save. If that is the case it could be considered a bit of a nonsense. Certainly based on the figures that have been supplied the programme will make a difference to the savings the Ministry of Social Development can make. 
The other issue raised by the Maori Party member Tariana Turia that I think is really worth noting is the fact that above and beyond this issue that we are looking at and amending in this bill we need to signal as a party that we are very concerned about where homeownership is going—particularly first home ownership and particularly homeownership for middle and low-income people and for those on fixed lower incomes. I agree wholeheartedly that provisions in the past whereby people capitalised on their family benefit made for wonderful experiences for families and gave a huge opportunity to families who otherwise would not have gained that opportunity. 
 I do believe there are some opportunities within even the State housing sector where families who have been in a home for a while and who may have improved their family household income considerably during that time could well be offered some incentives around homeownership. It would not mean the depletion of our State housing stock; the money could be reinvested back into stock. But I do think the Government should be encouraged to look wherever possible at providing opportunities particularly for State tenants to find ways by which they too could become proud homeowners and could enjoy the level of financial autonomy and independence that would afford them. 
We are supporting this bill but we do agree that there are many issues around New Zealand housing that need to be addressed in future endeavours by this and any future Governments. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I am happy to speak on this bill of course. We desperately need some system to catch the people who rip the system off. We should stop all the rorts that are happening—and there are many of them. Taxpayers are already losing $485 per week per house every year. That is $485 per State house on this failed system. That is a helluva lot of money. We do not need tenants ripping the taxpayers off any more. 
The Government has a $12 billion investment in State houses and I stutter when I call this an investment. I believe there is a better way to deal with State house tenants. We need information sharing between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. We need to keep control of benefits etc. Because the Labour Government has trained some people in New Zealand to live on the benefit gravy train and those people rip off the taxpayer wherever possible we have problems. 
I have nothing to hide myself and I believe that a lot of State house tenants have nothing to hide. Therefore I believe that all honest tenants would have no trouble with their information being shared between the two departments—the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. I would like to quote a good example of two houses in Tauranga. One cost $370000 and is rented for $45 a week. The Housing New Zealand Corporation needs to know that that house is occupied by a little old lady. Unfortunately her husband died and she now occupies a three-bedroom house by herself. What a waste. We have families with two or three children who cannot get houses like this. The other house cost $350000 and three couples share this house. By sharing information this situation would be picked up through benefit payments. All those couples I know for a fact use the same address so that could be picked up very easily. The sad part of this situation is that even if the Labour Government through its department knew of this information it would not act on it because it is inefficient. 
The State housing sector is a mess at the moment. Chris Carter is a failure. He has lost the plot. He needs a lot more information to help him make some correct decisions. I believe he does not have the ability to act on any more information; if he got more information he would be more confused. However I still think that information sharing might get the message through that we have some people ripping the system off. 
Labour through Chris Carter did not support National in 1999 when it tried to bring similar legislation into the House. As I have said before Chris Carter must now be getting a bit desperate. He is now recommending original National Party ideas. Good old Chris Carter—he is gradually learning. 
We need to make the State house market totally transparent. Sharing information between departments would help in this direction. Sharing information might wake the Labour Government up to the fact that the State housing market is a mess. There must be a better way. Any information sharing in the future will help the future National Government sort this mess out. 
I myself as an honest New Zealander—and that is a bit strange around here—am totally embarrassed by what is happening in the State housing sector. We have the well-paid in State houses. We have multiple families living in a State house and there are many cases of that. These people are making money at the taxpayers’ expense. I find that strange but it seems to be allowed. 
We need a crossover of information to sort out this mess. I thought that State houses were to help people get a good start. I did not think that a State house was a lifestyle or that it gave someone a chance to make some money out of a taxpayers’ asset. We must get information in order to get back to the original idea of a hand up not a handout. We must get fairer with all the taxpayers and have a more acceptable system to help people who need a house. Information sharing will help this happen. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You already read that bit. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Yes that’s right and somebody else wrote it too—the member said that last week! 
I would like to finish off by saying that I cannot understand why people are upset about sharing information. It can only mean that they do not intend to pay and they do not intend to be found. I would also like to mention that when National sold State houses Maori got most of those houses. By the way I would like to mention also that I was brought up in a cowshed so it is not only Maori who had tough times. But at least I have improved. That member has not! 
Darren Hughes 
: This is the improvement? 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I would almost say that that member is in the pigsty; however I will not go that far. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member should not use that expression. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I apologise. He is a very nice guy but I cannot see where! 
I believe that all disadvantaged people in New Zealand should be helped where necessary. People who do not pay should not be disadvantaged by others. On behalf of the National Party myself and Phil Heatley we will get a much better system in place when we are Government in the next term—members should take note. We need information shared between departments so that we can weed out the people who fail to meet their obligations. We support this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time. 
New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 16 May. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise the Committee at this stage that the Government has issued a financial veto certificate in relation to the Hon Nick Smith’s amendment to insert new clause 6A. The amendment is therefore out of order and no question will be put on it. However the veto certificate may be debated in the context of this part. 
Part 1 Amendments to Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 ( 
continued 
)  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 It is with great honour that the National Party supports this bill. I suppose the first thing we should say about Part 1 is that thank goodness we are here to have a debate and to discuss something that should have happened many years ago. It is quite disturbing and quite upsetting to hear that my colleague Nick Smith’s amendment will not go through because it was when he brought this issue to the Human Rights Commission that we saw the Government finally do something about it. This tired Government finally felt that it might do something about this issue. 
Dr Smith had a constituent whose partner was in long-term residential care. He was getting less money than if he were receiving a living alone allowance even though the couple was not living together. It is a tragedy for the elderly people of New Zealand that they have had to wait so long for this bill. It is a tragedy that we cannot back-pay some of them so that they can see this happening. 
Members opposite can sit there and make gestures and think this issue is not important but it is incredibly important to a lot of people who are in the situation whereby they would have to divorce or declare themselves unmarried in order to be eligible for additional payment. This is one of those common-sense changes that needed to happen and it is a tragedy that this Government has taken so long to make it happen. 
I have been wondering whether perhaps the Government just did not think the money was important. In all respect it is not a lot of money that we are talking about. Part 1 which we have changed refers to a payment of some $20 to $30 a week to people. For elderly people who are living in their own homes that can make all the difference for them to be able to get services they really need—for them to be able to buy bread each week or the local paper if they are looking for something a bit more. The situation in terms of Nick Smith’s constituent was that the wife was in a rest home and because the couple still recognised each other the husband was not eligible to get the living alone payment. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s appalling. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: The member is right it is appalling. Because the wife still vaguely knew her husband even though the husband was living alone he was not eligible to get the living alone allowance. We are finally seeing some changes in respect of that. 
The Hon Nick Smith needs to be commended for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. It is ridiculous that Dr Smith had to complain to the Human Rights Commission about this absolute miscarriage of justice as a last resort. A week later interestingly enough the bill was introduced by the Government. Government members now get to spout forth on how important this bill is and what a great job they are doing but I point out that it has taken over 6½ years—6½ long long years. As a new member I constantly hear about what the National Party did wrong in the 1990s and about everything else. We are in a new century and the Labour Government has had 6½ long long years to bring this issue to the attention of members and to do something about it. Without any doubt this issue has not been a priority for the Government. 
Thanks to Nick Smith we are able today to look at this bill and to consider the issues raised. As a member of the Social Services Committee since the last election I would like to say what an outstanding job the committee has done in bringing the bill together and writing it. The experts have put it together well and members have been able to understand it. The bill has been kept relatively simple which I think is important. Simplicity is not something that this Government in particular is generally very good at. It normally likes to complicate things as much as it possibly can and make things difficult for people to understand but in this case it seems to have got it relatively right because it has obviously listened to the officials. 
This legislation should make it quite easy for people who are eligible for living alone payments. Clause 13 relates to a person who is not considered to be living alone if he or she shares household expenses with another person. That is where it all starts to get a bit confusing and that is where people have been let down in the past. That clause is about the sharing of expenses. The reality is that it does cost more to live alone than to live with someone else. When a person is living alone then he or she is the only one who is paying the power and power use does not halve which may be a surprise to some people. A couple’s expenses do not halve because one person has moved out of the house. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak to Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I think it is once again a great indictment on this Labour Government when we hear tonight that Nick Smith’s very sensible amendment to allow— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I was saying before the dinner break that I viewed with great concern the decision of the Labour Government which I believe is very mean-spirited to strike out the most appropriate amendment from the Hon Nick Smith. His amendment has two aspects to it: any person who applied for the living alone payment prior to 24 July 2004 but was declined on the basis of his or her spouse living in a rest home shall be eligible for payment from 24 July 2004. 
One might ask why I am concerned about the mean-spiritedness of this Labour Government. I go back to 2001 5 years ago when the Labour Government passed the superannuation legislation. It was only a year later that Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament pointing out the anomaly whereby those who were living alone and whose partner or spouse was in long-term residential care were not eligible for the living alone allowance. That was 4 years ago. Nothing was done by the Labour Government—not for 1 year not for 2 years not until 2004. That was when Dr Nick Smith was approached by Mr Page a 91-year-old whose wife with Alzheimer’s was living in long-term residential care to see whether he could apply for the single living alone allowance. He had tried not once not twice but three times and he had been rebuffed by the Labour Government. Dr Nick Smith took it to the Human Rights Commission and it was only then only after that long period of time that the Labour Government finally decided to bring this issue to Parliament. Here we are now 5 long years later and the Labour Government has been moved out of its lethargy out of its stupor and has brought in this bill which we indeed support. 
When we look at why Dr Nick Smith’s amendment has been so cruelly struck out by the Labour Government we see that the reason is that the proposed amendment would increase the Crown’s total operating expenses and decrease the balance by an amount of $600000. If we put that in the context of the $1 billion this Labour Government has put into the interest-free student loan scheme or the $1.5 billion—even more—this Labour Government has put into the Working for Families package thus cementing welfare dependency even further into the New Zealand psyche then we see that it is a very small amount indeed. It absolutely typifies the mean-spiritedness of this Labour Government towards the elderly of New Zealand. 
I see the Minister for Disability Issues Ruth Dyson sitting in the chair. She is not taking notice of the fact that it is her Government that has dawdled for 5 years over a clear anomaly that affects a considerable number of our elderly in New Zealand. In fact I think about 2100 are affected by this anomaly. When this provision is put into place it will mean about $60 more per week for those individuals. If they are on about $200 a week then $60 a week represents a huge amount to them. It can make all the difference in terms of the little treats and even I should say the necessities of life that are so important for our elderly. It seems that it is quite mean-spirited of this Labour Government not only to have ignored these people for 5 years to have ignored the petition of Barbara White for 4 years— 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on this bill and for this reason. We see Government members come here fresh bushy-tailed and raring to go and over time we see them get worn down slide away start to make mistakes and ignore good ideas. That is what is happening with this tired lethargic hopeless Labour Government. 
We have here a really good idea. Superannuitants their families and their grandchildren are crying out right across the country for this to happen—man and woman. They are standing up and saying: “Can you just make this little thing happen for my grandfather for my grandmother for my elderly aunt?”. That is all they are asking for—just a little wee bit—and this mean-spirited Government is not going to do it. It will not allow Nick Smith’s amendment. This Government is mean-spirited. It is typical of a failing Government that has to go. 
Let us have a look at what this is about. Let us take the country through this because it is really interesting. We have a system whereby this Government has been saying for years that if one’s husband wife or partner gets sick it is too bad. The Government will give those people a single superannuation payment and will not recognise the fact that they might have extra expenses. “Not us” says the Labour Government. “Not us” says Helen Clark. They are not going to do that. They are still going to make people pay. Well finally Nick Smith—and congratulations to him—has brought the Government to its senses and finally it will recognise that there is a need. But it has taken too long. 
But even worse the Government is using this thing called a fiscal impact report to reject Nick’s amendment that would have allowed anybody who applied since 2004 etc. to be eligible for the living alone payment. This country looks at claims going back to 1840 in some cases. There are people who are in this Parliament for that very reason—to make sure that injustices of the past are recognised. Here we have something that will cost less than $600 million. My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison talked about some of the things that this Government is prepared to spend money on. What about some of the things it wastes money on like Te Wananga o Aotearoa and things like that which the National Party has exposed? Why cannot the Government put a little bit of money aside to help our elderly folk? The Government has mean-spirited people. It is typical of a Government that is going down the gurgler. 
I want to say this about Nick Smith. He is the sort of genuine Kiwi who gets on to an issue and makes it happen. He is a guy in Opposition who is making the Government do its job. He is part of the National Party caucus which finally has got this Government to start to do something positive for the people of New Zealand—not just the elderly but their families and their grandchildren the whole of our society. I say to this Parliament: “Congratulations Nick Smith. At last you have brought a modicum of decency into this Parliament through its legislation.” He has recognised something that this lazy hopeless Government should have thought about so many years ago. How long? Is it 3 years 4 years? It does not matter. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: 5 years. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is disgraceful. It is hard to believe that people in this country who pretend to be parliamentarians do not care for a whole 5-year period. That is amazing. I am shocked. I think I need a glass of water. I think my blood pressure is rising. I cannot believe this. How can anyone sit on that side of the Chamber and claim to represent the people of New Zealand particularly the superannuitants but then take 4 or 5 years to deliver? 
Anne Tolley 
: What about the veterans though? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh well! Do not get me started on the veterans! I would be here all night. I would have to have some oxygen to get through the veterans case. It is bad enough dealing with just this issue. At last the Government is finally doing stuff that Nick Smith has asked it to do. The National Party supports him. Thank goodness we are here! 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 What a fantastic contribution from my colleague Mr Carter and how true his words are. It is a disgrace that it has taken this Government so long to bring this legislation to the House and when it did it had the full cooperation of all the other parties to bring it through in a timely fashion because we all knew that it made sense and that it was fair and just legislation. 
But I just want to speak tonight about one little part of it that disturbed me throughout the whole process. I cannot see many of my colleagues from the Social Services Committee here but it was very difficult for me to get to the bottom of this part of the legislation during the select committee stage. I refer to clause 8 “Absences up to 52 weeks with aid agencies”. In the information that was provided to the select committee the case was made to change that 52 weeks because there were a reasonable number of superannuitants or veteran pensioners overseas undertaking voluntary work who were penalised for being out of the country too long. 
I do not have a problem with that; the problem I had was that all the information that came to the select committee members talked about a 2-year period and about the fact that the request for an extension of this time was to cover the 2-year duration of a standard Volunteer Service Abroad assignment. I was actually very happy to do that. The case was made that some people have had to take a shorter assignment because otherwise they would be penalised. I agree with all the logic in that. The question I kept asking however was why in this legislation we do not see a 2-year period as all the evidence and all the requests were about. No we see a 3-year period. I do not have a problem with whether it is 2 years or 3 years but I take passing legislation seriously and as a member of Parliament I want to know that I understand the reason for all the legislation that I am involved with and that I have to defend out in the community. 
Throughout the process I could not get a valid reason for having an extension to 3 years rather than an extension to 2 years. It was not that there was any great call for 3 years. It might be a pedantic point but I think that legislation is an important part of the role of a member of Parliament. Legislation affects people’s lives and we should have good reasons for passing laws in this country. We as parliamentarians need to be able to understand the reasons for them. At the very last minute when we were getting ready to deliberate in the select committee I was finally given a reason for the 3 years. It is because the term of our representatives overseas our ambassadors is 3 years. In actual fact that is quite a different issue from what is raised in this legislation. I thought we were talking about volunteers working for recognised aid agencies overseas. That has nothing to do with people working in the diplomatic service; that is quite another issue altogether. 
Because I had made considerable attempts to get some rationale behind the 3 years I did not want to pursue it anymore. I must confess I gave up but I did say that I was going to raise it during the debate. There is still not a good reason for extending it to 3 years. If there is a good reason I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson to take a call and explain to the Committee why there is this extension to 3 years rather than the 2 that was requested which was backed up by the information that had come in to the select committee. Why we are we now passing something that was not called for? I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us whether the answer is as some of her colleagues are suggesting something that we should know. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be speaking in the Committee stage of this New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I note that no member of the Labour Party has yet taken a call so it is really quite hard to believe that this is a Government bill. It might be a Government bill in name but it is quite obvious that it has actually resulted from the efforts of Dr Nick Smith the MP for Nelson who has had the gumption to bring this bill to the House. [ 
Interruption 
] We now have the member for Wellington Central—perhaps for not much longer a member of the Labour Party—Marian Hobbs starting to chime in. If she would like to get up and take a call on the Labour Party’s behalf the contribution would be most welcome. 
This is common-sense legislation and it has been put forward by the party of common sense the party that has the interests of ordinary New Zealanders at heart: the National Party. It really is a crime that it has taken 6½ years for this bill to come before the House. Dr Smith was approached by a constituent a Mr Page who could not get a living alone payment because his wife was in a rest home. That really highlighted quite a bizarre anomaly. While Mr Page who has paid taxes all his life and who is now a retiree was living at home his wife was in the rest home. If Mr Page had actually divorced his wife he would have been eligible for the living alone allowance. Mrs Pettis is shaking her head over there so I hope she will be taking a call soon too because she has had a lot to say during this debate about her own pension being cut. 
Jill Pettis 
: No my mother’s. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Oh her mother’s—I am sorry I thought it was Mrs Pettis’ pension. I apologise to the former member for Whanganui. 
This bill is all about dignity and it is the National Party that is giving New Zealanders back their dignity. I think it is just very sad and disappointing that Mr Page had to go to his member of Parliament who in turn had to go to the Human Rights Commission just to get the basics Mr Page was entitled to as a taxpayer—the dignity of being able to claim as a superannuitant that single person’s allowance. 
I note that it is quite interesting that this legislation put forward basically by Dr Smith really follows a similar pattern to what we have been seeing: the National Party gets behind a piece of legislation and suddenly it becomes Government policy and a Government bill. It is a bit like the situation where revenue from the petrol tax is now going to be put into roading. That is National Party policy but we heard at the launch of the last Budget that the Government will be doing that. Of course we know that before the next Budget and the next election Labour Party members will be talking about tax cuts because those members are on the back foot now. They are on the run and National is dictating the agenda. I note that Mrs Pettis has no answer to that—no answer at all. The interesting thing is that when the working people of New Zealand get that tax cut the pensioners of New Zealand will actually benefit. If people had received those tax cuts National was going to deliver at the last election— 
Jill Pettis 
: Well why didn’t they vote for you? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
:—Mrs Pettis should just listen; she will find out about her own pension—pensioners would have been better off by $1200 a year in the hand because the pension is based on the average take-home wage. So if the Labour Party were really serious about doing something practical for the working people of New Zealand and also for superannuitants it would have embraced tax cuts. That is a little bit of a digression but it is absolutely true. 
The public in regard to this bill were outraged with the sharing expenses rule. How that worked was that if someone had fixed costs—as we all do—in running a household those fixed costs were not taken into account when considering the level of allowance the person should have been paid while his or her spouse or partner was in a rest home. So this bill will extend the eligibility for that higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation for living alone payments or veterans’ pensions to those whose spouse or partner is in long-term residential care a hospital or a rest home. We in the National Party think that that is absolutely just. The Labour Party has had well over 6 years to do something about the situation but it has actually taken Dr Smith’s initiative to get the bill through. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 It is with absolute pleasure that New Zealand First supports Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. As has been pointed out the bill affects a significant number of our seniors; Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned that the number of people was in excess of 2000. We definitely want to see the bill passed through Parliament quickly particularly as every speaker to date has supported the bill. New Zealand First is 100 percent behind the bill and we want to see it fast tracked through. We do not want to see it delayed in any way. We know that developed countries around the world are assessed by how well they care for their seniors and we must ensure that our seniors here in New Zealand can live well in their golden years. 
The changes that are outlined in the bill are absolutely essential. This is fair legislation and I know that that has been mentioned by every speaker to date. So we all want to see the bill passed. New Zealand First members are very pleased that this bill removes the anomalies that exist with the living alone payment. The amendments mean that eligibility for the living alone payment will be based on actual living arrangements rather than be influenced by whether another party is making a contribution. We hear so many sad stories when someone’s partner ends up in care and the remaining partner is left to cope. Unfortunately those people are living single lives at home but they still have all the responsibilities and costs that come with a household. It is time that this issue was clarified because we believe that people have been let down totally in this area in the past. 
Of course New Zealand First wants to see fairer treatment for our senior citizens and we are pleased that this is the second change we have seen in this Parliament. The first change was the raising of the superannuation rate to 66 percent of the net average wage which we applaud. Our next change will be the introduction of the golden age card for senior citizens. New Zealand First members know that our seniors are actually waiting for that change. We know too that the issues that are dealt with in this bill are urgent and people need to have them sorted out so they can get on with their lives. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Keep waiting! 
BARBARA STEWART 
: I know that the National member on the other side of the Chamber is also waiting for his golden age card. I can assure him that after the next election he will more than likely be eligible to apply for it. So I ask him to support the golden age card at this point in time. We are looking forward to the implementation of the golden age card and we know that that is coming through as a result of our confidence and supply agreement. 
We must acknowledge that this bill also deals with veterans and we need to remember the enormous sacrifice veterans have made on behalf of all New Zealanders. We owe those people a great deal. I thought that speeches made by some National members in this debate were a bit rich considering that successive National Governments would not recognise some of our veterans and would not give them medals—veterans like Nancy Wake and Des Scott—but I have heard that Sergeant Manahi will be recognised. There is also Lieutenant-Colonel Maloney. The Viet Nam vets have been striving for a long time to have some settlement over agent orange and of course there are also the nuclear test vets. They are all people to whom we owe a great deal. It is worth saying that the veterans of overseas service need to be recognised and we want to investigate ways of achieving that recognition. With the Year of the Veteran now upon us I know that one of our priorities in that area will definitely be met. We need to ensure that veterans and superannuitants have the best possible living standards and we do not want to see them disadvantaged in any way. This bill goes some way towards actually ensuring that. 
So we want to see the bill passed quickly through this Parliament—we do not want to see any delays—and we will be supporting it every step of the way. I know that my colleague from Hamilton East David Bennett will definitely be very happy to see the bill passed too. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena tatou katoa. I will make a brief call to reiterate the Maori Party’s support for the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Ever since the beginning elders have had a special place in our family in our extended family and in our community. Against all sorts of odds we are still fighting hard to keep that situation going. The key thing for us is to make sure that our elders have the opportunity to play a role in the lives of their children grandchildren and great-grandchildren. That is obviously why we support the bill—so that they can have a fair means by which to enjoy their later life and times. 
In fact it was respect for elders that created the kohanga reo movement in 1981 which saw for the first time a whole-of-New Zealand movement whereby Maori respected and followed the wishes of their elders. All over New Zealand kohanga reo were created quite independent of Government or any formal organisation simply because the elders who had gathered decided that it was a good initiative that should be followed. So that is a modern example if you like of the status that our old people hold in our lives. 
I point out that although we support the initiatives of the bill—to extend eligibility etc.—we hope the Government is also taking the responsibility to consider other amendments in respect of the distribution of superannuation that take into account the disparities evident in life expectancy. For example Maori men will die 8.2 years earlier than non-Maori men and Maori women will die 8.8 years earlier than non-Maori women. So that means that Winston Peters Mahara Okeroa Ron Mark and a few other colleagues will not be around for as long as some other members. As in so many areas of our social policy those predetermined arbitrary age limits which seem to be set for fiscal reasons generate inequities. We challenge the thinking behind those age limits in that it creates the disparity. That is why prior to the election the Maori Party came out and said we should perhaps consider providing superannuation earlier to certain people if it could be shown that those people had a shorter life expectancy. 
The Maori Party supports the bill. We would also have supported the amendment for back pay—had it not been thrown away—the amendment to go back to that time when people applied for back pay and were declined and so on. But we support the bill. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. It is good to hear that the Maori Party would have supported Nick Smith’s amendment which has unfortunately been vetoed. I think this is a callous Government that has actually— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: It’s a rebuff. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right. That amendment should have been allowed to go through. Fundamentally it should have been in there. It is good to see that the Maori Party is supporting National in that matter. 
I was also interested to hear Mrs Stewart from New Zealand First talk about the golden age card that will come in soon. I think we are all waiting to see exactly what the golden age card will deliver. Will it deliver cheaper petrol or power for those who are over 65? We will wait and see. 
I am from Kapiti in Horowhenua and as members know that region has the highest number of people over 65 per capita. We have an ageing population in Horowhenua and Kapiti and this bill will help those people. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Including my mother. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right. The member’s mother who resides in Otaki may well be listening this evening and I think she will be delighted with this bill. 
To understand more about the bill I recently went out with some caregivers in Otaki. They are doing a fantastic job in looking after war veterans and people who want to age with dignity in their homes but they are not being very well rewarded. It was interesting to see exactly what caregivers do. They are friends of the people they care for. They clean for them look after them and get their groceries for them. They are a point of contact for them. It was great to see in the Budget that some money is to flow through to those caregivers—they are to get 50c an hour. How pitiful is that for caregivers who look after those superannuitants? An hourly rate of 50c equates to about $1000 a year. Petrol is the biggest issue for caregivers who look after elderly people in their homes. We all know that it now costs about $100 to fuel up a car. Caregivers of aged people living at home have their own vehicles to look after. They have to provide their vehicle’s warrant of fitness and pay for its repairs and maintenance. Caregivers are being unfairly treated—just like superannuitants with this bill. 
It has taken 6 long years to get this measure through—6½ actually but who is counting? I guess caregivers are wondering whether they will have to wait that long before they get fairly remunerated and receive some assistance towards costs for looking after superannuitants who live in their own homes. 
I believe that about 2000 superannuitants aged over 65 will qualify under this bill which is fantastic. It will be only a small drop in the bucket though. My arithmetic is that they will benefit by only about $20 a week. That is about $100 a month. Is that enough? I guess it is a start is it not? It is a start in relation to rewarding those people who have been unfairly treated by an old tired dilapidated Government that is on its last legs. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: They’re running out of ideas. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right. Government members are running out of ideas so it is great to see that this bill has come into the House because National and the Hon Nick Smith—who has worked hard for people in his electorate of Nelson—have forced the Government’s hand. It has taken 6½ years to get the bill to this stage. 
It is also nice to see in relation to eligibility the extension of time from 1 year to 3 years for those who do voluntary service abroad. That is fantastic but I am still waiting as is the member for East Coast Anne Tolley for the Minister to take a call to explain why the extension to 3 years was introduced through the submission process when there was already a huge amount of support for the eligible period to go to 2 years. Why has it been extended to 3 years? Let us hear from the Minister. The challenge is for the Minister to take a call on that. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: We haven’t heard from anyone in Labour. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is right. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Get Jim out of his newspaper. 
NATHAN GUY 
:They are not interested. The Government is old and tired. This bill is all about allowing those people who are over 65—those war veterans who have served this country—to age with dignity. Those people have looked after us and after this country. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I would like to reflect on how this bill came into being. I think it is important that we go back in time and think about how it got to be here in the Committee of the whole House today. For that we cannot look any further than the Nelson MP the Hon Nick Smith. We have “Nick for Nelson” to thank for this bill through one of his constituents a Mr Page—an elderly gentleman; I heard tonight that he was 91—who did not need all the grief he got. Mr Page’s wife Mrs Page was in residential care but Mr Page was not given the living alone payment because his wife recognised him. If Mr and Mrs Page had been a de facto couple or even a gay couple or if Mrs Page had had dementia or had been in prison then Mr Page would have qualified for the living alone payment. It was just a bizarre set of circumstances. 
So there we had Mr Page an elderly man with an ill wife in long-term residential care going to his MP the Hon Dr Nick Smith—“Nick for Nelson”—who brought the situation finally to the attention of the media. He took it further than that; he took it to the Human Rights Commission. It took Nick Smith’s efforts to get this legislation into the House and it is Nick Smith that we and Mr Page have to thank for that. 
In fact as I heard tonight there are over 2000 “Mr Pages” living in this country. Those people have been sadly neglected and it has taken 5 years for the legislation to get to this stage. This bill recognises that it is more expensive for people to live alone. In addition the bill recognises and acknowledges that more incidental costs are incurred when a person’s spouse or partner is in long-term residential care. Those costs include travel and the other little extras incurred in making sure a person’s loved one is well looked after. So this bill acknowledges the extra expenses involved when a spouse or partner lives alone and looks after a loved one who is in a long-term residential care situation. 
This bill will also improve the lives of the veterans we have in our society. This year is the Year of the Veteran and we have to acknowledge that. Veterans have played a huge part in developing this country. They have served their country and contributed to it. Veterans of course have been a dwindling part of our population since World War II. They are diminishing in number. I went on a search and did a calculation to find out how many veterans we have in New Zealand. There are about 16600 and we have to salute them. They have worked hard and served our country well. 
While I am on the subject of veterans I want to talk about Nancy Wake. I am terribly disappointed that this Government did not recognise Nancy Wake in the recent Queen’s Birthday honours. She is a New Zealander— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has to address the bill. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: This bill is about fairness. For partners or spouses who have loved ones in long-term care there is an added emotional and physical burden so I am pleased that this bill will in many ways help ease their financial burden. 
Clause 5 amends the sharing expenses rule for the living alone payment so that the entitlement to the living alone payment is based solely on actual living arrangements and not as previously on income testing or on contributions to household expenses from others such as family members or other sources. That is fair and I am very pleased that the sharing expenses rule has been amended. It is now fair and just. There was a lot of negative criticism about that particular rule and I am pleased it has been amended in Part 1. 
I have done some calculations as well. I have worked out exactly how many extra dollars per week and per month veterans will actually get in real terms. My calculation is different from that of my colleague Nathan Guy. I calculate that it is $24 per week not $20. But he is right: it is about $100 a month so I am not sure where we went wrong on the calculations to differ slightly on the weekly allowance. 
Nathan Guy 
: Inflation. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: That is right. That money is a start. It is not a huge amount of money but it will go some way to helping. We have to acknowledge that it is a start. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 6A is out of order because it has been vetoed. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to War Pensions Act 1954 and consequential amendments 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 particularly refers to amendments to the War Pensions Act 1954 and to other consequential amendments. As we have heard from other members around the Chamber many veterans in this country—over 6000—will be affected by this bill. That is one of the reasons why National is supporting it—because we recognise the tremendous service over many decades that our service people have given for New Zealand. This Parliament is living testimony to the many wonderful deeds of our servicemen and women over the decades. The very least we can do is to increase their entitlements—as this bill will do. What worries me hugely is that the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act was passed by the Labour Government in 2001 Barbara White brought her petition to Parliament in 2002 and Mr Page—through Dr Nick Smith—took his case to the Human Rights Commission in 2004 but only now in 2006 5 years later has the Labour Government woken from its stupor to finally get on with passing this bill. 
My colleague Anne Tolley from East Coast an excellent member of Parliament— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That she is an excellent member. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
:—Yes she is—brought out a very important point relating to the superannuation entitlement period of Volunteer Service Abroad people. Under this bill they have been awarded a period of 3 years’ absence from this country when all they requested at the Social Services Committee apparently was 2 years. I would like Mr Benson-Pope a man of considerable largesse in this case to take a call and explain to the House why that is so for Volunteer Service Abroad people—the over 65s apparently number about 40—who do wonderful work around the world and who were given a hard time in the past because they had to come home within 52 weeks but who now quite appropriately have had the time extended to at least 2 years. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Who in the National Party ever cared about that? Who in the National Party like the great Nick Smith ever cared about the volunteers? Not a soul. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: We wonder what Marian Hobbs is saying. I know she is very sore about the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary because that mean-spirited Labour Government would not support it—and it did nothing about this bill for 5 years. 
We had better get back on track. I ask the Hon Mr Benson-Pope to explain why he has granted largesse over and above what was requested by the Volunteer Service Abroad people but has taken 5 long years to respond to a very significant anomaly affecting many elderly people in New Zealand including veterans. When we think that Mr Page was married for 70 years and then was told that the only way to receive the living alone allowance was to get a divorce—and that was 3 years after the situation had been brought to the attention of the Labour Government—we can understand why National is so concerned about the sensitivities of this almost stuporous Labour Government. Can Mr Benson-Pope explain why he has given largesse to the Volunteer Service Abroad people? It is quite right that they should be granted their request for 2 years but why go to 3 years? Can he tell us how many of them do stay away from New Zealand for 3 years? I would think that very few indeed would do so. 
However the really important thing is that Labour has been so tardy for so long in bringing this bill to the House. We see Mr Benson-Pope sitting there unprepared to answer a very serious point as to why he has not responded for all those years. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on Part 2 which directly addresses the amendments to the War Pensions Act of 1954 and to go through just a couple of the clauses that have been amended. There was an alteration to clause 10 because the Government had made a mistake so not only have we waited 5 years for the legislation but when we finally get it we find a mistake. It is a mistake in the definition of “partner”. Well I would have thought that the Government had introduced enough legislation into this House not to get that definition wrong. However— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: They did. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: It did and the mistake is now being put right. 
Hon Member 
: What’s the meaning? 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1964—so this bill does not actually tell us; we have to go away and look it up. 
The other clause to which I want to refer briefly deals with living alone payments. We on the Social Services Committee had quite a discussion about what qualified as a residence or dwelling for a living alone payment. In fact we asked the officials to come back to us with information on that. On the one hand we did not want to be too restrictive but on the other hand we wanted to make sure again that we were creating legislation that was easily defensible clear and transparent. The officials came back to us with some definitions under clause 13 of what qualified as a residence or dwelling for a living alone payment. They told us that a person had to live in a house or flat a boat or craft moored within New Zealand territory—which is very comforting for people up my way—a hotel room or motel unit a room in a licensed boarding house or a unit of accommodation in a caravan park. So that is what we are talking about as a principal place of residence. 
Our difficulties were in talking about what was defined as a residence or dwelling in relation to granny flats that are almost but not quite attached to a house and the distinction between sharing expenses and being deemed to be living alone. In fairness to the select committee I think that that was where most of the concern around the definition arose—so that we did not have people claiming they lived alone when in fact their arrangements were quite different. 
The intent of the legislation in the changes we are making in Part 2 as in Part 1 is that the primary place of residence of the partner must be in the nature of a house or a flat with a kitchen or kitchenette of some sort a bathroom a toilet and sleeping arrangements. Consequently if someone has exclusive use of a residence for living and sleeping—a residence that contains adequate and quite distinct areas for those activities—it will qualify as the person’s principal place of residence in order to determine whether that person is eligible for the living alone payment. 
Finally the last little piece discussed during the select committee examination of Part 2 was clause 14. My colleague Judy Turner raised the issue of whether by allowing pensions lump-sum payments and allowances to be increased by Order in Council there was any possibility those payments could equally be decreased in that way. I thought that it was a very reasonable question to want to be reassured on because “by Order in Council” means that the provision does not come before Parliament and the gaze of parliamentarians. 
Although we did not have a great deal of time on this bill the select committee did spend a good deal of time looking at some of the individual clauses and their effects. It tried to make sure that the legislation was clear and transparent. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I will not take up a great deal of the time of the Committee but like a lot of listeners I am growing somewhat tired of the cant we are hearing from Opposition members. [ 
Interruption 
] I will articulate and explain in a moment ladies and gentlemen. I guess no one should be surprised at National’s fascinating reinterpretation of history. This afternoon in the House we heard National members pretending they had not sold 13000 State houses. Well we know how to spell “crocodile” and no one for a long time has believed that any of the tears on the faces of National members were other than hypocrisy. 
I would like to say to Dr Hutchison in particular—who spent a great deal of time talking about how tardy this Government was in correcting this unfortunate situation—and to his little acolytes that the history goes back somewhat further than he is remembering. I am not surprised institutional memory does not exist in his party given its various electoral results in recent times but I say to Dr Hutchison that he needs to get his research unit to work because he will be interested to know— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: You are about to find out if you would just listen big-ears. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Peter Gresham who was a National Government Minister in 1995—I say to Dr Hutchison that it was in 1995—had this policy issue investigated. Mr Gresham costed the correction this Government is now putting in place—apparently supported by the National Opposition although that is hard to believe when we hear the nonsense we are hearing—and he decided in 1995 not to do anything about it. I say to Opposition members that if they really believe that this is a policy step they need to do something about they should stop rabbiting on about it and support what is happening right now 11 years after their own member refused to take this step. I think that says the whole story. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on Part 2 “Amendments to the War Pensions Act 1954 and consequential amendments.” I was very much a passenger during the process of this bill through the House but I must admit that the way that the Minister approached his opportunity to articulate the meaningfulness of this bill brought to my memory some of the arguments made earlier on when it very much came down to a situation of tit for tat. 
When I look at Part 2 I see again that the Labour Government has been caught short while sitting on its hands and it has been judged wanting. When we look at the issue of the veterans we see this Labour Government has brought forward a generation of people in New Zealand who do not have a passion or a respect for the contribution that servicemen and women have made to New Zealand. It was an immense privilege to be present this year at Gallipoli and to experience the passion and the sense of nationhood that arises from being present at that ceremony. I would recommend that to all New Zealanders. 
However one cannot see past the fact that it is important to address the anomalies. There is very little difference between the circumstances of the case that Nick Smith took to the Human Rights Commission and the conditions we see amongst our veterans today. Those men and women are aged; they are getting on in years. No doubt at times they feel that we have forgotten them and do not value their contribution. It is interesting that in Marlborough the average age of our population is higher than normal. When elderly people come to see me they want the simple things to be done: cataracts hips and knees to be operated on and footpaths to be straightened. Those people were prepared to pay the ultimate price and put their lives on the line. The least that we can do for them is to treat them with the dignity they deserve and the respect they have earned. 
Jill Pettis 
: So why did you cut their pension in 1991? 
COLIN KING 
: That is a very interesting question. When one goes into an election being told there is a $2 billion surplus and then looks at the books and finds there is an $8 billion deficit one realises somebody has cooked the books and so does the fiscally prudent thing. I encourage the member to narrow down her comments to the bill as I will do. 
The interesting aspects that are coming in include the provisions relating to absences for up to 52 weeks with aid agencies. It is very appropriate to extend that period even though the honourable member Anne Tolley made a very fine point when asking why the amendment was for a period of over 2 years. I was quite comfortable with a period of 3 years but I did not sit on the select committee. I found the arguments put forward by my colleague Anne Tolley very informative and on that basis I bow to her experience. When the Minister takes another opportunity to get to his feet and speak I ask him to address the bill and to explain to us where the period of 3 years came from. 
It is interesting also to note that section 74H of the principal Act states that the chief executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade must determine any question that arises as to whether an aid agency fulfils the qualifications set out in the legislation. So when the Volunteer Service Abroad people go across the seas they still have to get approval. It makes me wonder whether if they have approval we should limit their time at all. I think that anybody who is prepared to leave these shores and serve where the need is great where education is short where a country’s economic well-being is tipped upside down and in turmoil is very similar to the veterans who have served our country so well and who will do so in the future. 
It gives me great pleasure to support this part of the bill. I take great comfort and support from the information and knowledge that has been so very evident on the Opposition side of the Chamber and lacking on the Government side. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on Part 2 which deals with amendments to the War Pensions Act of 1954 and consequential amendments to that Act. It is quite appropriate that Part 2 will deliver something in this the Year of the Veteran. Veterans have made a major contribution to New Zealand society. They are people whom we should honour and cherish right through their old age and until their dying days. 
I also want to acknowledge a lady who has not been mentioned so far in this debate—Barbara White. She is a lady who brought a petition to the Social Services Committee I believe it was 4½ years ago. I must say I think the Minister missed a splendid opportunity as the sponsor of this bill to pay tribute to that lady because it takes quite some bravery for a member of the public to come before a select committee and present a petition. I think we should acknowledge her contribution. 
I was disappointed that when the Minister spoke on this bill he did not take the opportunity to say something positive and Labour members degenerated into a stream of bile directed towards the National Party. This is legislation that all the parties are supporting and it will deliver something positive for New Zealanders. In the spirit of that legislation this is a good opportunity to say something positive. I note too that this bill deals with Volunteer Service Abroad issues. I have had the honour over the past week of going on the Pacific mission with the Minister of Foreign Affairs up to Vanuatu—an area of the Pacific that is really— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Did he behave himself? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well actually he did behave himself. He represented us with dignity. It was an insight into the workload of Ministers. I see one Minister over there reading a newspaper. I thought Ministers would be working all the time on the plane on the way up and they would have a big red box full of papers that they would be wading through. I would like to report the Minister watched  
Wedding Crashers 
 on the way up— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order that has nothing to do with the call. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: —and did the  
Cook Islands Times  
crossword on the way back. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order or I will terminate the member’s speech. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: To get back to the subject of Vanuatu and Volunteer Service Abroad Vanuatu is a region totally dependent on input from volunteers and there are a number of older New Zealanders who are putting something back into the community in their retirement years by serving in places like that. It gave me great pride as the member of Parliament for Northcote to be up there for the opening of the tuberculosis ward of the Vanuatu Hospital—a hospital staffed by Volunteer Service Abroad people in part. Members from my electorate were there and they had done a tremendous amount of work—including Mr Ron King from Birkenhead—in establishing that tuberculosis ward. It brought me a great deal of pride to be present as a member of Parliament at the opening of the ward but I digress slightly. 
To support the Pacific area we need to support our Volunteer Service Abroad workers. Many of those people are retired and I think it is a very positive thing that this bill will increase the entitlement for superannuitants who want to work in Volunteer Service Abroad from the current 1 year to 3 years. That is something pretty positive. But I want to make the point that has been alluded to previously that Mr Nick Smith has made a significant contribution in making sure this legislation came before the House. When we were talking about Part 1— 
Jill Pettis 
: What took him so long? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Sorry it is Dr Nick Smith. What took him so long? We have heard what took the Labour Government so long to get this here. We have covered that well I say to Mrs Pettis and this will not affect her pension entitlements. 
Jill Pettis 
: Good. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Good I know the member is very pleased about that. Dr Smith was a driving force in bringing this before the House and getting it here today. The point I made was that this was a National Party driven bill and it has now been picked up by the Government—very much in the same way that the National Party was going to take the petrol tax and put it straight into roading and lo and behold that is now Government policy. Very much in the same way that at the next election tax cuts will be Government policy as well. This is another example of National driving the agenda. 
I make a further point that if we had been able to deliver those tax cuts superannuitants would be better off by $1200 a year in the hand. The reason for that is that the pension is based on the average wage. We know that with the tax cuts that National will deliver for all New Zealanders the average wage will go up. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to you Mr Benson-Pope that with your eligibility for a pension in 4 years your pension will go up as well. So you will benefit and when you support tax cuts at the next election you will find that you will be better off too. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order you are bringing the Chairman into the debate. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk to Part 2 of the bill. In particular I want to talk about the removal of the reference to shared household expenses. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That’s a good point. 
NATHAN GUY 
: It is a very important point because removing this provision is extremely important for those elderly couples one of whom is living alone who have been struggling as costs continue to increase. Removing the reference to sharing household expenses in terms of the living alone payment will increase it for those single people by $20 a week. The projected cost is only $135000 in 2006 moving out to $150000 in 2008. 
The significant issue I believe is around the submission received from Age Concern New Zealand which stated: “While we acknowledge the proposed amendments through the bill improve the situation and make it fairer the changes do not address the fundamental issue which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from the Government to ensure that poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being.” We have seen interest-free student loans and Working for Families happen and the elderly over-65 superannuitants and the war pensioners have just been forgotten. This bill is finally progressing through the House now after 6 long years of National supporting it. It has taken 6 long years for this Government to get the bill to the House. 
I also touch on the voluntary work overseas of the Volunteer Service Abroad people who do a fantastic job. There are about 40 of them I believe who work overseas and do a fantastic job— 
Marian Hobbs 
: Why are you quibbling then about extending it to 3 years? 
NATHAN GUY 
: We have been waiting for the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson to take a call on this issue because we are unsure about it. The Minister has been silent on this issue I say to Ms Hobbs. We have been trying to understand and get the Minister to talk a call as to why it has increased to 3 years. Submitters were happy for it to be extended from 52 weeks out to 104; instead it is going out to 3 years. We would like the Minister to take a call so that we can understand exactly why that is so. The projected cost—about $266000 in 2006 moving out to about $300000 in 2008—is fantastic but we are still unsure why on earth the Government has chosen to move it out to 3 years when submitters came in and made submissions on extending it out to 2 years. We are still waiting for the Minister to take a call on that. 
This bill will allow about 2000 eligible people to age with dignity. It is great that the member for East Coast Ms Tolley has outlined some of the grey areas such as whether the residential home can be a granny flat. I heard her mention it could even be a caravan or a boat moored in seas within the New Zealand jurisdiction. This bill has taken 6 long years but finally it is here. National is here to support it after the good work that the honourable member from Nelson has done and the many other National Party colleagues who have spoken here tonight. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 We come now to the title discussion in this Committee stage of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I think the key point about this bill is that it restores dignity for the elderly. 
We had a situation with regard to Mr Page of Nelson where in order to get his single person entitlement under the legislation he would actually have had to divorce his wife who was in residential care. It really was a disgraceful situation that in order to meet economic needs someone would have had to go to the length of rejecting— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is to debate the title. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well I thought this was an opportunity for free— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a free-flowing debate but the member is bringing another issue out. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I thought it was related to the bill Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As long as the member relates that matter to the bill specifically that is so. But the member must mention the bill and how it relates to it. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The point I was making was that that gentleman Mr Page was the driving force behind this bill being brought to Parliament. That is why we are here. The bill could be called the “Mr Page of Nelson Bill” because as we know he was the one who contacted his local member of Parliament and that led to this bill being brought before the House. 
I think the other point to note is that this legislation is way overdue. It was quite some years ago that Mr Page got in touch with Dr Smith. He went to the Human Rights Commission and within a week this bill entered Parliament. 
I go back to the point about restoring dignity and I tell members that this bill affects one of the most vulnerable groups of people in New Zealand society: our elderly people. It also affects those who are probably the most honoured group in New Zealand society: veterans. I think we really owe an absolute debt of honour and gratitude to those people who quite selflessly served this nation in conflicts overseas. The very least they are due is to be able to receive their veterans pension now without having to crawl on their hands and knees and beg the Government to make an exception for them. 
This is a very positive day for older people in New Zealand and it is certainly a positive day for war veterans. I know that a lot of people throughout the country will be celebrating this bill and that a lot of those are actually people who have fallen maybe into a difficult period of their lives—a period when their lifelong partner their spouse may have been admitted to a residential care facility. But now this legislation gives them some hope and that is something we should celebrate. 
There was quite a lot of public outrage at the legislation as it is stood before in relation to the sharing of expenses rule. One of the problems with that was that it was way too strict and it was quite arbitrary. It was strict in the sense that any external contribution to a person’s income whether it was a donation from a local group from family or from friends actually compromised that person’s eligibility to receive his or her superannuation entitlement. But this bill now extends the eligibility for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation the living alone payment and the veterans pension to those whose spouse or partner is in long-term residential care in hospital or in a rest home. 
The bill also increases the period of time that people who are overseas can receive their pension or war veterans benefit from 1 year to 3 years if they choose to serve in Volunteer Service Abroad. I think as I have already stated earlier in the debate that that is absolutely an important contribution. It means that superannuitants are able to put something back by serving their fellow human beings overseas as aid workers. So that is important and it will really make a difference. 
The point I would make again which has been said several times is that Dr Nick Smith has been responsible for driving this legislation. The Government has picked it up very enthusiastically and I believe that we are seeing that trend across Parliament in a number of cases regarding legislation. Presently however in relation to the veterans pension legislation people with spouses or partners— 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I would like to speak to the title of this bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
In fact I was stopped short; I had wanted actually to speak to Part 2 “Amendments to War Pensions Act 1954 and consequential amendments” but we now have to go to the title. I was quite puzzled by the conversation about why the superannuation entitlement of 52 weeks was being increased to 3 years for those superannuitants or veterans who go and work overseas for voluntary aid organisations such as Volunteer Service Abroad. It is a bit of a puzzle and I would have liked to hear an explanation but unfortunately none was forthcoming. So it is a bit of a mystery why for that one thing this Government will be giving more not less and will be giving more than was asked for. It would be interesting to know the rationale behind that. 
The veterans are an important group. I am not familiar with Volunteer Service Abroad or other voluntary aid organisations but I am interested in the actual numbers of superannuitants or veterans who would want to work overseas for Volunteer Service Abroad or other such organisations. Are we talking huge numbers small numbers or what? I would like to know just so that I can get a sense of the contribution those people make to voluntary aid organisations. I think they deserve to be saluted for the selfless work they do in Third World countries. My colleague Jonathan Coleman was talking about Vanuatu. I have not been there but I hope to go in the near future and I will be looking at what those voluntary aid organisations do. Indeed I will look at how this bill will help those superannuitants and veterans who wish to travel to distant locations to work for not 1 year or 2 years—which is what they actually wanted the superannuation entitlement to cover—but up to 3 years. It is very puzzling indeed. 
I think it is also time to acknowledge—my colleague Jonathan Coleman was absolutely correct—Barbara White who brought a petition to Parliament and was instrumental in this legislation coming forward. She got 1500 signatures or thereabouts. Her petition was to broaden the eligibility criteria. The bill was considered by the Social Services Committee and its report was presented to Parliament in May. So Barbara White needs to be acknowledged for her contribution to this legislation as well as Mr Page who went through a lot of grief at the age of 91 when he was denied a living alone payment because his wife in care still recognised him. That was just bizarre—a bizarre situation. As my colleague Jonathan Coleman pointed out for Mr Page to get a living alone entitlement that couple would have had to divorce—which is just crazy—or to be de facto. As I said before if Mrs Page had been in prison or if the couple had been gay there would not have been an issue. It was quite bizarre outdated legislation and it is right that the new provision should come into Parliament and become law. 
The sharing expenses rule was a great cause of concern and distress among the New Zealand public and it is good that it has been remedied. There is no such bias any more for people who receive income from a family member or some other source. That is fair enough. 
 I think that overall this is a fair bill. It brings balance back. It acknowledges the fact that it is more expensive to live alone and also acknowledges the extra costs involved in looking after a loved one. It is very stressful having a partner or spouse in long-term residential care and this bill goes a long way to help the emotional state of the spouse or partner not in care. I agree wholeheartedly with that and I think the 2000 Mr Pages in this country would agree. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That’s for sure. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Absolutely. We have to thank Nick Smith. He was instrumental in getting this bill to come to this House. Mr Page went to Nick Smith and lobbied him. Nick Smith then went to the media but he got no traction on the issue and he had to go on Mr Page’s behalf to the Human Rights Commission in order that we could debate this bill here today. It will be passed and that is a very very good thing. This bill is for the 2000 Mr Pages and for all the superannuitants and veterans who want to do volunteer work in distant countries in Third World countries and give back something of what they have been given. Members must remember that these people have served their country either as veterans— 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on the title clause and draw to the Committee’s attention the fact that the bill is actually called the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill—which in itself is rather a mouthful. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Sorry what was it? I missed that! 
JOHN CARTER 
: I will not repeat that for the member; I am sure she is able to read it. But I just make this point: I am not sure that we have the title quite right. Somewhere in the title we should have the words “Thank Nick Smith and Mr Page.” Those words should be in the title because this bill would not be here if it were not for Nick Smith and the work he did on this whole issue. Nick Smith needs to be congratulated for making it happen. So I would suggest that the first thing we need to consider is whether we have the wording right in regard to saying that it is just about New Zealand superannuitants and New Zealand superannuation. I would suggest that if members had listened to this debate—and I have listened very closely—they would have heard that our members and others who spoke referred to the very very good work that our colleague Nick Smith did and the way in which he defended his constituent Mr Page. So that is the first thing we need to put into the title to ensure we have that aspect right. 
The second thing we really need to add to the title are the words “Lazy Tired Government.” That is what should be in there: “Lazy Tired”—and what about “Hopeless” as well? We could put those words into the title because they describe what has happened with this bill. How long has it taken for this Government to get around to doing this tiny little thing that is so important to so many people in New Zealand? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How long? Tell us how long! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well at the moment I am not sure. I heard 2 years then I heard 3 years and then I heard 6½ years. I think it is probably around about that time. So somewhere in this title we need to put in “Lazy Tired Hopeless 6½ Years of Socialist Government”. That is what we should be putting in the title because those are the sorts of words that people when they pick up this bill will need to identify it by. That is the easiest way by which people will identify it. If we are to be accurate in this Parliament—and I suggest that the National Party wants us to be—then we really need to describe what this bill is about. It is describing the inadequacies of this Government and the fact that its members do not care about our elderly folk. They seriously do not care. There they are—we have had to railroad them force them and drive them to take this stance on this bill. If it were not for Nick Smith and the National caucus the bill would not have happened; we would not have been debating it today. 
It is a good thing that this country has the National caucus here at all. Otherwise there would be some very distraught distressed elderly people as well as their children and their grandchildren. It would be a terrible place without this National caucus. We should probably put that in the title as well actually when I think about it. We should put words in the title such as “Thank Goodness for the National Caucus” as well. That would be appropriate. We could fit those words in. 
My mother is overseas at the moment but I know that she will be listening to this debate. She will have her earpiece in over in Brisbane where she is with my sister listening to this debate closely and saying: “There’s my boy working for me along with his colleagues from the National caucus. Thank goodness for the National caucus.” She knows that none of those socialists over on that side of the Chamber will get this issue sorted. It is only us who will do it. We are getting it sorted out for the elderly folk in this country. Elderly folk will be in their wheelchairs and their rest home beds tonight saying: “Thank goodness for the National caucus thank goodness for Don Brash thank goodness for Nick Smith—thank goodness for the National team.” 
Do members know what will really disappoint our elderly folk at the end of the day? When we finally put this bill through it will be called only the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Well that is just not good enough. Seriously if we have a title—and the title is meant to explain what this bill does and what we are debating—we need to add the words “Nick Smith” we need to add the words “National Party” and we need to add the words “Don Brash”. That would then appropriately reflect what this bill is all about. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I am just following on from the very valid contribution from the member for Northland. I am speaking to the title and there is no need for me to read it out is there? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No but what does it mean? 
NATHAN GUY 
: There is no need to I do not think. I think the amendment should be exactly what the member for Northland has just talked about—the great work the National Party caucus has done in bringing this bill to the House. It has taken 6½ years for this Government to get the bill to where it is today. If it were not for a constituent in Nelson and a very hard-working National MP the Hon Nick Smith doing great work these changes would not have been brought to where we are at today. 
This bill is all about allowing the over 65s to age with dignity. There are about 6000 war veterans in this country many of whom will be eligible for this measure when it comes through the House. There are about 2000 over-65-year-olds who will qualify for this measure when it goes through. It is all about long-term residential care whether it be in a hospital or in a rest home. These people are the forgotten sector of our society—they are the people who have been forgotten. Often they have served our country by going to war and then have been forgotten. I will be interested to see when we get to the next election—either in 2008 or before—whether the Labour Party will consider buying this sector of votes as it did with the Working for Families package and interest-free student loans. 
But these are wise folk. These are people who have worked hard in New Zealand and they deserve to get something better than what they are getting now. We will be interested to see and hear about the golden age card that New Zealand First is proposing and whether it will make an iota of difference. This over-65s group are wise people. They are a bit cynical about any sort of a golden age card—whether it will deliver cheaper power or a reduction in fuel costs. 
David Bennett 
: What power? 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right—what power? We saw the crisis yesterday in the top half of the North Island. The power supply was diabolical because of a dilapidated infrastructure investment over the last 6½ years. Many of our war pensioners have been shivering in their homes because of a shonky Government not investing in infrastructure. There are some big issues that we will have to address when we get on to the Treasury benches in the next term. 
So just to sum up this bill is about allowing the aged sector to age with dignity with the support of this bill. It is a shame it has taken 6½ years to get here. These people deserve better—the ones who have gone to war for this country and those who have been forgotten and neglected. This bill goes some way to addressing that—it provides about $60 when I look at this chart here. It is interesting is it not that one now has to be married or in a civil union. The chart shows that the net wage for a married or civil unionised couple—that is very modern language—will move from $203 to $263. That is an increase of $60 which is fundamental for a sector that has been forgotten. I am happy to support this bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill  
divided into New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper35. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Historic Places Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As the National minority report on the Historic Places Amendment Bill states National opposes this bill. We have two primary concerns with it. The first relates to the board membership which results in a predominance of ministerial appointments—increased from three out of 11 to six out of nine. I submit that is completely contrary to the scheme of all the legislation that has dealt with historic places in this country from the time of the establishment of the Historic Places Trust in 1954. 
Perhaps a little bit of legislative history is required to show just exactly what I am talking about. On 20 July 1954 the then Acting Minister of Internal Affairs Mr Holyoake moved the second reading of the Historic Places Bill. In  
Hansard 
 Volume 303 at page 554 he discussed the membership of what was then to be called the National Historic Places Trust. It was to be a very carefully constructed membership of 11 members. The two departments directly concerned were to be represented by the Secretary for Internal Affairs and the Director-General of Lands then a number of other persons were to represent the various interest groups around the country. 
Mr Duncan Rae the then member for Parnell—a good National member who was responsible for that legislation—in his second reading speech at page 557 emphasised the importance of a good mix when it came to the membership of the trust. He said that the chairman of the trust should be elected by the trust and not be a Government officer or an officer of a department. Further on he stated: “We strongly feel that the Trust should be seen to be not just another branch of a busy Department for in such a situation there will not be the financial nor material support coming forward that we hope the Trust will have.” That is the reason why there were 11 members on the board which was made up of representatives of various interest groups and above all was not dominated by ministerial appointments. 
The same theme emerged in 1992 when the Historic Places Bill was the subject of debate. I refer to what the Hon Denis Marshall said in  
Hansard 
 
Volume 524 at page 7859. He said that the trust board was to be reduced from 15 to 10 members and that the positions representing Government departments were to be abolished as were to be a number of other nominated provisions. He emphasised the voluntary nature of the Historic Places Trust and the huge contribution made to the preservation of historic sites and historic buildings by enormous numbers of people throughout the country. He said: “the trust is not merely a statutory quango. It has more than 23000 fee-paying members and an effective body of voluntary workers who form a network of district committees.” That is why section 42 of the Historic Places Act 1993 sets out the board membership that it does: a person who is to be appointed chairperson two persons who are Maori and have skills or knowledge appropriate to the functions of the trust three persons who are to be elected by the trust’s members and five persons who have various other skills. 
But what we have in the proposed amendment to section 42 is the creation of a statutory quango—one that is dominated by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. National says that is thoroughly undesirable. Six members should not be appointed by the Minister with three elected by members of the trust. If anything it should be the other way round. The volunteerism and the contribution made by huge numbers of volunteers throughout the country need to be recognised. What we are saying traces back to the very foundations of the then National Historic Places Trust in the mid-1950s. That is one of the primary reasons why National is totally opposed to this part of the bill. It undermines the principle of volunteerism. It more or less discards the huge contribution of volunteers to the preservation of our historic sites and historic buildings over the last 50 years and simply puts in its place a statutory quango. That is totally unsatisfactory. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I follow on from my learned colleague in opposition to this part on a number of grounds. The first one which is totally fundamental to our opposition relates to the principle of democracy. Democracy has but one weakness: it requires participation. The only reason people become involved in a Crown advisory organisation such as the Historic Places Trust which I guess could be described loosely as a non-governmental organisation is that they feel as though they will be carrying out a meaningful occupation or use of their time. When the State intervenes in the way proposed in this bill which will reduce the number of elected board members—those people in the public sector who are seen to be learned enough to be involved in such an organisation—from 11 to nine and imposes on an organisation those whom it deems to be suitable persons rather than acting in partnership which this Government talks about at great length then we have a total undermining of the very essence of why people get involved in organisations such as this one. 
This Government needs to step back from its socialist roots for 5 minutes ask why New Zealand has been so successful under successive democratically elected Governments and compare this country with nations around the world where the total dominance of the State has had a major role. It should adopt that principle right here in this legislation and move away from its “we know best” attitude. The Government thinks its members in Wellington the learned left of the Labour caucus know best when it comes to what a historic place is. It thinks they know how to dominate the scene as it were in terms of what is significant to protect. 
The Government thinks its members in Wellington who aspire absolutely to the principles of Moscow or of foreign nations other than those that New Zealanders love should tell the people of the Historic Places Trust how they should manage their business. What is worse is that the Government will find a Minister who of course has no knowledge at all of these issues or will certainly not be from mainstream New Zealand and it will appoint that person to be the sole guardian of what happens with regard to those activities. [ 
Interruption 
] 
 I say to the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard who is trying to interject to take a call explain the Government’s point of view and win the debate; do not just ram it through with numbers in an undemocratic way. She should stand up and tell us why she thinks this is the best way forward for the Historic Places Trust. Up to this point in time nobody on this side of the Chamber has been able to receive or understand a reasonable explanation as to how this bill will bring about a panacea to determining the issue of what the average New Zealander would see as a historic place—that is something that should be preserved. 
I give the Minister the example I gave in the first reading of this bill. In Taranaki there are multiple dairy factory sites. Those dairy factories were built by English engineers generally speaking and were designed to last for 400 years. They were used for about 60 or 70 years and then abandoned by the industry. That was the industry’s decision. Most of them are now in private ownership. Those buildings could be deemed to be historic but they are not. They are all being bowled over one after the other. It is quite probably the right thing to do but because the workforce in those factories was predominantly Maori there are bound to be buried Maori artefacts around them. The building itself may not be historic but the artefacts probably are; I do not know. 
Of course at the end of the day under the regime that is being proposed in this bill one of those things or the other could be deemed to be historic. Therefore any major development that is likely to go ahead in the Taranaki area could be halted or otherwise have a further compliance cost placed on it because some ministerial group in Wellington—which would not even know where Taranaki is let alone know what an abandoned dairy factory might be like or know about any artefacts that may be buried around it—will be able to say that should happen. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 One of the standards by which we need to judge political parties is the consistency of their stance and particularly their philosophical consistency. I want to give a bit of background to the point I am trying to make. Recently I was reading the report back from the Education and Science Committee on the Education Standards Bill from some years ago. Alec Neill gave the bill its name. One of the things that bill did was to set up the New Zealand Teachers Council and one of the things it charged the council to do was to establish a code of ethics for teachers. 
The original bill said that the code of ethics then had to be approved by the Minister. New Zealand First I have to say to Mr Ardern was able to convince the Labour Party to step back from its socialist roots in the name of professionalism and to come away from that particular stance. New Zealand First was even able to convince the Alliance to step back from its ultra-socialist roots. We were not able to convince National to move back. The minority report states that National insisted that the Minister should have to approve the code of standards for teachers that was established by that body. 
Now I come to this particular bill and I ask where the consistency is in National’s stance. National is saying that rather than outside organisations having the majority power to appoint members to a body that is really fulfilling national tasks or the Government’s tasks and certainly it is funded largely through the taxpayer—that no no it should not be the elected representatives of the people who put those people on the board—it should in fact be people who have been elected by some 25000 members of bodies. New Zealand First says there is an inconsistency in National’s stance on both of those positions. 
The second inconsistency is that this bill will cut the number of members of the Historic Places Trust. We hear day after day members from that side of the Chamber saying that we need to cut back on the number of people in such positions across the board. We have all these so-called party hacks who are being put up to those positions they are costing the taxpayer oodles and oodles of money and it is irresponsible to the taxpayer. Yet when the Government finally comes up with some legislation to cut the numbers National says: “No no you can’t do that. We’ve got to keep the numbers as high as possible.” What New Zealand First is saying is that there is a total inconsistency in the position that the Opposition has taken. It is trying to play the old first-past-the-post politics. The Opposition still does not understand that we are now in an era of MMP. We have been since 1996. It is something that the National Opposition still does not seem to understand. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Is that what this speech is all about? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: It is not about that. It is about the fact that National has not come to grips with MMP. New Zealand First has come to grips with MMP. We heard in the debate on the last bill how National had achieved something. We will give it full credit for achieving that. The one thing that National has achieved in 7 years is that it has led a debate quite justifiably around some legislative changes that were needed. That is the one thing that all the people who voted for National have got. For the people who voted for National in 1999 in 2002 and in 2005 that is it. That is as good as it gets. National is being inconsistent in its approach. It is not trying to play constructive politics which MMP demands. New Zealand First says that that will not help things. [ 
Interruption 
] At least I did not have to go back to Holyoake to get my quotes. 
There is another part of this bill that New Zealand First completely and utterly agrees with. It is the part that changes the definition of the members who are to be appointed under it. I want to read what the clause says: “At least 3 of the persons appointed under subsection(1)(b) must in the opinion of the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs be qualified for appointment having regard to their knowledge of te ao Maori (Maori worldview) and tikanga Maori (Maori protocol and culture).” 
New Zealand First totally agrees with that way of putting legislation. The focus is upon the knowledge the understanding and the skills that are to be brought to the task rather than on the ethnicity. I am speaking of this because there is a Green Party amendment that says the persons who are appointed under this particular legislation have to be ethnically Maori. The logic of this is that Kiri Te Kanawa could not sit on the board of National Opera of New Zealand because she is not Italian. When we think about it she does not have Italian genes. That is exactly the same logic that is behind this particular provision. We know that Inia Te Wiata was an expert in opera. He also carved the pou at New Zealand House. I have heard from people in the know and I could be wrong but I am just saying this—it is something I have heard; it is hearsay—that he did not have a great deal of knowledge about carving and the history and traditions behind carving. The logic of this says that he should be able to have input into an area that he did not have a great deal of expertise in because of his ethnicity but he should not be able to be on the board of any organisation that was making decisions around opera in which he was world renowned. 
We could take it even further—to the stupidity of the logic that flows from this amendment. Turi Carroll could not have become Acting Prime Minister of New Zealand given that the Westminster system grew from the British experience. That is how stupid this particular legislation is. In fact it probably also says that the 80 percent of the Kiwi rugby league team who are Samoan should not be able to play rugby league because it was born in the north of England. That is ludicrous and it is ludicrous to define who can or cannot sit on boards because of the peculiarities of their DNA. It is their life experiences and the knowledge that comes from that which is the important factor. New Zealand First has to confer with the wording of this part of the bill because it is something that we and particularly our leader have been arguing for for many many years. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would just like to draw attention to two amendments that the Green Party has proposed to the Historic Places Amendment Bill. The first one as the previous speaker pointed out is an amendment to clause 19 to require a person who is representing Maori on the Historic Places Trust to be Maori. This bill proposes that a person who represents Maori on the Historic Places Trust no longer has to be Maori. The Historic Places Trust the Maori Heritage Council and other submitters opposed this but the Government Administration Committee chose to ignore their submissions. What this really does is set a new precedent for what is Maori. This precedent once established in this legislation could extend throughout legislation in New Zealand. No justification or reason for this redefinition of what is Maori is given. We can only assume that it is part of the post-Orewa backlash. The implication is that non-Maori can advocate for Maori issues just as well as Maori can. This is like saying that we no longer need to have women in various positions—that we can just have men as long as they have a bit of an understanding about women’s issues. 
As many have pointed out the submitters said basically that in order to be Maori one needs to have whakapapa. The Maori Heritage Council said that whakapapa is the foundation of Maori identity as tangata whenua and that it is crucial that the relationship between Maori and their historic and cultural heritage is retained. The Greens agree with that so we think this is really just a new and completely unjustified redefinition of what is Maori. In fact the bill comes up with an entirely new definition of who is Maori and who is not. Maybe all Pakeha could be on the Maori roll in the future as long as they have a knowledge of what is Maori. 
The other amendment is to clause 16. Under this bill the Historic Places Trust board would be given discretion about whether it would impose an interim protection order when it is publicly notifying a review of a change of category—say from category 1 to category 2 status. We are concerned that giving the board this discretion could effectively amount to a loophole that would mean that in the future the board would not have to impose any interim protections or injunctions. So we have a very small but important amendment that states that the trust would have to issue a protection order unless it put up a very good reason as to why it would not want to do that. This would mean that it would not be absolutely necessary to require a protection measure for historic places undergoing a category review but that if the trust did not do that it would have to give a good reason for doing so. This amendment eliminates what could effectively be a loophole and says the trust has to put up reasons when it will no longer provide protection measures for historic places. 
We need to remember that in this bill we should really be doing a fundamental review of the Historic Places Trust. We should be asking ourselves why so much of our heritage has been bulldozed while the Historic Places Trust has been in place. Why is the trust so toothless? Why have entire sections of our country been bowled while the Historic Places Trust has wrung its hands and apparently done nothing? Really we should in this bill be giving the trust some teeth and some strength in order to really protect our heritage. It is unfortunate that the bill does not do that. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 In relation to the tirade that Brian Donnelly subjected the House to I want to quote a past colleague of his Jim Peters who I think was a very worthy member of this House and who said during the first reading of this bill: “The Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who introduced the bill spoke about the excellent work done by the chairperson of the board. Furthermore the previous member told us about the numbers of volunteers out there who are doing excellent work. All of that would presuppose that the Historic Places Trust Act passed by the National Party Government in 1993 which includes all these issues”—and there are others he referred to—“had no need of amendment.” Then he asks: “So why is there an amendment bill before us with a few little issues for us to look at?”. 
So I just want to try to cover what I thought was a tirade by Brian Donnelly—a lot of which was totally off this bill. National is very clear as to why we oppose it. Brian Donnelly represents a party that supposedly sits in the middle—although of course since its coalition with the Labour Government it probably sits more on the left now. National is very clear about the value of having people from the community contributing to this very important area of our history. Our opposition in relation to the membership of the board is about the undue weight that will now be given to those members who are appointed by the Government. 
That was never the case before. Now the membership of the board will reduce and the majority of the members will be appointed by the Government. That smacks of typical socialist interference and nothing that has happened to date since the original bill was enacted would suggest that that is a necessary amendment. I would have thought that Brian Donnelly whose party supposedly sits in the middle and is supposedly the people’s party—that is how their leader likes to represent it—would have seen the error of this Government’s amendment in this way. There will be a reduction in members and the majority will now be appointed by the Government. It will put its cronies on. I would have thought that Brian Donnelly would not want that but clearly he has totally sold out to the left because it suits them at this point. But it is a disappointment nonetheless. 
He has tried to misrepresent National’s position. Our position is purely that we recognise that the Act as it stands worked well. It had a majority of people not appointed by the Government. It worked well. The Minister even recognised that in her first reading speech yet here we have typical socialist Labour Government beefing up the membership by their own appointments. There is no call for it. Nothing that has happened in the last decade has shown that that was necessary. We oppose the bill steadfastly on that point and we will not be moved from that. There is no need for it. 
The other reason of course which my colleagues have already referred to relate to the issues around wahi tapu. I just want to refer to the contribution given by the Green member Sue Kedgley. They seek to have the current position in the Act retained by which the members must be Maori. Brian Donnelly can demean or rubbish the suggestion that ethnicity is not necessarily important but if one looks at the provisions in the Act that talk about wahi tapu and the need for the trust to make judgments around wahi tapu one can see that it would be very difficult indeed—and National is still open on this matter—if one did not have Maori blood whakapapa because so many of the issues surrounding wahi tapu do depend in my view on an understanding of those genealogical links. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on Part 1 of the Historic Places Amendment Bill because there has been a great deal of rather confused debating on the issue. This legislation is about strengthening the Historic Places Trust which has had significant funding increases over the 6½ years of this Labour-led Government. I thank the Hon Brian Donnelly for his support in this work because he too cares about New Zealand’s heritage particularly our built heritage. 
I understand how anxious people are that those with an interest in heritage across New Zealand are well represented at this important organisation. But I was truly astonished when the National Party described Dame Anne Salmond John Acland Tumu te Heuheu Te Aue Davis and the other astonishingly able New Zealanders as Government cronies. It is just a ludicrous idea that those people whom I had the honour to appoint in many cases are Government cronies. It is truly astonishing. 
I point out to the National Party that the Hon Nick Smith when he was Minister of Conservation and in charge of the Historic Places Trust did a really important and useful thing. He forced the Historic Places Trust to regionalise. As a result we now have much stronger regional organisations in the trust. Unfortunately the Hon Nick Smith was never able to persuade the National Government to properly fund the Historic Places Trust. As a result although the trust regionalised it then had severe problems at the central level with delivering on the increased interest that New Zealanders expressed across New Zealand about preserving our historic places. So in this legislation we are making sure that the vastly increased funding is properly accounted for and that the Historic Places Trust as a result of the important work it is doing regionally can come back and advise the Government. The role of the Historic Places Trust is less hands-on now and much more about advising the Government—and indeed select committees and other groups—about the policy we need in order to extend this work. 
One fabulous example I can give the Committee is the work the Historic Places Trust did in preserving the Kerikeri Basin. We now have significant funding going into a roading project there because the stone store and the camp house were severely at risk of being washed away in a flood. The vibrations of the massive amount of traffic going round and across the bridge over the fiord were causing severe damage. This area is an important part of New Zealand’s heritage. The Historic Places Trust is applying that sort of analysis to the risk that much of our heritage faces and it is coming back to the Government with sensible proposals including policy changes relating to how we can do better in this whole area. 
So we should give credit where credit is due but the funding needs to be accounted for. This Government is determined to go on representing those fabulous volunteers across New Zealand who are the people who make the local decisions and making sure that that is defended and supported with Government money and good policy. That is what this legislation is about. The idea that the people who are appointed by the Government to the Historic Places Trust are Government cronies is frankly offensive and I really do take deep exception to that. 
I go on to the other issue raised by the National Party which was around wahi tapu. I say to National members that I am astonished at this attack on places like burial sites sites associated with births deaths and other major occasions sites associated with ritual and ceremonial worship healing places and battle sites. I am astonished that those places because they are important to Maori should somehow be opposed. I find it astonishing that the National Party is attacking those places. 
Last but not least I say to National members that I was at a forum in Auckland where two of the National Party spokespeople on this area gave an undertaking to Auckland people who were interested in heritage and culture that there would not be stupid petty party-political attacks on pieces of major important legislation to do with our cultural and heritage well-being. I am disgusted at the sorts of attacks that are coming from National members. It is like the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill all over again. We had to ring the National Party leader because this group of idiots was saying to us that they were going to oppose that bill. It is time the National Party took a responsible attitude to our heritage. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairman. Kia ora tatou i te Whare. There are a number of issues that I would like to speak to in respect of the Historic Places Amendment Bill but I would also like to speak in general terms about our concerns as to where this Government is taking things in respect of Maori. I am talking about the Budget where the increase for things Maori was minus—there was nothing for Maori in the Budget. I am talking about the fact that Te Puni Kokiri’s primary function of monitoring has been dropped away to almost zero—to a point where its role in determining whether other agencies are delivering to Maori has been reduced to zilch. I can think of a situation where the Government is determining what will now be a powhiri and what will not be a powhiri and what will be a whakatau and what will be a powhiri. 
In this bill Labour has decided to take out the requirement for there to be Maori on the board and instead put in people who are not Maori. To give non-Maori the opportunity to be appointed to those positions flows very much with Labour’s policy of the ongoing demeaning of Maori. I point across to my own colleagues Mr Dover Samuels and Mr Mahara Okeroa both Associate Ministers who when their Minister was out of the country were not even given the opportunity to speak to those portfolios. It seems as though this Government is quite happy to use Maori in its various performing functions but when it comes to delivering for Maori it is simply not there. 
I also look at what is happening with this Government in terms of the bureaucracy it is growing here and the philosophy it has of recentralising control into the hands of Government departments. I am thinking in terms of prisons. The Government shut down the private prison that was doing a better job than that done by State prisons for more than 100 years. One private guy was given the opportunity to run a private prison. He did a good job and the prison was shut down. I think of the district health boards and of how the Government is recentralising a lot of the regional contracts back into the hands of those boards and increasing the conflict of interest by allowing the funder to also be the provider. I think of the education contracts that used to be out with kura and that are now being taken back into the colleges of education— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I come back to this bill Mr Chairperson and refer to people who are not Maori determining whether the board is acting in the best interests of Maori. That is like assuming that rats born in a kennel know what it is like to be a dog. It is the silliest argument I have ever heard. Yes the Minister can talk about Tumu te Heuheu and about Te Aue Davis. And yes they are rangatira—there is no question about that—but no longer are they guaranteed positions on the board she is talking about. So I ask her please not to talk about them as though they are great and important people if she is not prepared to recognise them in legislation. In fact not only is she not prepared to recognise them in legislation but she has deliberately taken them out through her legislation. So we do not accept that this bill is in the best interests in any way shape or form of advancing the interests of Maori people in terms of historic places. 
Neither do I see apart from the giving of a little bit more money where the bill strengthens the activities of the Historic Places Trust or the board—simply because I note from the comments made by the board itself the Historic Places Trust and the trust’s Maori Heritage Council that the Minister did not even bother to listen to the recommendations they made. I think it is important that those issues be pointed out because the Maori Party stands to defend the rights of Maori at all times. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 As that matter has been raised by a number of speakers I will address it directly. The State Services Commission now recommends that rather than define the racial characteristics we require of individuals we describe the interests and the knowledge we require of individuals to apply to legislation. 
One of the points I would like to make is that some 5 years ago when I was asked by Cabinet to seek a new chair for the Historic Places Trust I went to a number of kaumatua and kuia around Auckland and New Zealand and asked them for their opinion of who would make a good chair of the trust. This trust is absolutely vital to all New Zealanders for all of our shared heritage and for all of the heritage that each group brought to New Zealand both before and after the Treaty of Waitangi. Dame Anne Salmond was recommended to me by Maori leaders as somebody who understood the shared heritage and indeed who had done a great deal to explain to Pakeha the importance of for example Maori oral history. I am not suggesting that Dame Anne Salmond alone should represent Maori views but I do not agree that anyone required as in this legislation to have knowledge of Maori heritage and Maori spiritual values should necessarily be Maori. 
Indeed on the subject of Maori being excluded I want to point out one of the other changes that was made in 1993 by Doug Graham and others to create the Maori Heritage Council as a body equal with the Historic Places Trust. So Maori are represented in this organisation as an integral part of the organisation and the legislation that defines the purpose of this legislation states that Maori heritage is central to it. Again I want to thank the Hon Brian Donnelly for his lucid support of this legislation. No not everybody on the Historic Places Trust agreed with that change but this legislation does bring it into line with other legislation. 
I want to address the other issue that is on the Green member Sue Kedgley’s Supplementary Order Paper which is that the trust must apply section 194 of the Resource Management Act to an application. I am not ever happy that we force registration on every owner. We are getting to the stage where I think New Zealanders genuinely do take pleasure and see value in historic heritage registrations but I am not happy that given that the Government Administration Committee considered this matter the Green Party now wants to change the bill without proper consideration. We can do a lot of damage in this kind of legislation. We sometimes find people refusing for example to divulge heritage values because they fear it will limit their commercial and ownership rights. I am very happy of course to promote the Supplementary Order Paper that I propose which merely changes the date but in general I am opposed to those amendments proposed by the Green Party because the select committee did not find in favour of them. With those comments I commend this bill to the Committee. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I stand to speak against the Historic Places Amendment Bill. I am disappointed that the bill has come to this Committee stage still containing the aspects that were previously considered unsatisfactory by this side of the Chamber. I guess to some extent the reality is that in expecting change from the present Government with its ideological mindset it is the expectancy that is at fault for it is clear that the Government is locked in pursuing not the interests of Parliament of a balanced debate or of the country but only its own ideological programme. 
If we needed any clearer indication of the Government’s being besotted with its own agenda to the exclusion of all else we need only examine its response to the power blackout of yesterday. At best its response could be described as bland. It is as if the Government would prefer that the blackout had not happened but as it has happened has no intention of accepting ministerial responsibility or acknowledging that it is looking at a symptom of infrastructural disease caused by the last 6 years of neglect. Fixing this sort of problem is not on the ideologically driven agenda of Labour. 
How do we see the Government’s ideological bent displayed on this particular issue? The unacceptable and unexplained part of the bill is the sweeping change to the membership of the Historic Places Trust in two ways. Firstly the number of trustees is being reduced from eleven to nine. Secondly of the nine trustees six will be appointed by the Minister. Why does the Minister need to have such a dominant effect on the appointment of trustees? My caucus colleagues have given details of the initial legislation that brought this trust into being. It was never perceived to be a plaything of a Minister. 
The Government seems intent on taking control of every aspect of life it can in ever-increasing measures. Indeed I was told the other day [ 
Interruption 
]—and the party Mr Donnelly belongs to helps the Government—by someone on the West Coast a really good philosophical West Coaster that there are not many avenues in life left where the Government has left any life. The Government consumes everything and this measure is akin to many of the regulatory stands it has taken—for instance the food and safety regulations. Increasingly Government-controlled agencies seek to permeate the fibre of our society to ever greater degrees coming ever closer to controlling individuals in each aspect of their lives—because that I think is what it would like to do. 
The change to ministerial control of this trust is not justified. It is not even explained beyond the statement that it “better reflects the funding arrangements” for the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. This completely overlooks the value of having independent trustees and the time-honoured checks and balances and the input that independent trustees bring to organisations. 
Another concern with regard to these appointments is that it is now a matter of compulsion not just that three members have expertise in matters Maori but that three members be Maori. Again it is not the aspect of ethnicity that concerns me; it is the Government— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: That’s not exactly consistent with what Georgina was saying. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The member has not let me finish but then he never does. It is consistent with what Georgina has said because my concern is not—as I was just saying—with the ethnicity of the make-up of the trust; it is with the Labour Party’s absolute fixation with compulsion. It permeates everything. I heard today that it will now be compulsory for people to declare when their dog dies and that those who do not do so will face a $100 fine. I have not verified it yet but I understand that that is to happen. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 33 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 16 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 33 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 19 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills progress on the Historic Places Amendment Bill and no progress on the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.