Volume 647 Week 74 - Tuesday 13 May 2008 
Volume 647 Week 74 - Tuesday 13 May 2008 
[Volume:647;Page:15833] 
Tuesday 13 May 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Chamber—Sound 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt but I could not hear any of what the Clerk was communicating to us. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I know that members have not seen each other for a while but perhaps they could keep their conversations to a minimal level or take them into the lobby. I will also ask those responsible for the sound system to check that it is in fact operating properly. 
Questions to Ministers 
Income Tax—Fiscal Drag 
1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the total extra income tax revenue he has collected because of fiscal drag since becoming Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 According to Inland Revenue Department estimates $1.49 billion in total from 2000 to 2006 which represents 0.5 percent of tax receipts over that period. For the year 2006-07 the estimate is a further $250 million on top of that. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister of Finance accept that if he allowed for the effect of inflation on bracket creep he would have to give people on the average wage an extra $35 a week just to take them back to where they were before he became Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Based on Inland Revenue Department advice definitely not. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What is the total amount by which taxes have been cut in recent Budgets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Recent Budgets have delivered over $4.6 billion a year in tax cuts to families business and savers. I note again that the National Party voted against all those tax cuts and I expect it will vote against further tax cuts next week. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether you are aware from there but the speakers down this end are very very low and we cannot hear. We hear with difficulty at the best of times but I ask whether something could be done about the speakers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I said I have asked those who are responsible for the sound system to look at it but in the meantime we just may have to be a little quieter in order to hear each other. 
Rodney Hide 
: What tax cut does the Minister believe then that a person on the average wage without children would have to have in order to compensate for the extra tax he or she has paid as a consequence of bracket creep? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Real post-tax net income in New Zealand has risen over the last 6 or 7 years. The member will have to wait until Thursday next week and I look forward to his voting for tax cuts next Thursday afternoon. I think that the ACT party probably has a more principled position on these matters than the National Party. 
John Key 
: Which set of journalists is the Government being honest with: the ones it is spinning to that tax cuts will not start till 1 April or the ones it is spinning to that actually tax cuts will start on 1 October—or is the correct answer “none” in the same way that it was not honest with any of them about what Toll Holdings cost to buy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: From a man who once pretended to be a great international financial market speculator that shows he does not know that companies carry debt. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the introduction of a tax-free threshold the most effective way of delivering tax relief to those on low and modest incomes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I previously thought it would be and indeed advice was developed along those lines to Cabinet. But officials are making it clear that up to 90 percent of people on incomes below $18000 per annum are to be characterised as being on temporary low taxable income or on benefits or superannuation for which the tax rate at that level is not a particularly important factor. There is an excellent discussion of this matter in a book called  
Unfinished Business 
 by apparently the late Sir Roger Douglas given that somebody pretending to bear his name has put out a completely different policy this afternoon. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister accept that if he had adjusted the tax bracket thresholds for inflation between 1 April 2000 and 1 April 2008 as I have been advocating for some years now he would be leaving in excess of $1 billion in the purses and pockets of Kiwi taxpayers in this fiscal year compared with the present position? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think from the figures I gave previously the number would be somewhere around $1.8 billion which clearly does not translate into a tax cut of $38 a week unless one structures that in quite an unusual fashion. 
Finance Minister—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: How can she have confidence in a Minister who first promised then cancelled personal income tax cuts in 2005 saying that they were “only small” and were “not worth having” when he is doing it all again—promising personal income tax cuts that are small and probably not worth having and no doubt plotting to cancel them soon after the election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Finance is promising sensible sustainable and realistic tax cuts. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition doing the ultimate flip-flop and voting for a policy he supports—tax cuts. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does the ability of the Minister of Finance to express a view on issues such as the purchase of assets that is consistent with Government policy contribute to the Prime Minister’s confidence in him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. As a leader it is important to know that one’s deputy is not contradicting one publicly—and indeed vice versa. The Prime Minister certainly would not like to be in the position of the Leader of the Opposition who constantly has to overrule his finance spokesperson. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister said that her Minister of Finance’s tax cuts will be to quote him a few seconds ago “sustainable” is that a bit like the rest of the Government’s sustainable promises—huge promises delayed for 2 years soon to be cancelled and the only thing they get to take home with them is a 7-series BMW? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is a bit rich for Mr Key to attack BMWs; he carries one in the boot of his own car! 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister’s Minister of Finance promised tax cuts in 2005 but cancelled them in 2007 because they were unaffordable although they would have cost under $500 million why is her Minister of Finance promising tax cuts next week costing well in excess of $2 billion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member can make up whatever figure he likes at this particular time but I can tell him that the tax cuts will be legislated for. He will have the chance to put his mouth where his money is—or vice versa as the case may be in his example. I look forward to his once again voting against tax cuts just as he has voted against every tax cut under this Government. 
John Key 
: If the driving force behind the Government’s tax cuts is not that it is election year and Labour is 15 points behind in the polls could the Prime Minister explain why her Government did not cut taxes when surpluses were large inflation was low and it was capable of doing it but now seems hell-bent on cutting taxes when surpluses are reducing and inflation is at least above the Reserve Bank target? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly now the Leader of the Opposition is arguing we should not have tax cuts because the surplus is coming down and inflation is relatively high; he is about to build up the argument as to why there should be no tax cuts. Whatever position the Government takes he takes the opposite position except that 6 months later he says “That actually was my position all the way along.” 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister remember her Minister of Finance in 2005 on the campaign trail going what can be described only as troppo because the National Party had promised $2 billion worth of personal tax cuts at a time when the surplus was large and inflation was relatively low yet in a week’s time he is about to promise tax cuts that are even larger than that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have made it clear for something like a year now that there will be tax cuts in the 2008 Budget. They will be sustainable. They will have some implications for ongoing Government spending. I look forward to the National Party voting for those tax cuts and winding back on the very large spending promises that it has already made. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm for New Zealand taxpayers today that their tax cut next week under her Government will at least be more than $30 per week given that they are facing interest rates having doubled under Labour fuel prices having gone through the roof the cost of filling up their supermarket trolley having gone through the roof and every other cost having gone up; or is the No. 1 priority of her Government to get more bureaucrats for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and buying a train set for hundreds of millions dollars more than it is worth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We will take the last point. This man dismisses the desire of the great majority of New Zealanders for an effective rail system by calling it “buying a train set”. I think the member should get with the message: people want an effective rail system in this country they want a decent health system and they want a decent education system. That member is promising to spend billions of dollars to subsidise Telecom! 
Working for Families—Number of Families Benefiting 
3.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received regarding the number of families benefiting from Working for Families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Prime Minister and I launched a new evaluation of Working for Families which shows that 371000 families received Working for Families tax credits in the last tax year. Working for Families was designed to significantly reduce poverty and early results show that it is reaching families and is making a difference. Forty-six percent of those families were beneficiaries and three-quarters of those families had incomes under $50000. Our Government is committed to continuing to support New Zealand families and we will continue to identify ways to target support at those most in need. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has she seen regarding the Government’s progress in reducing the number of families living in poverty? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen and welcome a report from the Child Poverty Action Group which indicates that child poverty in New Zealand is the result of policies implemented by the National Government in the 1990s. The report identifies areas of progress made by this Government including “substantial reductions in poverty as a result of the Working for Families package”. It also identifies areas where there is still work to do to eliminate child poverty and our Government is firmly committed to continuing that work. I have seen a number of responses that welcome the focus on child poverty but there has been a noticeable silence from the National Party—perhaps because it wants to hide its current policy that would freeze benefit rates and refuse emergency support to those in need. 
Judith Collins 
: How can this Minister be so out of touch with ordinary Kiwis that she can give those sorts of answers when 80000 children go to school hungry every single day—and whatever happened to the Agenda for Children and the 2002 pledge to end child poverty? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am delighted to continue to report to the House on the reduction in the number of children in New Zealand families who are living in poverty. That number is estimated to be 130000 fewer children than when that member’s party was leading the Government. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why does the Government continue to think that Working for Families is working for beneficiary families when a Ministry of Social Development report released last weekend shows that the value of the benefit is even lower now than after the benefit cuts of 1991 and when Working for Families itself continues to offer less support to beneficiaries than it does to those in paid work? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As identified in the answer to the primary question 46 percent of families who benefited from the Working for Families package were actually families who were on primary benefits. The total package of Government support provided for our poorest families includes not only income support but also helps to reduce essential costs such as costs of going to the doctor collecting prescription items that families need if they have been prescribed medication and also the costs of child care. The 20 free hours’ early childhood education actually adds $4500 directly into the pockets of our lowest-income families. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. How will the Government defend the case being brought by the Child Poverty Action Group to the Human Rights Review Tribunal next month; a case that challenges the Government’s Working for Families package and its discriminatory effects for the families with greatest needs—those families who have been excluded from the minimum family tax credit and who have been denied the in-work tax credit and who are currently trapped in a non-caring cycle of poverty? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Because that matter is in a judicial process I am not able to comment on it. 
Sue Bradford 
: What if anything does the Government plan to do to assist beneficiary families and individuals who are trapped in poverty at levels of around 30 to 40 percent of the median equivalised disposable household income—way below the Government’s own poverty lines and as reported by the Ministry of Social Development itself this past weekend? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Our Government is certainly aware of the financial pressure that a number of families are facing at the moment and we will continue to focus our support on those who are in need. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What comfort can the Minister give to the families of the 466 staff of the Oringi sheep and lamb processing facility near Dannevirke who not only will suffer the negative economic consequences of being laid off but will then face the additional humiliation of having the $60 a week in-work tax credit also taken off them; how would she suggest this additional penalty benefits families who were once working? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the member in his question and I know that most members of this House would feel a lot of empathy with those who have lost their job at Oringi as per the announcement at Dannevirke today. It is my understanding that many of those workers will be offered immediate support by both the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Labour and I hope they will not lose their in-work tax credit because they will be able to find jobs. Every support that this Government is able to give those workers to find work—as some of them already have because it is the off season at the moment at Oringi—will be given. 
Toll Holdings—Rail and Ferry Purchase 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the Government’s best estimate of the final purchase price for Toll NZ’s rail and ferry business? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It is $665 million. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House and the public whether that figure includes the Government taking on somewhere around $100 million to $200 million of debt Toll NZ having access to rent-free depot space in prime locations for 6 years and as rumoured a special discount for Toll NZ’s own freight? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the first point clearly the company carries some debt. It also has a finance lease over the  
Arahura 
. The price being paid is slightly above the per share price with which Toll NZ bought out the minority shareholders so a premium was paid to obtain control. That share price of course reflected also the existence of debt and the  
Arahura 
 finance lease. On the other matters the member is free to invent what he likes for the next few weeks; the full details will be released when the final deal is completed and I think members will discover that a lot of what has been said in the public area is greatly exaggerated. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has he received any reports on support for the purchase of New Zealand’s rail asset? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I received a report last week from a Mr John Key stating that he had supported the Government’s purchase of the rail track in 2004. However at the time he said that he opposed it vehemently saying it would lead to pork barrel politics. So I am sure the report that National is opposed to Toll NZ’s rail and ferry assets being bought by the Government will be followed by an expression of support—indeed by his claiming sooner or later that the National Party was responsible for it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the reason he has not told the public the full price of the Toll NZ purchase is that although taxpayers are hurting he has committed well over $1 billion to investment in Toll NZ—to expenditure of taxpayers’ money for purely political reasons? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thought it was supposed to be for nostalgia reasons according to Mr Key who dismissed rail as a completely out-of-date mode of transport. I note also that the Opposition has committed $1.5 billion to subsidise Telecom as a monopoly provider of fibre-optic cable to the home. The cost of the rail transaction is significantly less than that and it will lead to profits—if there are any—being retained in New Zealand; it will not lead to continued demands from foreign ownership for increased subsidies which is what New Zealand was facing under private ownership. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has he received any reports about New Zealanders supporting the Government’s buy-back of the rail system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I continue to receive correspondence from people who support the buy-back of the rail system and I have no doubt that the public understands why the rail system is so important for the future of the economy. The Leader of the Opposition however continues to accuse these people of suffering from nostalgia and keeps making silly jokes about train sets. 
Hon Bill English 
: The Minister having raised the matter of subsidies for overseas owners why did he do a deal—including secret sweeteners—that meant that Australian shareholders benefited from an increase in the value of their shareholdings of a quarter of a billion dollars? As one Australian said “You get only one Helen Clark moment in your lifetime.” 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have many of them almost every day so that clearly is not true! The ridiculous thing about that statement is that Toll NZ was continuing to seek ever larger subsidies from the Government to operate a business from which it expected to make not a minimal rate of return but a very substantial rate of return after having received Government subsidies. Mr Key claimed that we should have a national rail access agreement; we have had one for 4 years and all we have had is endless arguments about what it means and enforcing it. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister make public the Government’s best estimates of the new subsidies that will have to apply to the rail system and its best estimate of the investment requirement that the taxpayer has now taken on or did he buy this company on a whim because he thought he would get a political headline out of it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly from the way the National Party’s members are going on in the House this afternoon it has hurt the National Party that we have bought back the rail system. But there is no secret agreement. We are in negotiations on the final details and when they are concluded—and I assume they will be successful—we will release the full agreement and once again most of Mr English’s many claims will be proven to be wrong. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the answer to that question mean that the Minister does not know the answer to the question I asked which was when the public will reveal the full amount of the subsidy that it will have to apply to the company it now owns and when he will reveal the full amount of the investment that he has committed on behalf of hard-up taxpayers so that we can all know how much this reckless decision will cost taxpayers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Let me first tell the member that taxpayers support this decision by a very clear majority; I have to tell him that he is on the wrong side of the tracks on this one. Second he did not hear what I said. I am certain that the public will not be revealing anything about this! The Government will be telling the public the full details of the agreement when the agreement is finalised. As to the future cost does the member mean the next 5 10 or 50 years of investment? One thing I am quite sure of is that the investment in the track and in measures associated with the track is actually far higher than the investment in rolling stock that is required over the next 5-year period. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister agree that with the purchase of the rail system and with a positive shipping plan the Government would be in a position to make a comprehensive assessment of transport infrastructure in this country incorporating road rail sea and air transport; if he does agree would he confirm that that is the best way forward both economically and socially for this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I agree with the member. The Minister of Transport will be making further announcements around sea freight issues within the near future. Clearly Government ownership of the rail system through statement of intent procedures gives a much greater chance of better integration of road rail and sea transport modes. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Costs to Households 
5.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What will be the additional costs to households of the introduction of the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The regulatory impact statement that accompanies the legislation notes that once all energy sectors are in the scheme in 2011 the impact on households is between $170 and $300 a year or from 0.5 to 0.8 percent of total household expenditure. Of course if the emissions trading scheme did not proceed the total bill would be much higher and would be incurred by New Zealanders via their taxes. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is it intended that New Zealand households will be compensated for those additional costs—if so how will that occur; if it is not intended that that is the case why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The intention is to have some compensation in respect of electricity and that is one of the issues the Government wishes to talk about with support parties for the legislation. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What has the Government done to ease the impact of already high oil prices on New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Government is mindful of the rising costs of petrol and diesel which are already having an effect on New Zealanders’ driving habits and which have put pressure on inflation and therefore on interest rates also. For these reasons the Government has proposed delaying the entry into the emissions trading system of the fuel sector from 2009 to 2011. Other measures to help New Zealanders to lower their costs and reduce emissions include fuel efficiency labelling at the point of sale and a 12-fold increase in funding for public transport. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in December: “We do not have the luxury of time. If I or this Government mistakenly delay our response to climate change that will be in the poor interests of New Zealand economically. It will leave our children a legacy of climate change. You know the Government will have failed its duty.”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I absolutely do. The fundamentals of the emissions trading scheme are that we need to create a cost for increases in emissions across the whole of the economy. The emissions trading scheme fundamentals lie unchanged. By the end of 2012 the whole of the economy faces a marginal cost for increases in emissions and is rewarded for decreases in emissions. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister think that New Zealand’s effort to mitigate climate change is fairly spread across the community when a Sustainability Council report shows that 90 percent of the cost of the emissions trading scheme would be borne by those producing only a third of the emissions—mainly households small business and foresters; and is the basic principle of emissions trading not meant to be that the polluter pays rather than the general public paying? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I do think that the balance that is struck by the legislation is about right. It would serve no environmental purpose in terms of global emissions for New Zealand to drive this so hard that we caused energy-intensive businesses to shut in New Zealand and move to China. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister telling the House that the only areas in which New Zealanders can expect increased household costs are energy-related with no consequential impact in any other areas; if so is he prepared to make that a commitment to the people of New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I did not say that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister now regretting that the Government listened to United Future in 2005 and abandoned its proposal for a simple fair and transparent carbon charge—as first proposed by the Greens in 1993—that by now could be helping Kiwi families to reduce their energy and fuel bills in warmer homes and to use more fuel-efficient cars and much better public transport? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The carbon tax would have been a good step at the time. We did not have the numbers for it and it was also problematic in its design in that it had too many exemptions under the negotiated greenhouse gas agreements that lay under it. The emissions trading scheme now proposed is a better instrument. 
Methamphetamine—Availability 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement in a Cabinet paper from March 2008 that “Current efforts to reduce the availability of methamphetamine and prevent the diversion of pseudoephedrine into the manufacturing of methamphetamines do not appear to have had an impact on the price purity or availability of methamphetamine.”; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; but I do not stand by the assertion in John Key’s speech at the weekend that I had conceded that the Government was losing the war on P. I can concede that National certainly was not losing the war against P in its last term in Government because it had not even engaged in the battle. Nine clan-labs were busted in 2000 and around 200 were busted last year. I think that the facts speak for themselves. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s claim yesterday regarding her admission that the Government is losing the war on P: “We are doing a significant revamp in police ah with the organised crime strategy. We have ah brought in stronger legislative measures.”; if so why did she recommend that Cabinet reject or defer a whole range of so-called stronger legislative measures against gangs including controls on precursor chemicals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because a whole range of tools is being given and has been given to the police in the battle against P and also against organised crime. So in terms of what we are presenting I look forward to the National Party supporting it. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Minister tell the House what positive actions the Government has taken over the last 5 years against the illegal manufacture and sale of methamphetamine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First off this Labour-Progressive Government has reclassified methamphetamine as a class A controlled drug in 2003. This gave the police powers to search and seize without warrant and the reclassification increased the maximum jail term for manufacturing or supplying methamphetamine from 14 years to life imprisonment. Further amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act set out the presumption of supply for methamphetamine at 5 grams and provided police and the Customs Service with enhanced powers to deal with methamphetamine and precursors. A further $55 million has been allocated to the police the Customs Service the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and the community drug action programmes to tackle P labs and the import of drug components and to support community measures just to name some of the things that the Government has done. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister heard these comments of the president of the Police Association: “It doesn’t matter how many policies you put in place you’ve got to be prepared to resource them. Press releases are fine but what we’re going to be looking for is the resource to do actually something about it.”; and can she confirm that the 1250 extra police officers recruited along with the $500 million worth of funding boost represents the largest single addition to police resourcing in this nation’s history? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly can confirm that. I think that if we were to speak to the Police Association we would hear it say that more has been done under this Government with the assistance of our confidence and supply partners than has ever been done before in this respect. In fact I would remind this House that the previous National Government sought to cut the number of police officers by 500 before the 1999 election. 
Simon Power 
: Does she stand by her statement in a Cabinet paper from March this year that “I consider that the establishment of controls over access to precursor chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamines is of critical importance to any efforts to combat organised crime within New Zealand.”; if so why does she think the public can wait another year for her to take action on this? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because quite a lot of work needs to be done in this respect. I need to say to the member that he may not know exactly what is in the making of methamphetamine. I have to say that I am quite a good cook myself but I have certainly never made this sort of product. If the member were to look at what is involved in the production of methamphetamine then he would find he would have to have control over some very ordinary products that people in this House buy every day of the week. It is not just a simple matter of having control over all the precursors; it is the way one works through that control. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister tell the House what further reports she has received in relation to P? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have received a number of reports including reports of a speech made by Mr Key where he claimed a number of things that he would do particularly about giving the police greater powers for surveillance. All I can say to the member is that he is supporting the Government’s position. In fact if the member had looked at the speech I made to the Sensible Sentencing Trust made on the same day that he made one he would have seen the work— 
Simon Power 
: 8 months after we suggested it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. He would have seen the search and surveillance work the Law Commission had done over 2 years and the Government’s commitment to legislation which is being drafted right now. Those members can never think of their own policy. They have to pinch everybody else’s. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister heard the views expressed by the president of the Police Association yesterday that the P scourge emanates from poor focusing of police resources during the 1990s—a time when Ministers like Tony Ryall David Carter Bill English Maurice Williamson Lockwood Smith Nick Smith and Murray McCully were slashing police numbers in favour of a white elephant called the INCIS computer—and is that not the legacy that we have all been trying to repair ever since? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member has hit the nail on the head exactly and that is why nobody believes those members when they say they are committed to getting rid of methamphetamine. National had 9 years in which to do something and by 2000 the police did not have the resources to tackle this issue. I have just outlined some of the measures that have been taken under this Government with the assistance of our confidence and supply agreement partners. [ 
Interruption 
] They do not like it Madam Speaker. They do not like good news. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As you will notice I am sitting right next to the Minister but I could not hear a word she was saying over the barrage of noise from the other side. That is not good enough. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has a point. The level of intervention to prevent others from being heard is rising. 
Simon Power 
: Can she confirm that the legislation she is proposing for controlling the precursor chemicals for P will include end-user declarations and mandatory reporting of suspicious transactions; and why does she think that these measures can wait another year when  
One News 
 last night showed that some retailers are selling ingredients in what seemed to be the apparent knowledge that they would be used to make P? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I looked at that programme last night and I have to say that I was appalled at the behaviour of that shop owner. Nobody in this House would support that behaviour. But I do have to say to the member that if an innocent member of the public who goes into a supermarket or a shop to buy methylated spirits or some other precursor to making methamphetamine has to sign some sort of a declaration then I think that we will have a problem. 
Simon Power 
: When will she introduce legislation to combat P and increase the penalty for participating in a gang and make it an aggravating factor in sentencing when it was agreed by Cabinet on 9 July last year for it to be given high priority in the legislative programme; and what bills have been introduced since then that have been deemed more important in the fight against gangs and P? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There has been much legislation in this House against many issues all important to New Zealanders. However one of the bills the member is talking about is due for introduction now and the other which is sitting on the Table of the House gives additional powers to the organised and financial crime agency and I look forward to support from the National Party for it. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that Labour’s policy at the last election regarding P was to make the deliberate use of illegal drugs while committing an offence an aggravating factor at sentencing as well as offending in the presence of a child for those manufacturing P in the home; and can she also confirm that neither of those policies have been implemented? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The policies will be implemented and they will be introduced in legislation by this Government. The bill is ready for introduction and I look forward to support for it from National because one of the things we know is that National votes against every measure we bring into this House in an attempt to streamline the justice system to help ensure better justice for people. All National members do is talk about it—no action; they talk about it. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Rationale 
7.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Why is the Government proposing an emissions trading scheme to tackle polluting greenhouse gases? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Because it will work. Climate change is real. The tragedy in Myanmar caused by tidal surges is a reminder of the kind of misery the world can expect to see more of as the climate changes due to human activity. New Zealand signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to work with other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions trading scheme we are proposing is an effective and fair way for New Zealand to meet our Kyoto commitments and reduce our emissions at least cost to businesses and households. It applies the same core principles as the European scheme and the proposed schemes in various states in the USA and Australia. 
Moana Mackey 
: What does the Minister think of calls for New Zealand to delay the emissions trading scheme legislation in order to see what Australia does? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have heard calls for New Zealand to wait for Australia to finalise its emissions trading scheme before we do anything on ours. In previous years and from the same source I have heard calls to follow Australia and renege on Kyoto commitments. Likewise we have had calls to follow Australia into the disastrous Iraq war. The then Government in Australia got it wrong. This Labour-led Government got it right then and now. But once again we have people calling to say that we should let the Australians do our thinking for us and delay what we already know is good for New Zealand now. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why would New Zealanders who are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change trust this Government when over the adjournment the latest figures on emissions revealed that yet again emissions grew by a record amount and that far from emissions being 20 percent less by 2005—as Labour promised—New Zealand’s increase in emissions is the 38th worst of developed countries during the 9-year record of his Government? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I rise with pleasure to respond to the half-billion-dollar bungle by Dr Smith. In fact what happened last week was that the estimated deficit for the first Kyoto period halved: it went down from a billion dollars to half a billion dollars. In fact the emissions deficit during the first commitment period has more than halved. Not only is that the case but for the first time in our history our transport emissions have levelled off. Our transport emissions have been going up through time essentially since the motorcar was invented. Under this Government for the first time as a consequence of rising petrol prices as well as of what we are doing with public transport rail fuel economy information at point of sale and other things to improve people’s state of being in New Zealand transport emissions have levelled off. We have turned the corner. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers does the Minister agree that in order to effectively address climate change globally it will take more than New Zealand introducing an emissions trading scheme and must involve countries such as China India the USA and Brazil and if he does agree with that will it come as a surprise to him to learn that on the recent Speaker’s tour the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic informed the delegation that at the recent Brussels conference on climate change only he emphatically made the point that maximum effort needs to be made to bring those countries on board otherwise all our efforts will amount to not very much; and can the Minister explain why New Zealand is not standing shoulder to shoulder with such an advocate? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I absolutely agree that all major emitters have to be part of the future action on climate change and that New Zealand cannot do it alone. None the less it remains true that New Zealand is proportionately a far higher emitter than China India or any other developing country and that it is important that we and other developed countries do what we have promised to do under Kyoto. The way we can do that at least cost is through an emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In the course of the Minister’s answer he accused me of making a $500 million mistake. I seek the leave of the House to table firstly the Government’s own official papers that say the liability was $1026 million and secondly a statement from 2 days later that reduces that by $500 million. 
Documents not tabled. 
Immigration Service—Mary Anne Thompson 
8.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: When was a Minister of Immigration first informed about allegations relating to Mary Anne Thompson’s involvement in assisting family members from Kiribati with immigration matters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: The Minister was advised that it was sometime in April 2007. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What action did the Minister of Immigration take at the time to address the serious allegations raised about the involvement of the head of the Immigration Service in securing immigration assistance for her family members? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the Minister was informed that an inquiry was about to be undertaken. It was not therefore a matter for the Minister to take action on; action was already under way. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What action then did the Minister take on receipt of the Oughton report in July last year—a report that clearly identified senior managers within the Immigration Service directing staff members to break Government policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The matters involved in that respect of course are employment matters within the Immigration Service and they are the responsibility of the chief executive under section 33 of the State Sector Act. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why was the Oughton report not publicly released upon its completion in July last year and why was so much effort made to prevent the Oughton report becoming public given the great difficultly experienced by Television New Zealand in securing the report under the Official Information Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The chief executive advised that the Oughton report pertained to matters relating to individual employees. Therefore of course it is not a matter for Ministers to become involved with; it is a matter for the chief executive to make decisions on. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the secrecy surrounding the Oughton report from July last year until its grudging release in April this year demonstrate Government Ministers were complicit in an attempted cover-up of repeated breaches of immigration policy—I repeat immigration policy—by departmental managers; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No; the matter related to individual employees and therefore is the responsibility of the chief executive. I note yet again the implication from the National Party that if in Government it will break the law and intervene in employment matters. 
Bail Decisions—Police Involvement 
9.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is she satisfied that police support for or opposition to bail conditions are given appropriate consideration in bail decisions made by the High Court? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 As Minister of Police it is not appropriate for me to comment on decisions made by our independent judiciary. Police have the opportunity to put before the High Court their views on bail for particular individuals. The High Court judge in each case will consider the police views along with other relevant information. 
Ron Mark 
: Can she confirm that police did oppose the relaxation of bail conditions for Tame Iti that allowed him to go dancing around the world; if so why did they oppose it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is my understanding that the police did oppose bail for Tame Iti but I am not able to give the reasons why they did that. It is their duty to put before the High Court judge their reasons regarding bail; it is up to the judge to decide on it. 
Ron Mark 
: Is she satisfied that police would take account of genuine reasons for relaxing bail conditions such as allowing travel to visit sick relatives receiving medical treatment or attending a tangi and would she agree that it would be consistent with the public interest for police to oppose bail conditions that would allow a suspect to take part in a jaunt through Europe at the taxpayers’ expense? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on an individual case but I would like to say that it is not unnatural for the police to have one view on the merits or otherwise of a particular bail application and for the judiciary—who have the responsibility to come to a decision—to come to a decision different from that of the police. 
Ron Mark 
: Is she aware that the High Court’s decision to ignore police opposition to amending these bail conditions has been wholeheartedly endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition and would she see his comments as a slap in the face for police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I am not aware of that. I certainly think that all members of Parliament need to be incredibly careful in commenting on decisions made by the court. We do hold to the principle that we have the separation of powers in New Zealand and the independence of the judiciary is an important independence just as this Parliament holds to itself the right to make laws. 
Unemployment—Reports 
10.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the largest quarterly decline in employment in 19 years “Ah well I I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually.”; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I do stand by my statement; because it would be very hard to describe an economy that has 350000 more jobs that has had an unemployment rate of under 4 percent for 15 straight quarters that has the third-lowest unemployment rate ever recorded in the history of the household labour force survey and that has 140000 fewer people on benefits as being bad news. 
Judith Collins 
: Will she now go to Dannevirke to tell— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Aw! 
Judith Collins 
: —well Mr Cullen might not find it very interesting—the 466 workers at PPCS Ltd who have lost their jobs today that she does not think that that is bad news at all that “things go up and down” and that she does not “expect people to overreact”; is she going to go and tell them not to overreact? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear given that the sound system is not working properly. I will have to ask people to ask and answer questions in silence unless members keep the noise level down. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I find it personally distasteful to have my words in relation to the New Zealand economy distorted to reflect the proposition that I find it pleasant that individuals are being made redundant. That is not true at all. I feel very sorry for any person who is made redundant. Our Government ensures that both the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Labour have staff on the spot on the day to give those workers every support possible and I remain committed to doing that. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has she seen regarding the unemployment rate in New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The current unemployment rate is 3.6 percent. That means that unemployment has remained below 4 percent for nearly 4 years. No other country in the OECD has achieved that record including Australia which has just announced that unemployment has increased to 4.2 percent. Our current unemployment rate is quite a significant contrast to the unemployment rate of 7.1 percent in 1999 when the member opposite’s party was in Government. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Would the Minister say to Maori people that the fact that the unemployment rate of Maori has shot up from 7.3 percent in December to 8.6 percent compared with 3 percent for Europeans is not “bad news at all actually” and how high does unemployment amongst Maori have to climb before it becomes bad news? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Any unemployment is bad news for the individual but the fact that unemployment—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will have the answer in silence. I have warned members three times. Because of the problem with the sound system it is impossible for me to hear. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The fact is that unemployment amongst Maori has halved in the last 8 years. This Government has overseen an economy in which over 1000 jobs per week have been created—not just in one week but in every week of every year in which we have been in Government. We will continue our commitment to active labour market policies to ensure that every New Zealander who is able to work is supported into a job but also to ensure that every person who is not able to work has the financial security to be able to live which is exactly the opposite from both perspectives of that member’s party. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister explain why the experts think a fall of 29000 in the number of employed people is an absolute shocker and very grim but she does not think that it is “bad news at all” and thinks that people are overreacting or has she been too busy lately singing silly little songs to venture out into the real world? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I thought it was blindingly obvious to anyone who heard that song that neither a lot of time nor effort had not been put into either the preparation of it or the practice frankly. The fact is that the household labour force survey for the previous quarter showed that the female labour force participation rate went up to exactly the same extent that it then went down. It was not about job losses; it was about labour-market participation. The female labour participation rates are very volatile. The member made no positive comment about the increase in the previous quarter and that is why the New Zealand public reflect that she has only a negative gene and never looks at any positive news. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister explain why she is so out of touch that she believes that there “haven’t been significant job losses to date in the construction industry” when Westpac has reported that there has been a loss of 11000 jobs in the construction industry in the past year; and has she told those builders who have lost their jobs that that is not significant? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member is mis-speaking. She is not reporting my interview accurately and I will challenge her on the specificity of that as I always do after question time. She has not been proven to be factually correct on a single occasion to date. I know that there is a decline in the construction industry but I can also confirm that there are 350000 more jobs in our economy than there were in 1999 and that the household labour force survey statistics to which the member is referring are about not the number of jobs but the number of people within the labour market which is quite a different statistic. 
Judith Collins 
: Why does the Minister not spend less time being slippery with the figures and more time thinking about how to help the people affected by the 11000 job losses in the construction industry the 6000 job losses in the manufacturing industry and the meatworkers who have lost their jobs today; does she agree that ordinary Kiwis expect her to spend a bit more time being focused on the future prospects of the people affected by these job losses and a little less time indulging in singing silly songs; and is it not time that she stopped trying to cover up for the bad news as well? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In stark contrast to the proposition in the member’s question a number of people have contacted me following the said song being publicised and said “Don’t give up your day job.” which is not what that member’s colleagues say about her. 
Judith Collins 
: They have got a day job! Following the challenge by the Minister I seek leave to table the transcript of the Minister’s interview on Radio New Zealand on 9 May 2008 in which she made those statements. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the Westpac bank’s report showing that 11000 jobs have been shed from the construction industry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a statement entitled “PPCS expect to slash jobs at Oringi”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a report from Statistics New Zealand entitled “Employment declines”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a  
Dominion Post 
 article entitled “29000” from the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a Radio New Zealand Newswire article entitled “Gloomy Dyson”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Air Force—Helicopter Fleet 
11.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What progress has been made in modernising the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s helicopter fleet? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 There has been enormous progress. Last week I signed a contract to purchase AgustaWestland A109 light utility and training helicopters to complement the Government’s earlier decision to purchase NH90 medium utility helicopters. The purchase moves our much-used helicopter fleet several generations forward—from technology that was employed in the Korean War and Viet Nam War—to the current century. It will give our air force state-of-the-art technology. This is a further example of the Labour-led Government’s rebuilding of the defence force after a decade of neglect under the former National Government. 
Darien Fenton 
: How do the capabilities of the AgustaWestland A109 compare with the current Sioux training helicopter? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There really is no comparison: one is a basic training aircraft that carries two people; the other is a 21st century aircraft. The AgustaWestland A109 is twin-engined and has an integrated digital cockpit which is necessary for high-level training. It is equipped with ballistic protection to make sure our defence force personnel are well looked after. It has a secure communications system. It has automated auto-pilot and is configured for night flying. The other real advantage of this aircraft is that it is wheeled and therefore can be used on our naval fleet which of course will expand by six further ships this year. 
Darien Fenton 
: How versatile are the new helicopters compared with those they are replacing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Rather than being used just for basic training this aircraft can be used for a variety of purposes. Obviously it can be used for advanced training for the NH90s and the Seasprites—the Sioux certainly could not have been used for that. It can be used for counter-terrorism search and rescue deployment of forces and disaster relief. This aircraft flies twice as fast for twice the distance carrying three times as many people as the old Sioux and it is capable of carrying under-slung loads of up to 500 kilograms. This is a great purchase. The Royal New Zealand Air Force is very grateful that it has a Government that looks after its equipment needs and does not leave obsolete equipment in place like the National Government did for 9 years and for which it is still apologising. 
Election Advertising—Government Departments 
12.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that Government departments may not publish election advertisements; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is not only Government policy but also the wish of Parliament as set out in section 67 of the Electoral Finance Act 2007. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she agree with the statement made by Labour Party president Mike Williams that it is “a damn good idea” for the Labour Party to use Government department pamphlets for the purpose of electioneering; and if she does not agree then why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not agree and I think the Prime Minister has made it clear to Mr Williams that she does not agree either. It is not a good idea because Government departments are there to inform the public legitimately about what programmes are available for them. They are not there to electioneer on behalf of any political party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can she confirm that the Prime Minister described the person responsible for running Labour’s election campaign as “loose and confused” and that those words also describe Labour’s strategy with the Electoral Finance Act—that is to make everyone confused so they do not do anything while Government departments run loose with public money? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no responsibility for what the Prime Minister says to the leader of the Labour Party but I can say to the member that the only person who has tried to cause confusion is that member himself. He has put a lot of effort into it and has done quite a good job. But let me say to him that there was nothing stopping the National Party from 1 January advertising—authorised as National Party advertising for the election campaign—so long as National was prepared to pay for it and follow the law. But National has put up a smokescreen because it wanted to spend $5 million worth in the run-up to the election saying: “We’re not election campaign advertising; this doesn’t count.” 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether it is Government policy that Government departments should use their websites to publish political statements made by Government Ministers during the regulated period—for instance the Schools Plus website and also the string of websites now operated by the Ministry for the Environment which look a lot like the political advice given by political appointee and now Labour candidate Clare Curran? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Government departments putting up Government policy that is being implemented is I believe the role of Government departments. What they cannot do is to run an election campaign on behalf of the Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister of Finance sought advice from her as to whether the Budget publicity planned by the Government including pamphlets and mail-outs complies with the Electoral Finance Act given that this is the first Budget that has been given during the regulated period laid out in the Electoral Finance Act; and if he has not asked her advice does she think he should have? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No the Minister of Finance has not sought my advice any more than that member has sought my advice on some of the things that his members are doing in their electorates now. I think the best thing to do for every member whether a Minister or a member of Parliament is go to where he or she can get proper advice and it is certainly not from me. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is the Minister aware that Treasury has in fact sought Crown Law advice to ensure that all Budget documentation is compliant with the Electoral Finance Act? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I am and that is what I would call proper advice—not some sort of bush lawyer advice that we get from Bill English which is usually distorted. That is what I mean about members of this House telling other members how they ought to run their affairs. It is not the role of the Minister of Justice to tell other members and other parties what they should have in their election campaign advertisements. 
Urgent Debates 
Toll Holdings—Rail and Ferry Purchase 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from John Key seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision by the Government to buy Toll Holdings Ltd’s rail and ferry operations. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Given the significance of the decision I consider it does require the immediate attention of the House and I therefore accept the application. I call on the member to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent importance. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. [ 
Interruption 
] It sounds like election night to me. Everyone is cheering. I say to Trevor that it sounds like election night to me but I tell him not to worry and that I hope he takes the train. On 30 June the New Zealand taxpayer will part with the better part of $1 billion to buy a train set off Toll Holdings—not that we would know it from the announcement of the Government. You see the Government wanted people to think it was paying $665 million for a train set but we now know that is not the fact. What we do know is that the Government is buying a train set it did not need to buy—you see there was a highly efficient operator in place and it was within $17 million of reaching an agreement around the National Rail Access Agreement. 
It was not Michael Cullen who wanted to buy the train set and it was not overtly Helen Clark; it was Heather Simpson who wanted to buy the train set. That is right; Heather Simpson wanted to buy the train set not because it made sense economically—she had not gone to see whether it made money—but because she had read the focus groups. It was not an economic decision or a sustainable decision; it was meant to be a political decision driven by Helen Clark. What took some time was that Michael Cullen was offended by how much more the Government was paying for Toll than he knows it is worth. That is why he spent so much time trying to be a little devious about exactly what figure the Government is paying—but we will get back to that in a moment. 
The second thing is that the Government is spending $1 billion on 30 June—giving money to Toll Holdings—to solve a problem we do not have. There is no problem with the efficient operator that is there. It is certainly a laudable objective to get more freight on rail but we do not need to own the train set to do that in the same way that we do not to need to own every trucking company every courier company and every taxi out there—we can just subsidise those activities if we want to. 
The third thing that is happening on 30 June is that we are spending $1 billion and we are giving it to the Australian shareholders of Toll Holdings to put into a giant black hole that we do not know how much it will cost to fill although we know it will be a lot. But this is the good news for New Zealand taxpayers. The message from Labour is that they should not worry because the Australian shareholders of Toll are very happy. The shareholders are very happy. As my colleague Bill English said today Paul Little will only ever have one Helen Clark moment and that was it and it was a moment of madness. We went out there and spent not one-quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money more than was required but $400 million or $500 million more for a railway we do not know how to run and that Michael Cullen says will never make money and Helen Clark thinks is unlikely to make money. Why on earth would someone do that? 
What was the first thing that the Toll Holdings people did when they got the massive payout? The first thing they did was to go into a room and high-five each other. Paul Little is a pretty big swinger over there in Australia. Can members imagine the negotiations—Paul Little versus Michael Cullen? A bit of an easy contest was going on there and there was only one winner. We know Michael Cullen does not like “rich pricks”; well Paul Little is about to get a lot richer when his bonus is delivered to him in a few weeks’ time. What is more he will get to keep more of it because there is a tax cut in Australia’s Budget tonight. 
What was the first thing that Toll Holdings did after it got its quarter of a million— 
Hon Member 
: Bought a trucking company! 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right—it bought a trucking company. It went out and bought a trucking company. What is interesting about the deal with Toll is that the Government has left Toll with the really valuable bits of the business. It left the company with the freight forwarding business. The Government left Toll with the valuable bits of the business and said it would inherit a business it does not know how to run which it has no expertise to run and in which it has never been successful. The Government knows it is a deeply complex business and says it cannot even tell the analysts how it is all going to work or how much it will cost. It says “Don’t worry. Trust us. It will be all right.” 
“Trust” is the interesting bit. We might be able to trust Labour members if they were prepared to tell us how much the purchase has cost. But were they just being dumb when they paid $400 million or $500 million over the odds or were they being sneaky when they were not prepared to tell us how much the purchase had cost? Were they being devious when they were doing that or were they being just downright dishonest? They were asked how much the purchase had cost and they looked down the barrel of a camera—that was when Michael was not playing with his little train set that Paul Little gave him over the table—and said it had cost $665 million. That is not what it cost I say to Dr Cullen. 
Dr Cullen will be smiling and so will Paul Little because this is what really will happen. For 6 years Toll gets to rent the space next to the railway depots for free—and that costs a lot of money—but that was not mentioned in the $665 million cost. Neither was it mentioned in the deal that Toll is to get a subsidy to put its freight on the railway. Nor was this little bit mentioned. There is a $200 million liability: $148 million that Toll NZ owes to Toll in Australia which the Government picked up and for which there is no asset backing and $40 million owing on the ferries. When the Government was caught out—because that is what happened—it ran to the same journalists it had misled on the Monday and said “ ‘Nudge nudge wink wink’; it’s actually $100 million not $200 million.” 
So one has to ask oneself this question: why has the Government not been honest? It is a pretty fair question is it not? The answer as my colleague has just said is why break the habit of a lifetime? In the election campaign when I was arguing about why New Zealanders should get to keep $50 a week of their taxes Michael Cullen was saying that was outrageous unaffordable and the worst thing that could possibly happen. Next week he will get up in worse conditions and announce that that is to happen. But he is also the Minister of Finance who told New Zealanders it would cost $200 million for a student loan scheme that actually costs $3 billion. He looks confused. Why does Dr Cullen not pick up the Crown accounts and look at what the fair value of a $9 billion loan book is? The answer is $6.1 billion. That is what writing off the interest on student loans costs. What happened? He did not tell us that and he was not going to tell us until the Chief Ombudsman made him tell us. The Government was not going to tell New Zealanders what that scheme cost until somebody made it. 
This is a sneaky Government it is a very dubious Government sometimes it is a pretty dumb Government and it is rapidly being proposed now that it is a dishonest Government. It was asked the question about the cost of the purchase and it would not answer it. Why would the Government not answer that question? Well there are a couple of answers. One is that maybe Government members were not bright enough to actually understand the full value of the deal and that is entirely possible actually. That is option 1: they were not bright enough to understand the deal. Option 2 was that it was a case of the John Tamihere theory. Michael Cullen changed just one word and everything changed. When asked how much the purchase of Toll was costing he said “$665 million”. The bit he missed out and should have added on before that was “a bit more than” but he did not say that. He did not want taxpayers to know that because he is ashamed of how much they are paying for it. The purchase is not being driven out of his office; it is being driven by Helen Clark and Heather Simpson. Dr Cullen laughs like Paul Little laughs in Australia. He laughs like the Australian shareholders laugh all the way to the bank. They are the ones that are pretty happy. 
This is quite an interesting Government because a couple of weeks ago its members got up and said the No. 1 issue in the election campaign will be asset sales. On that basis they stopped a windfall gain to the New Zealand shareholders—29000 mums and dads—of Auckland International Airport. Those people cannot have a windfall gain but if one is an Australian shareholder of Toll Holdings it is a completely different issue. Those shareholders can have half a billion dollars but the Government tells the New Zealand public it is a quarter of a billion dollars because it does not want to tell them how much the deal is worth. Government members are the same people who said that the No. 1 election issue would be asset sales but by the way they are happy to sign off for the Chinese to buy Vector. The Government bought Toll Holdings not because it was a good deal not because freight cannot be carried using the existing operator not because it knew how to run the business not because the business was worth that not because the Government ever believed it would make money and not because the purchase is part of the Government’s transport strategy in 2007; the Government bought Toll because it wanted to make life difficult for the National Party. That is the only reason it bought Toll and that ain’t a good reason to buy a railway. 
Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have been telling people that by the way when the Government owns Toll the subsidy will go away. Do they have any idea whom the subsidy goes to? It does not go to Toll Holdings; it goes to the customers of Toll Holdings. That same subsidy will be paid to New Zealand companies to put freight on the railway. 
But this is the worst-case scenario. We now have the worst of all scenarios: we own a business that we do not know how to run. We own a business that we could never sell even if we wanted to for the kind of money that Toll got. We could never sell it at those kinds of rates because we paid half a billion dollars. The message for New Zealanders is that under Labour their shopping trolley is one-third more expensive their interest rates have doubled their fuel prices are going through the roof and by the way while they are at it they have waited 9 years for a tax cut. But the priority of Michael Cullen is this. It is not mums and dads who are working hard it is not people who are trying to make ends meet it is not the terrified people at the meatworks today who have lost their jobs and it is not the people whom Ruth Dyson went on the radio about and said we should not worry about them having lost their job because actually everything is very good. Dr Cullen’s priority is not any of those people; it is pure politics. That is what matters more. What matters is not the shareholders in New Zealand; it is the shareholders of Toll Holdings. 
The facts of life are that this is a Government that has no priorities. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Merrill Lynch! 
JOHN KEY 
: Oh well at least at Merrill Lynch we knew what we were doing. If we had advised the Government on this purchase we would have told it that it would cost $1 billion and we would not have told the Government to mislead the New Zealand public. What happened this week is quite clear. We now know that Labour is prepared to mislead New Zealanders. It does not care about that. It is prepared to spend millions and millions of dollars more than it needs to and it is prepared to be reckless because this is the bottom line: we are 5 months from an election and that means that anything now goes. As long as it fits into the category of being political anything goes. 
Well this is my message for the New Zealand public. National knows that they work hard for their money. We know they care about what they do. We know that they demand performance from us and we are not going to treat them so badly that we will not only waste their money but deliberately mislead them when we do it. Michael Cullen the man who has form the man who has a track record to go with his train set has misled the people of New Zealand. New Zealand taxpayers deserve— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Don’t be so insulting—the people of New Zealand have long wanted to buy back rail. 
JOHN KEY 
: Well while that member is out there defending Government ownership maybe Dr Cullen will want to answer just this one question. If taking out an efficient private sector operator was such a good thing to do then maybe he will want to explain why with Government ownership of ONTRACK there are more speed restrictions on the New Zealand track than there ever have been in the history of ownership of that track. The answer is that those members sat around in a room and said “To hell with the New Zealand taxpayer. To hell with whatever we have to pay for it. It doesn’t matter if it is a dog. We think it might make money.” 
Well National cares too much about New Zealanders to do just that. Labour members cannot defend the indefensible and even when they do people should not believe them because last week they were caught lying and they will just do that again. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am certainly not prepared to accept that last statement from that member particularly given his track record. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Did he ask for an apology? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes he did. When he said that he was not prepared to accept that statement I took that to be that he was asking for a withdrawal and an apology. Could the member withdraw and apologise. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 What we learnt from that lazy Parnell wine bar ramble was a number of things. Firstly we learnt yet again the lack of any collective memory in the National Party. That speech was almost word for word what National members said when we bought Air New Zealand. They said that it was an effective private company; it did not need to be bought. We would not know how to run it. We should not have it. And now Mr Key says that it was a sensible thing to buy Air New Zealand. We learnt also yet again that when the chips are really down National members still hate New Zealand ownership of our infrastructure. They want foreign ownership of New Zealand’s infrastructure. Even more they hate Government ownership of key strategic assets. They believe: “private sector good; public sector bad” no matter what. But of course they lack the balls to promise to sell anything that is in Government ownership. They lack the balls to do it even though they believe that it is totally wrong to have these things owned by the Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw those balls Madam Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I think the point has been made. 
Hon Bill English 
: Actually this is a serious matter. I have never heard that expression being allowed in this House but you sat and listened to it being used three times. I have to say that that is disappointing. If that is the standard that is going to be exercised then the standards in Parliament will be lower than they used to be. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: As I understand it— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just listened to a speech where in sentence after sentence we were accused of misleading the public and of misleading Parliament. I sat there and took it. I note yet again that National members whinge and moan when anybody responds to their personal attacks. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I will address the issue. There is an issue of the tone of the argument. There is an issue of that word particularly being used. I understand that it is in the hands of the House to object to certain language being used as against the tone which is the same thing the member took exception to. So if he is objecting to that language being used—that particular word—then I suggest that it actually has to be taken up and added to the glossary of terms. 
Hon Bill English 
: I think that any decent person in a public place would object to it Madam Assistant Speaker and I do. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. Yet again we are not allowed to use New Zealand English in this House only some kind of poncy language that suits the National Party when its members are under any kind of attack. 
The important point is that although they say they will not sell any State assets they hate the State owning assets and there is a big “h” word we are not allowed to use in Parliament that describes that particular set of political principles. It shows where they are really coming from in election year. That man John Key has swallowed so many dead rats he looks like a walking rodent cemetery these days going around the country. 
Every fact he gave was wrong. We are not paying a billion dollars on 30 June. When did anyone add into the purchase price of an asset its long-term investment programme? When was that a standard accounting principle to be applied in this case? Is he not aware that Toll was looking to the Government for a subsidy for exactly that investment while the track remained in private ownership? National says and Mr Key said it quite clearly that the Government should subsidise a private foreign owner of a New Zealand strategic asset—and he is nodding his head—then have extracted a 13 or 14 percent rate of return effectively on the basis of that Government subsidy. That is National Party economics and it is why the public of New Zealand does support the return of rail into New Zealand ownership. Why should the taxpayer subsidise foreign owners to make a profit and take it out of New Zealand? That is madness— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I wonder whether Mr Auchinvole would please lower his voice. I can hardly hear the speaker on his feet. Thank you. That is one warning; otherwise I shall ask him to leave. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Leader of the Opposition said we were within $70 million of agreement. First of all let me tell him we have never been able to enforce the National Rail Access Agreement. We had an agreement; it provided for arbitration. We went to arbitration and we basically won. Toll refused to accept the arbitration and secondly it was looking for subsidies on top of that subsidy on the track itself. It was a bottomless pit of ongoing growing subsidies going to a foreign-owned asset to extract profits from New Zealand. 
Thirdly he said we do not have a problem. Well I suggest he gets out of that Parnell wine bar and goes to ask the potential customers of rail in New Zealand whether they are satisfied with the performance of rail in New Zealand. They are not satisfied with the performance of rail in New Zealand. They want to see—[ 
Interruption 
] “Subsidise it.” he says! So again he says to subsidise a foreign-owned company to extract profits in terms of a 13 or 14 percent rate of return out of New Zealand. He regards that as some kind of patriotism. He regards it as some form of sensible use of taxpayers’ money. I will debate with that man on any public stage in the country on the proposition that it makes more sense to subsidise foreign owners than it does to subsidise a New Zealand Government - owned asset that will be run on a commercial basis as a State-owned enterprise with the current management taken over and with the current staff taken over. And we will make a better job of it than did the asset strippers who ran that company from 1993 onwards. 
Toll is the first operator to try to put some improvement into the rail system but the company made it clear that it needed ongoing subsidisation from the New Zealand Government to achieve that aim. And I suggest that the member reads John Roughan’s article in Saturday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 which explains that if we get to that point it does not make sense any longer for that to remain within private ownership. 
Mr Key mentioned Paul Little and said he was just a “rich prick”. No he is not; he is just rich. But Mr Key does not understand the difference between those two statements and I will leave him to try to work it out as he moves along. He says we do not know how to run these kinds of businesses. We have some of the most successful businesses in the country in State ownership. When National members are arguing that they are arguing that we are making too much profit out of those State-owned enterprises. Yet on the other hand they say we do not know how to run a successful business within State ownership. Well why then does the member opposite now believe that it is a good idea to buy back Air New Zealand? He now believes that it is a good idea to buy back the track but we have to commit far more investment to the track over the next 5 years than we do to the rolling stock in order to make an efficient railway system. We would never have been able to get back from Toll a return on that increased investment in the track. We had already promised the first $200 million on track investment with no return from Toll at all and we have been unable to extract a return on the subsequent investment over and above that and would never have been able to do so. Those are the numbers that have to be put against the purchase price of Toll to make a proper comparison. But if the member believes that it is so bad then let him promise that he will try to privatise it at the first opportunity. 
We know we can create in this country an efficient effective rail system. It will get large numbers of trucks off New Zealand’s roads. That will reduce the number of people killed on New Zealand’s roads. Every life saved on the roads is estimated now I think at something like $3 million. That is what it is worth—every life is worth $3 million. The rail system will reduce pollution. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and every tonne reduced of greenhouse gas emissions is a reduction of the liability on the Crown’s account because at the moment Kyoto Protocol liabilities rest with the Government. So the Government will save money in that regard while investing in a decent rail system. 
This Government is proud to reverse at last the failed experiment in a privatised rail system as we reversed the failed experiment in a privatised national airline with Air New Zealand. If the National Party wants to fight the election on this then I want to say that this is not about you John. It is not actually about you; it is about New Zealand and you have got to stop living in that kind of little bubble where the whole world is about you. There is not some kind of film being made about you in that regard. This is about New Zealand’s interests not the interests that you have been promoting for most of your working life. It is not the interests where you bet against the New Zealand dollar and short it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Again I think we have heard the term “you” used about a dozen or 15 times in the last 2 or 3 minutes. I would have thought you would bring some attention to it but just because the member is a senior member of the House it does not mean he can address you in that manner. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not about him; it is about New Zealand. It is not about the kind of person who believes that one makes a lot of money betting against New Zealand and can then come back here and believe that one is some kind of super patriot while secretly planning in the second term of Government to sell off State assets and saying: “We will not sell any State assets in the first term in Government.” That is an interesting sort of statement to make. We know that Bill English promised that rail would be sold if the Government bought it back. 
Hon Bill English 
: No I didn’t say that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yes the member did say that—very very clearly. We know that Bill English has been sat upon in this regard and told to shut up and that he disappeared for a week after the sale of rail was announced. We know that the public supports the reacquisition of rail in New Zealand. We know that it makes sense in terms of an integrated land and sea transport plan. We know that it makes sense environmentally. We know that it makes sense in terms of safety. We know it makes sense in terms of retaining value in New Zealand. And knowing all those things we are not in the slightest surprised that the National Party therefore opposes it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I will try to take some of the emotion out of the debate but I have to say that I agree in very very large measure with what Dr Cullen said. As transport spokesperson for New Zealand First I have had a number of members of the public contact me about the buy-back of the rail system and not one of them has been critical. Not one single person has said that the Government is doing the wrong thing. I cannot comment on the price; I have not seen the details of the negotiations. But $665 million strikes me as being a lot of money particularly when it was bought by Toll for I think $394 million a few years back. So New Zealand First waits with interest to see the details of the agreement when they emerge. But the simple question that should be asked is whether we need an efficient railway system in this country. 
David Bennett 
: Exactly. 
PETER BROWN 
: We do. Even David Bennett is acknowledging that we do. The second question that the member may be able to answer is whether Toll would deliver an efficient railway system as efficiently as this country needs. I have to say that it would not. Even over a long period of time it would not have delivered the service that this country needs when it comes to railway matters. 
David Bennett 
: How would you know that? 
PETER BROWN 
: We have only to follow the track record thus far. Toll was closing down segments. Toll a monopoly provider has to service principally the interests of its shareholders. The Government on the other hand has the ability to service the interests of New Zealand New Zealand business and New Zealanders. Why the difference? Why would we expect an overseas organisation—an Australian organisation—to service the long-term interests of New Zealanders if these are in conflict with the requirements of its shareholders? 
Many many organisations have come out in favour of the railways being brought under Government ownership again. When we look back to when it was sold in the early 1990s we see that we were promised—I think there was a TV programme promising this—that the New Zealand railway system would turn into something super duper. But what happened in fact was that it was asset-stripped large chunks of it were sold off and the owners and those associated with the owners became very very wealthy. The railway owners at that time became the biggest truck owners and truck operators in this country. That must tell us that they were not putting the interests of the railway service first and foremost. They became the biggest truck operators in the country and that is still the case with Toll. Tranz Link is the biggest trucking operation in the country and as we have just been told it has just purchased United Carriers in Whangarei. 
The Government now with the ownership of the railway system can take a total strategic overview and if it is correctly managed it can develop it so that it gives a huge advantage to New Zealand economically and socially. It can introduce what the British people have looked to introduce—a freight facilities grant scheme. I am told that it works exceedingly well for the British and I will quote from a paper outlining that scheme: “Taking freight off congested roads and moving it by rail or water can have environmental and wider social benefits. However rail and water can sometimes be more expensive than road transportation. Three schemes are available that are designed to facilitate the purchase of the environmental and social benefits that result from using rail or water transport instead of road.” I will not go into the details of the scheme but the British introduced that scheme some years ago in an effort to take trucks off the road and transport freight on either the canals or the railway system and there is no reason why New Zealand cannot follow that sort of line. In short the Government can determine whether it is cheaper or more cost-effective to develop a road as against giving some incentive to freight movers or even passenger operators to put a train on the rail track. The freight mover does not have to be a monopoly provider. The Government could open it up to private enterprise on a chartered basis on a lease basis or on any basis that it is inclined to use. For example Tranz Link could end up operating a freight train between two particular points. Many many innovative options could be introduced with the correct management. 
I note that Mainfreight another major trucking company has welcomed the announcement and has pledged to up its own investment if services improve. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Mainfreight has? 
PETER BROWN 
: I believe that the Hon Maurice Williamson a former Minister is a director of that company. I ask whether that is so. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is not a director of Mainfreight. He was a director of Mainfreight. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well that is contrary to the information I have been given. But Mainfreight is a major player when it comes to transporting freight. It has welcomed the Government’s purchasing back the rail system as has the coastal operator—the shipping organisation. Mr Grout the President of the New Zealand Shipping Federation said that control of rail freight and inter-island vessels opened the door for the Government to lock in policies for a more efficient and sustainable transport sector. [ 
Interruption 
] The member at the back of the Chamber is making a lot of noise but he would not have a clue what needs to be done when it comes to transport in this country. He has proven that time and time again. 
New Zealand First is quite delighted that the railways are coming back under the Government’s wing. However I have a concern. I know that a National speaker will follow me shortly after I have taken my seat. A National member will rise and explain National’s view in perhaps more detail than Mr Key managed. Will National sell rail back to private enterprise in due course? The statements National has made are that it will not sell it in its first term in Government. National is quite convinced its members are going to sit on the Government benches after the election. Will a National Government sell rail if it gets more than one term in office? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: They won’t be there. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am being a little hypothetical at the moment. If National ends up on the Government benches will it sell rail if it gets a second term in office? Will National sell Air New Zealand if it gets a second term in office? 
Bob Clarkson 
: I’m going to buy it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Bob Clarkson came here to develop his financial interests and he is living right up to that. He came here to develop the Clarkson empire and he is living right up to it. 
As I said a few moments ago New Zealand First is very supportive of the Government buying rail back. We will welcome the details when Dr Cullen releases them on 30 June. We suspect that $665 million is somewhat over the top but one would expect that sort of figure to buy rail back. Toll was in a monopoly position. It had an asset that had to be developed and it still needs to be developed. The Government saw that the only way of developing the asset was to buy it back so Toll had control of the negotiations and the Government agreed to $665 million. We look forward to reading the small print but meanwhile I have to say that New Zealand First is delighted that the railway will come back into New Zealand ownership. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I begin by congratulating Dr Cullen and the Government on finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. It has taken a long time. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The trouble is it’s the 9.15 train coming the other way. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: It would be nice if the light at the end of the tunnel was a train but these days the chances are that it is not because there are not many of them. The reason we need to get back control over the rail system is so that there will be more trains. 
Not too long ago Dr Cullen in replying to my questions in the House was giving pretty much the same view of trains as we have been hearing recently from the National Party. But whether it is due to rising oil prices the threat of climate change or the Greens wearing him away like water wearing away stone he is now recognising that rail is an essential part of New Zealand’s infrastructure going into the 21st century in a climate-constrained world with very high and constantly rising oil prices. I congratulate him on that. 
The history of New Zealand’s rail system is the history of changing ideology. What a long way we have come from the early 1990s when Ruth Richardson sold the whole rail system for what she called “top dollar” to overseas interests that were not the least bit interested in running a railway. That was the biggest mistake in that decision. She did not sell the rail system to a company that was experienced and interested in running a good rail service. She sold it to people who were basically asset strippers and who took most of the value out of the rail system put very little back and left us with a run-down and seriously damaged asset. I campaigned against the sale of the rail system in 1993 along with the unions in Auckland where I lived at that time with environmentalists and with everybody else who at that time already knew that peak oil was coming—though we were a fairly small minority. 
It took the Greens a couple of years to persuade the Government to take back the track which happened in 2003. That was a bold and brave decision because in 2003 the ideology that the private sector can always do everything best can clip the ticket making a big profit on the way and can provide cheaper and better services to the consumer in the process still had not entirely disappeared. It was on the wane but it had not completely gone. The Government was not quite bold enough to recover the whole thing. It took back the track and it put in $200 million to fix up its very sad state. It was not enough but it was a good start. 
The Government thought it would get a rail company that was good at running trains to run the rail services. Separating the track and the trains seemed worth a try at the time. Getting an experienced rail company to run the trains seemed worth a try but ever since 2003 Toll New Zealand and the Government have been locked in combat about the meaning of the track access agreement and the size of the track access charges. The fact is that we cannot expect a seriously run-down asset to be upgraded and brought up to standard simply by using the profits made on the services. It was always clear that there would have to be major Government investment to get the rail service back on track. 
It may be that if we had bought the whole thing in 2003 we could have got it more cheaply than we have got it now. I think that is probably true. But that is not a reason for saying at this stage that we should not recover it and recognise that we missed some opportunities in the past. The fact is that oil is now roughly 12 times more expensive than it was in the 1990s. It is now well over US$120 a barrel. It dipped to US$10 a barrel in 1998. Does anyone still remember oil being US$10 a barrel? I do. 
Hon Annette King 
: You are so old! 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Yes it is because I am so old I say to Mrs King—both of us I guess. At that stage in the 1990s after the oil price spikes of the late 1970s and the crushing to some extent of the hegemony of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries the world took some other strategies and the price dipped to the point where all of the preparation for peak oil was dropped all of the investments in alternative fuels were dropped and everybody said “Isn’t it lovely? Oil is so cheap.” and partied like there was no future. Well there was a future and it is a future of oil at US$126 a barrel not US$10 a barrel. 
It just so happens that when we send a tonne of freight a kilometre by rail it takes about a fifth as much oil as when we send it on a truck. For long-distance freight that is going from one major centre to another major centre there is no doubt at all that a properly laden train is the most efficient way of sending it. Better still if the line can be electrified—and most of the North Island Main Trunk Railway now is—we are using New Zealand renewable electricity rather than imported and expensive oil or diesel. In an energy-constrained world sending as much freight as possible by train makes a lot of sense. 
But that is not going to happen very quickly. We do still have a system that is seriously run down. We do still have areas where trains have to slow down because of the state of the track. We do still have tunnels and bridges that need upgrading to allow the larger containers and the heavier trains to pass. Signalling upgrades are needed. Station upgrades are needed. This is a case for biting the bullet while oil is still US$120 a barrel which will look really cheap in 10 years’ time and investing in upgrading a system that will enable us to run freight on a lot less oil in future. I believe that the Government now has the intention to invest seriously in the train system. That will not be easy: with reducing surpluses and the economy heading into a more difficult patch the Government will have to keep its nerve to continue investing in the rail system. But if it does not we will end up with an asset that is not capable of delivering what we will demand of it in future years. Once we have the track upgraded we need of course some new locomotives and we need some new rolling stock. That will be expensive but we need to order them now. We need to signal a very clear intention that this is the track we are going down. 
When we have done those things I look forward very much to a restoration of the long-distance passenger services that we once had. People these days are not very interested in spending hours and hours on a train when they can spend 1 hour on a plane. Well in future that 1 hour on the plane will be very much more expensive than it is now. Airlines all over the world including Air New Zealand are putting up their prices because of the price of oil. Nothing is actually going to replace cheap oil. We will have transport fuels of a sort but they will not be cheap. The same will apply to driving one’s car. So where a rail system exists I look forward to passenger trains being reinstated and to people once again discovering the delights of a trip where they can take a book where they can look out the window where they can plug in their laptop and do some work and where they are not constantly wrestling with the wheel of a car and negotiating other traffic or sitting on a bumpy bus. If I am sitting on a bumpy bus I cannot read without getting carsick and I think a lot of people are in that situation as well. 
So I say well done to the Government but it needs to have the nerve to keep going. This is only the start. This is the start of a decent rail system in New Zealand’s future but we need to make that investment now. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Maori Party comes to this debate with a range of feelings about the Government’s snap announcement to buy Toll’s rail and ferry business for $665 million. The decision to claw back significant assets into the ownership of the Crown is a significant challenge to the context and the history of privatisation in Aotearoa. The major beneficiaries of privatisation—big business and transnational organisations—came into Aotearoa and bought up large on all our existing infrastructure. Too many New Zealanders have become casualties of that policy over the last decade or more. Maori have been hit particularly hard by much of this privatisation and sale of New Zealand assets through the sale of workplaces like forestry the railroad and Telecom which employed huge numbers of Maori and the break-up and sale of many of the country’s freezing works. The Government was also selling off resources subject to Treaty claims—resources that were hard enough to recover when held by the Crown but ones that would become nigh impossible to get back once ownership moved offshore. 
Because of the monetary policy decisions by successive Governments the Maori Party has been advocating for a greater emphasis on sustainable equitable and participatory solutions—solutions that put Aotearoa first. Establishing a properly integrated rail system is one such solution—the use of State-owned assets for the benefit of all who call Aotearoa home. We think back to some 21 years ago to 1987 when the Labour Government set about passing the State-Owned Enterprises Act and we recall the advice of the Waitangi Tribunal at that time on this matter. The tribunal drew the nation’s attention to the fact that the legislation took no account of the need to address Treaty of Waitangi concerns. On 29 June 1987 the full Court of Appeal unanimously declared that the proposed wholesale transfer of assets to State enterprises without establishing any system to consider whether the transfer of such assets would be inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi would be unlawful. As a result a clause was added stating that nothing in the Act would be inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty. This was a dark period in our history; a period that went against the interests of Treaty partners and that ruthlessly and recklessly failed to take fully into account the consequences of the assets passing from the Crown upon the honour of the Treaty. Justice David Baragwanath in referring to the historic  
New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General  
decision of 1987 demonstrated the glaring and profound damage that stripping the nation’s assets would do in terms of the Treaty relationships: “The Crown was about to deprive itself of the capacity to honour by return of disputed assets the manifold breaches of its Treaty obligations. They would pass into the hands of third parties and be irrecoverable.” So when Labour determined to invest in rail we thought of this past we thought of this history and we welcome the move as a positive move for our future. 
There are other reasons why we supported the Government’s decision to buy back the rail. We have an absolute commitment to working in ways to ensure energy efficiency and sustainable progress in terms of environmental management. In this context the electrification of rail and the possibility of having longer heavier and more efficient trains—which mean that more freight could be taken off the road and put on rail—are all positive steps along the way towards achieving cleaner emission control. The Maori Party is happy to support investment in the rail infrastructure to deliver a better service and thereby reduce the number of cars on the road. We note that the rolling stock was old. Reports about having to take stock out of museums to cope with the rail demand hardly engenders confidence in the industry. However there is a concern we share with other parties in the House about the prospect of taxpayers having to face an extra $200 million as part of the Government’s buy-back of the national rail service. We applaud what the Government did in having the courage to invest more than $1 billion in the country’s rail and Cook Strait ferry services including the planned upgrades. But a lack of transparency is always a worry we have with this Government. The $200 million debt should have been declared upfront. 
Ultimately we know that the decision to buy back the rail was always designed to engender votes in an election year and we are disturbed at the environment of secrecy that has surrounded some of the Government’s statements. But on balance we certainly support the decision in our belief in the value of keeping our assets here under New Zealand ownership and for the benefit of New Zealanders. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to take part in this debate and to say to the House first of all that I would really like some questions to be answered. The question that needs to be answered here is how many members of this House really believe that it requires Government ownership of an entity to make it work effectively. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me take Sue Moroney through the question. Does she think it would be more effective if say the farms of this land were owned by the Government? There is a model out there in the world where the Government owns the farm and the peasant workers work on it. It is called communism and it is stamped in Eastern Europe as “Best Before 1990”. But I believe that Sue Moroney probably thinks that that is how our farms would be run in the best way. Michael Cullen could easily be upstairs right now negotiating to buy back the farms. 
Let us take it further. What about manufacturing in the factories? Who believes that manufacturing and production in factories would work better if those factories were Government-owned? I ask the members of the House who think that to put up their hands. Again not one member’s hand has gone up. This is interesting. No one thinks that. Members clearly think it would be better if the private sector kept hold of the manufacturing sector. 
It does not mean we cannot put some subsidies in place if we think certain things need to happen. The Government does that all the time with research and development tax credits and other things. That is what the Government does if it decides it wants one particular part of industry grow or one particular part of industry to change. So through financing and subsidies it can achieve that outcome—but not through ownership not through buying New Zealand Steel or Comalco or any of the other major manufacturing or production outfits. 
Let us carry on. How about we go with some other things? How about if those members think it would be better if the Government owned coastal shipping? I hear that is a big part of the integrated strategy. [ 
Interruption 
] Coastal shipping! Wow—we will see Michael Cullen out negotiating with Rod Grout in a few days to buy back the coastal shipping operations! Of course it is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense. Ownership does not determine efficient use of an asset. 
I ask another question. How many members of this House think rail was run efficiently and effectively when it was Government-owned? I want to have a look at this—I have not seen even a Green member’s hand go up on this one. I will repeat the question in case it was not clear. How many people think that New Zealand Rail was run effectively and efficiently when it was Government-owned? 
Shane Ardern 
: I want my tractor back. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Right! I think Shane Ardern raises a really good issue. He wants his tractor back. The stories were legendary. In fact New Zealand Rail did one thing brilliantly—let us get that right. It employed lots of people. It was actually a Government repository for unemployment. It spilled them on to the railway network. But if we look at the freight carried per employee when the Government owned it we see that it was a disaster. It was by any world standard of any transport sector a disaster and that lot over there are telling us that that is what we are going to go back to with the Government owning it. 
There is another thing we could do. I have the calendar here. We can get it out and mark the first day of the school holidays. That is what I want members of the public to do from now on. If they are going to be travelling they should get their calendars out work out when the school holidays are work out when the Christmas break is and work out when Easter starts and they should not go near the ferries on those days. I am telling them now what will happen—they will be on strike. We know they will be on strike. The unions would love to strike lots more but they have been a bit hamstrung under their previous ownership. The change in ownership has freed them up brilliantly. The Government now owns them and the unions are saying: “We can take these guys to the cleaners and they will either have to pay us or we’ll knacker them.” What a stupid thing to expose oneself to—to become the new owner of an old asset that was stuffed anyway and then say that it was run hopelessly by the Government in the past the Government will overpay for it and now the public will get a good deal! 
I have not seen a single hand go up to one of these questions today. Not one member of the House! Not even the Greens thought rail was run effectively and efficiently when it was Government-owned. Now we get this grubby secret little deal where we will not get the facts about how much was spent. We will not know what was actually done in terms of giving access to a sweetheart deal. 
Interestingly Peter Brown raised the case of Mainfreight. Mainfreight liked the deal he said. That is not quite true. Mainfreight has the most schizophrenic view of this world I have ever heard. Its chief executive Don Brain said it was a great idea and Richard Prebble who was a director of the company—a long-time director—said it was a disaster and an outrage. So Mainfreight better get its act together. It has a senior director of its board of representatives saying it is an outrage and its chief executive saying it is a great idea. So I do not think we can take Mainfreight’s view into account. It has two totally different views. [ 
Interruption 
] 
That is right. I should come back to the lost tractor. We should not tell too many stories but Richard Prebble told us about one time when a wagon got shunted off the end of the wharf here in Wellington. They finally decided they had better put some divers down to find it. They brought in the navy divers and the floating crane and down they went. When the divers came up they said: “Which one’s yours?”. There were six freight wagons down in the ocean. They had been bumped off the end of the wharf but no one cared. 
There was a story about a farmer who got so angry about his tractor not showing up that we went out in search of it. He found it somewhere. I have a story about my uncle. This is a great story. Shane Ardern will know this man. He owned butchers shops in Opunake. His name was Ernie Poole. He had a horse that was a New Zealand champion. Actually Sue Moroney’s family will be able to repeat this. The horse’s name was Wandering Ways. It was the first 2-year-old or 3-year-old to win the Easter Cup. Do members know why its name was Wandering Ways? He bought it at the yearling sales. He had it shipped to Opunake and 4 months later the horse was found somewhere in Northland because New Zealand Rail had lost it. I swear to members that that New Zealand champion horse’s name was Wandering Ways because of the way rail had taken him all around the country. That is what we will go back to. 
Hon Member 
: He got it as a 2-year-old. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes he bought it as a yearling and got it as a 2-year-old! The thing was skin and bone. Everyone is laughing; this is a great joke and this is what we will go back to. The Government has talked about how we need rail to be integrated with our transport strategy. Does that mean we will buy the trucks? Does that mean we will buy the ships? Does that mean we will buy the taxis? No we do not need to buy any of those parts. 
Moana Mackey 
: Are you going to sell them? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There is the stupid Moana Mackey asking whether we will sell them. [ 
Interruption 
] I am just asking her whether we need to own— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take exception on behalf of Moana Mackey to the comment that the member in his excitement made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry but the member cannot take exception on behalf of another member. That member herself has to take objection. 
Moana Mackey 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that the member is getting excited but I did take exception to that comment. I do not think it was warranted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: So you are asking for a withdrawal? 
Moana Mackey 
: A withdrawal and an apology. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I withdraw and apologise. If that is the worst thing I can do today then that Government should withdraw and apologise for its proposal to buy this stupid rail system. The point I am trying to get over time and time again to those members is that if the Government wants to do things in the transport sector then it can get into regulations it can get into subsidies it can get into rules if it wants to to change outcomes. But the Government does not need to be the owner. Who for example sold Telecom? That is a good question. Who decided that while the telephone company was owned by the Crown it was a disaster? It had 25000 employees and I think within 4 years of privatisation that number had dropped to 7000. Who sold it? Was it that dreadful National Government? Help me on this. No—members are shaking their heads. No it was not National. You see the Government did not need to achieve outcomes through ownership. There are all sorts of ways. 
Shane Ardern 
: It was Helen Clark. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Helen Clark was the Deputy Prime Minister and Michael Cullen was the Associate Minister of Finance when Telecom was sold. That is who sold Telecom. All I am saying to members on that side is that if they had wanted to get some outcomes in rail—and I accept they want to move more freight and we have not yet heard how that will happen—ownership is not necessary. Why does ownership change the outcome? According to Jeanette Fitzsimons it costs one-fifth as much to move freight on a train as it costs on a truck. If that is the case if one were a freight forwarder one would have to be mad to use trucks. It is not quite as simple as that. Trucking companies give flexibility. They give discounts and all sorts of access to networks. 
Shane Ardern 
: And they deliver the goods. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes—and the horse shows up the next day and does not get called Wandering Ways. That is exactly right. I heard Jeanette Fitzsimons say that the other good thing about the rail is that the vast bulk of it is electrified and we are using renewable energy. That is not true. A huge chunk in the growth in electricity generation in this country has been from fossil fuel burning. If the Government thinks that that is good for the nation it is wrong. 
The National Party is totally absolutely opposed to the Government’s purchase of the railways. We think there has been no transparency whatsoever. The sums of money paid are appalling and the way the outcomes the Government says it is trying to achieve will be achieved have not in any way been documented to this House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The National Party is totally absolutely opposed to the purchase of rail by the Government. It is absolutely and totally opposed to it but it will not sell it. Have members heard of the television programme  
The Vicar of Dibley 
? There is a character in it who says: “Yes no yes no yes no no yes.” That is the National Party. That is John Key and Bill English put together. They say: “Yes no yes no yes no yes.” They do not know whether they want to sell the railways. We have just heard a passionate speech from Maurice Williamson. He is always passionate about things. He passionately told us that National members are opposed to the purchase of rail. They are opposed to the purchase but Maurice Williamson did not say: “But we won’t sell it.” because he would not actually be in favour of them selling it buying it back or whatever. He would not have been on the page to begin with. He is always off the National Party page. He has his own approach and I like it because at least he is honest about what he thinks. At least he tells the people of New Zealand where he stands when it comes to transport. I do not always agree with him but his leader does not know whether he is Arthur or Martha. 
National members would like the public of New Zealand to believe they would never sell another asset. You see they did their polling. They found out that the people of New Zealand do not like the sale of State-owned assets—infrastructure that is important to New Zealand. It is not about a few trucks; it is about the only railway system we have. They find that the public of New Zealand does not like it to be sold off so because it is election year John Key has told big Bill English to be quiet and not to support the sale of State-owned assets just now. He said: “Wait until after the election and if we’ve got the Treasury benches then just watch what we’ll do!”. I say to the people of New Zealand that they should listen to what the National Party is saying. They should listen to its words because those words are weasel words. We have just heard it really from Maurice Williamson. He said it all. He said that National does not support the Government buying back rail. National would love to sell it but it will not tell us that before the election because people might not vote for it. That is what it is all about. People might not vote for National if it told them the truth which is that it would like to sell State-owned assets. National has always supported the sale of State-owned assets. 
I have to say that I almost got the giggles when I listened to the speech from the Leader of the Opposition John Key. He was the man who was opposed to the Government buying back Air New Zealand but this week he is telling New Zealand that he supports it and that it was his idea to buy back Air New Zealand. What short memories those members over there have. I thought that people who are listening to this debate would be interested in the debate that was held when Air New Zealand was bought back by this Government. The debate was held on 13 September 2001. This is what Bill English said about buying back Air New Zealand. He said that it had “sent the commercial credibility of New Zealand and New Zealanders down the tubes”. That is what he said buying back Air New Zealand did. He went on to say: “The Government has now placed us in a very difficult situation and it is this: there is no path ahead for Air New Zealand and the Government says that in its statement today. It has committed NZ$500 million and there is no path ahead for Air New Zealand. It is a crippled airline at the bottom of the world with a huge taxpayer liability around its neck. Where does that money come from? Well $600 million …” comes from the “Superannuation Fund. I have been saying to audiences: ‘Wouldn’t it be hard for the Government to resist the temptation to invest that in Air New Zealand?’ and that is exactly what it has done. The first investment of the Superannuation Fund is to invest … in a risky loan to Air New Zealand.” 
National opposed the purchase of Air New Zealand and now today its members are telling New Zealanders that it supports it that it has always supported it. Well the record shows that National opposed it. Members opposite said they could not run an airline if they were the Government. Maurice Williamson has just told this House that the Government cannot run State assets. Well this Government has shown that State assets can be run successfully. New Zealanders are very proud of their airline because it is run successfully and in a business-like manner. And so it will be with the railways of New Zealand. 
Maurice Williamson likes to talk about the old days of rail and he filled us with great funny stories about the things that went wrong with New Zealand Rail. What he forgets is that the straightening up of New Zealand Rail happened under the fourth Labour Government. So when National became the Government—Richard Prebble actually does not take credit for straightening out some of New Zealand Rail—it was able to sell it off because there was something to sell off. It sold if off to its rich mates. The sale of New Zealand Rail to Fay Richwhite was the biggest scandal in New Zealand. It was a sale that was not worth its value—not the value of that company as it was when it was in Government hands. National sold it to its rich mates at a bargain basement price and they stripped out the assets of rail in New Zealand. It ensured it did not invest in rail upkeep. Nor did it invest in rolling stock and we saw the use of rail to move freight in New Zealand deteriorate because the railway was deteriorating. 
Everybody knows that one has to invest in one’s asset. When there is an owner who only wants to strip the profits out to send overseas to its overseas foreign owners then that owner will not invest in its asset for the benefit of the people of New Zealand. This Government believes that one has to invest in assets that are for the benefit of New Zealand. I say to the National Party that we do not believe it nor should the people of New Zealand believe it when it says it will not sell rail. We know that National will sell rail at the first chance it can because it is philosophical. National believes that the Government cannot run a business enterprise. Well we have proved National members wrong because Air New Zealand is operating in the international market winning awards as a top operating airline and it is majority Government-owned. 
New Zealand Rail will once again be moving freight and passengers around this country. I will tell members why. This Government will invest in rolling stock and in line upkeep in New Zealand because that is what is needed. What the National Party has not told people is that the company that owns rail now Toll was not interested in keeping lines open in provincial New Zealand. It was not interested in the upkeep of railway lines that go to our provinces where our provincial people live—people who need good networks in transport. It was not interested in keeping those lines open unless perhaps there was a subsidy or two that could be put in its pockets and sent overseas to its foreign owners. So this Government said that there is a point when this particular piece of infrastructure ought to be owned by the people of New Zealand when we ought to invest in this infrastructure and make it work for the people of New Zealand. The New Zealand public will see given the opportunity and led by this Government that rail in New Zealand will once again be moving freight around New Zealand. It will be moving passengers and supporting the people who live in our Timarus our Gisbournes our Whangareis and our small parts in New Zealand because we actually think they count as well. 
I support the purchase of rail. I am delighted we own this piece of infrastructure. It is so important and crucial to our transport system. I say to the people of New Zealand that they should think long and hard because the National Party today showed its real colours. National members speak out of both sides of their mouths but what they are saying is that they do not support the ownership of Air New Zealand or of rail. If they get the opportunity they will sell it—mark my words. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill 
In Committee 
Preamble 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and take a brief call on the preamble to the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill which provides for the transfer of the fee simple estate of Mauao historic reserve better known as Mount Maunganui from the Crown to Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga representing the Tauranga Moana iwi. The fee simple estate is to be held on trust by the trustees of the Mauao Trust on behalf of those iwi. The bill gives effect to an agreement to introduce vesting legislation in relation to Mauao signed by the Crown and iwi in August 2007. The bill is reasonably straightforward as would be expected. 
Mount Maunganui or Mauao is of significant cultural traditional historical and spiritual importance to Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. As I say that is not surprising. The maunga is right there placed in the middle of their tribal territory—their rohe—and clearly all of their historical and spiritual associations are tied up with that maunga as no doubt Mita Ririnui would be able to confirm for us if he were to take a call. 
I want to comment on just a couple of matters. It is very clear in the preamble that the bill does not form part of any Treaty settlement and that is interesting in itself. I have seen a note I think from the Minister’s briefing notes stating that Mauao was acquired by the Crown in the 1880s and has been administered as a historic reserve since 1981. Of course we have not been taken into the usual historical elements associated with a Treaty claim and the information relating to the Crown acquiring Mauao in the 1880s has not been a part of the scrutiny of this bill. But I had a sense from some of the submitters when we were in Tauranga to hear submissions that that particular element that this maunga had not been made part of their Treaty claims was the cause of some slight concern—or maybe it was not slight even. So obviously there is a story behind the acquisition of this maunga back in the 1880s but that does not form part of the narrative of this bill because there has been an agreement that it is not to form any part of a Treaty settlement. As I say I think that is a matter of some interest. It may be that when the Tauranga Moana iwi come to finally settle their Treaty claims we will hear more of the details of the way in which the Crown came into possession of this reserve. 
Instead implicit in the preamble is the notion that the transfer is to enable the building of healthy relationships between the Tauranga Moana iwi and the Crown. That is an interesting concept as well. We would hope that there is already a relationship between the iwi of that area and the Crown. As all iwi are these iwi are important in their rohe. One would have hoped there was already a strong enough relationship with the Crown but this vesting obviously has as its root the notion that the Crown wants to build healthy relationships with the iwi. That is a very fine notion—absolutely—and I hope that it will also be the basis for more energetic activity around the settlement of the iwi’s Treaty claims. To date even with all the activity that Dr Cullen seems to be energised with there does not seem to be much progress yet on the Tauranga Moana iwi’s Treaty claim. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 I thank the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for a very positive contribution to the Committee stage debate on the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I think the point that she made is one that needs to be acknowledged much more strongly throughout this entire legislative process and that is that the Crown set out to establish positive relationships with the iwi of Tauranga. Although the relationship at the time could be considered to have been reasonably positive this initiative builds on a lot of the initiatives undertaken by the Crown in decades gone by. 
As the member said Mauao te maunga has a very very strong history in terms of its association with the iwi of Tauranga Moana they being Ngati Ranginui Ngai Te Rangi and Ngati Pukenga. There also is the historic relationship which is acknowledged in this legislation with Waitaha who are of Te Arawa descent. It is also important for this Parliament to know that Mauao te maunga or Mauao the mountain has seen many many iwi from all of the tribal confederations land on his shores including Takitimu Tainui Te Arawa and many others who passed through the region at the time of the great migration. 
Pita Paraone 
: What about Ngapuhi? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Mataatua is of course one of those peoples. For the satisfaction of the member who wants Ngapuhi to be mentioned I can say that Ngapuhi did visit Tauranga but not for very long. They were moved on and they headed north. They came from Whakatane. The first recorded hijacking in the history of Aotearoa was when they hijacked the Mataatua canoe and took it up to the Hokianga. They did not know how to sail into the harbour and the canoe sunk. It has been there ever since. One member in this Chamber can confirm that that waka is there and that member is sitting behind me. The Hon Dover Samuels went down and had a look and it certainly is there. 
So I say that there is a connection between all these tribes and this maunga called Mauao which has this great history. At one time it sat at the back of the Taumata hills which is a place where a lot of great mountains stand today. There is a history around that but I will get on to it tomorrow at the third reading. It is actually quite a good story and it is a positive story. 
It is important to acknowledge the significance of this legislation and the relationship of the Tauranga Moana iwi to this icon on the landscape of the Tauranga Harbour. After a very long journey and many attempts by the iwi to have the maunga reinstated with them it finally looks like that will happen—unless someone in this House has the courage to try to stop it and I would advise against that. 
I also acknowledge the contribution made by the local authorities. They are concerned about the ongoing maintenance of the Mauao reserve and they have very strong management plans in place in collaboration with local iwi through the advisory committees to ensure that the work on Mauao is ongoing and that whatever cost implications come to hand are dealt with through the council’s annual appropriations. I understand that those figures are quite high. They are beyond the means of the local iwi but that is something that the iwi and the Tauranga local authorities have come to a decision on. 
As I say the history is very well documented and very strong. It is interesting that annually on Waitangi Day 6 February Tauranga people—not just iwi—climb to the top of this mountain at dawn to celebrate Waitangi Day. In the last 2 years I have seen Bob Clarkson there. I have to give him lessons on how to make an appropriate speech on Waitangi Day because twice he has got it wrong. Never mind I am told that he is leaving Parliament—but I do not think it is because of that. However like everybody else who comes up the maunga of whatever ethnicity we are always glad to see him always glad to have him there. Next time he should come and have breakfast with us and we will rejoice in the founding of our country. Thank you. 
Preamble agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 Vesting of Mauao historic reserve and related maters 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to focus on clause 7 which has been taken out of the bill by the Maori Affairs Committee and also on substituted clause 8(3). Clause 7 as it was when the bill was introduced caused quite a deal of excitement in the committee mainly because the language was inappropriate and badly written. Clause 7 provided that the general law was to continue to apply as if the reserve itself continued to be vested in the Crown. That really was inappropriate and I considered it almost insulting to the tangata whenua of the district. I am very pleased that clause 8(3) represents a substantial improvement and I thank my colleagues on the committee for the work they did because the end product is much better. 
Clause 8(3) simply provides that until the reservation of the reserve is revoked—I think under the Reserves Act 1977—the Crown continues to have certain rights and obligations and that those rights and obligations are akin to those of the holder of a fee simple estate. The very reason why the clause is expressed in that way is that the Crown continues to have obligations in relation to occupational health and safety building and rating liability legislation. So the select committee has done an admirable job in focusing on the words and expressing them in a more felicitous manner. As a result the legislation is much improved. 
That kind of diligence and effort undertaken by the Maori Affairs Committee can of course be contrasted with what happens with regard to much of the other legislation that goes through the system in this place—for example the Electoral Finance Bill. That bill went through the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Labour members paid absolutely no attention to the words. As one can see the net result is legislation where the Labour Party has shot itself in the foot with a howitzer and that will become very apparent over the next few weeks. It is a recipe for litigation. That is what Labour wanted and that is what it has got. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear my friend Mr Woolerton from New Zealand First. Well he is no babe in the woods no innocent either. He is one of the guilty people because he could have focused on the words as his friend on the Maori Affairs Committee did. Those members may look from this angle to be like peas in a pod but I can tell the committee they are not. Mr Paraone is a very diligent and hard-working person who focuses on the words. Although I like Mr Woolerton immensely and think he is a fine chap and a good bloke the reality of the matter is that last year he did not focus on the words in the Electoral Finance Bill and he is going to pay the penalty for that. 
The only other thing I want to say is that clause 13 “Rule against perpetuities does not apply” is one that members will be very interested in. The rule against perpetuities often appears in legislation. I had a brief discussion with my friend Mrs te Heuheu and I think we both agreed that the relevant provision is section 6 of the Perpetuities Act 1964. As I understand it if a disposition is made the perpetuity period applicable to the disposition under the rule against perpetuities is to be a period not exceeding 80 years. Of course what we want here is a disposition that is not affected by the rule against perpetuities and we therefore have a particular provision that the rule against perpetuities will not apply. That is very interesting and I am sure Mr Chauvel could lecture the Committee for hours on that particular provision. It is necessary just to tidy up one minor matter. 
The rest of Part 2 is consequential on the vesting of the reserve. Some provisions deal with what is to happen if reserve status is revoked and another provision states that the vesting itself is to have no effect on certain pre-existing rights. Other than that it is all pretty standard stuff. 
I am pleased the select committee did what the Justice and Electoral Committee failed to do with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill—that is to focus on the words in the bill and tidy them up. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I too will take just a brief call on Part 2 and absolutely support everything that my colleague Chris Finlayson has talked about. He is right in saying the main discussions in the Maori Affairs Committee focused on clause 7 which in the original bill was the source of great pain to the Tauranga Moana iwi. It is amazing how what appears to be a very simple provision just a few words can cause great angst and pain. When the select committee went to Tauranga to hear submissions from the Tauranga Moana iwi that fact was very very obvious to us. I repeat the words in clause 7 which my colleague stated and which were taken out of the bill: “For the purposes of any enactment … Mauao historic reserve must be treated as if the fee simple estate in the reserve were still vested in the Crown.” Although clause 5 had stated quite clearly that the estate was to be vested in the Mauao Trust the iwi took great umbrage at this vesting and called it a Clayton’s vesting because on the one hand the bill stated that the reserve was being vested in the trust but on the other hand it had this phrase—“as if … the reserve were still vested in the Crown.” My colleague Chris Finlayson made reference to the fact that the Maori Affairs Committee worked very diligently to find a set of words that took that pain away. I suppose that in Parliament now and again fortunately we get legislation to work on for which politics really do not apply. This bill is an example of such legislation. 
Over 30 years of Treaty history and Treaty settlements in this country a sea change has occurred in the understanding of many New Zealanders about the association of iwi to their maunga or mountain; their awa or river; and their sea or lake. Clearly the maunga in respect of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga Moana has huge meaning. I am grateful to the member on the other side of the Chamber Mita Ririnui for giving us some of the historical association which I certainly was not aware of but which I had alluded to in my speech on the preamble. This bill was one of those occasions where all of the members of the select committee both Government and Opposition could see that it was possible to have some different wording while still making sure that the reserve is vested in the iwi but that the obligations that should remain with the Crown and with the Tauranga District Council would be accommodated. So hopefully the work that has been done by the committee has resulted in something that those iwi can now accept. Hopefully they will be present here as the week goes on when we do the third reading to support the work that has been done. 
As I say politics in this place are sometimes completely out of place and to play politics in relation to this bill would have been totally out of place. The members on the Maori Affairs Committee sometimes come to that conclusion a lot faster than those on other select committees. I am very pleased that we were able to make some accommodation to better—[ 
Interruption 
] Of course our own member Bob Clarkson was on the committee and so was Chris Finlayson. As I say there is a tendency when it matters—and it matters for Tauranga Moana iwi—that there is a clear responsibility to keep the politics out of the situation. At times like this it is a great pleasure to be on a committee that works in that way. 
I just make reference to one of the other things that I think made it sensible to make the changes. When we look at what happened with Bastion Point and Okahu Bay for Ngati Whatua we see that a form of words and a vesting was found back in the 1990s whereby the reserve was vested in Ngati Whatua and all other things were taken care of in much the same way. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Once again I find myself standing after that member has said everything I wanted to say about the positive aspects of this bill. That is very good and the unsuccessful interjection by the member for Te Tai Tokerau does not perturb me at all over what I have to say about Part 2 of the bill. But the Hon Georgina te Heuheu did make one very strong and salient point which was that this transfer of the Mauao historic reserve had been described at one point as a Clayton’s return because of the manner in which the bill was worded at that time. 
Of course we can pin labels on just about everything but what is important in this case is that Tauranga iwi in 2001 approached the Crown through the Attorney-General who was then the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the local list MP the Hon Margaret Wilson—now the Speaker—requested a serious hearing for the return of the estate to the iwi of Tauranga Moana. Their request did not fall on deaf ears; in fact the Minister at that time summoned officials and instructed them to make this return of the estate happen. 
A lot of events followed that instruction until we got to the stage where we were looking at the deed of transfer and the wording at that time as described by the previous speaker offended some of the representatives of Tauranga Moana and was given the label “Clayton’s return”. We can call it anything we like: we can call it a “Mita Ririnui return” a “Georgina te Heuheu return” or a “Bob Clarkson return”. The fact is that the key word is “return”—and that is what the people wanted. But words are important; as Barack Obama would say words do matter. So there was debate around whether the words were offensive and by and large a number of people thought they were. 
But the changes in the wording basically say the same things as the words that were considered to be offensive were attempting to say. They were attempting to protect the trustees of the Mauao Trust to whom the estate would be invested and that is important. Maybe some people overlooked that very important fact but it is important to protect trustees and the Crown was prepared to do that and recommended specific wording to ensure that it was clear that the Crown at the end of the day had the obligation and responsibility as if it were the owner—it did not say it was it said “as if” it were. So the protections as far as we were concerned initially did extend to the point where the Mauao Trust was protected on those particular matters. 
But I have to say that to some degree the select committee in Tauranga was misled. There were statements made that the Crown refused to listen to the concerns and was not prepared to make changes. Crown Law came back with a recommended change which was put before the iwi in Tauranga and—I need to say this—was unanimously rejected by those who wanted the words changed. The funny thing is that the changes that have now been accepted are not dissimilar to those that were recommended by Crown Law. But that is by the by; that is unimportant. The important thing is that people now feel quite comfortable with the changes and are prepared to support the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill wholeheartedly. 
I want to move on to the next point around the acknowledgment of the ancestral associations of Waitaha. From the outset it was assumed—in fact it was believed—that Waitaha would be included in the certificate of title for Mauao. But considerable debate and considerable resistance developed as a result of that and Waitaha being the people they are looked at the big picture and said it was not about them it was about the estate it was about everybody reconnecting with this historical icon and that the management of the estate going forward was given high priority. So they were prepared to step back from that acknowledgment in terms of being recognised on the certificate of title as long as their historical association with the estate was acknowledged in the bill—and that has been done. 
I am sure that when Waitaha are sitting at the table with the Crown to negotiate the settlement of the historic claims this particular matter will come up as it will with all other iwi of Tauranga because as the Hon Georgina te Heuheu pointed out earlier on this is not a Treaty settlement nor has it an any time been considered to be a Treaty settlement. As she described this is the Crown building positive relationships with the iwi of Tauranga and transferring the estate back to their ownership in fee simple title acknowledging that at some time in the future when Tauranga Moana iwi are sufficiently prepared they will actually deal with the matters around their historical claim and so will Waitaha. Kia ora. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
:  
When this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill concerning the Mount came up for debate I took a lot of interest in it. I joined the select committee that was dealing with the issue and I took an active interest in making sure we had a lasting agreement. It concerned me—and I spoke out about it—that the original layout of the bill was a bit of a Clayton’s deal. I was most concerned that this bill would be signed into law and then the debate about ownership would start all over again—we discussed that at the select committee—and go on for the next 20 years. I say that if we are going to do these settlements let us do them in such a way that they last in perpetuity—that is a big word for me. I believe that with small alterations such as the ones the select committee has recommended we will have a great end result. As I have said I am happy to have been a part of the select committee and part of getting a good result whereby both the Maori groups and the Government are happy. 
This bill protects people’s rights to use the walkways etc. without cost. I believe I have been part of building a healthy relationship between the Crown Maori groups and the public in sorting out this bill. If this was a deal in the public sector I would say we had a willing seller and a willing buyer. Everybody walks away happy. I congratulate the people involved on the select committee from both sides of the Chamber and all outside parties. Thank you. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman tena tatou. Ae engari he honore nui tenei ki te aru i a “Bob the Builder”! 
[ 
Greetings Mr Chairman and greetings to us all. Yes it is a great honour indeed to follow “Bob the Builder”! 
] 
I am just acknowledging the privilege I have of following the previous speaker. Given his notice to the general public that he will be turning his back on this place I want it to be recorded that during his 3 years as the member for Tauranga we can honestly say that he has done something for the people of Tauranga by giving his support to this Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. I do not want to hear anyone deride the honourable member from Tauranga as not having done anything during his time here. I acknowledge the support that he gave to this bill. 
In terms of the previous speaker’s allusion to the omission of clause 7 quite clearly when this matter came to the Maori Affairs Committee the parties involved—particularly the Maori parties—were concerned about the interest that the Crown would still maintain in this reserve should the original wording remain. To the credit of all the members of the Maori Affairs Committee they heard the submissions made by the submitters and took on board the concerns they had. 
I want to signal to any claimant group or any Maori group negotiating with the Crown that if it does not agree with what is being proposed then I suggest that it does not sign anything until it does agree. In this case the agreement had been signed up to. However in spite of that the parties came to the select committee and expressed their disquiet about the agreement. Fortunately as a result of the collegiality amongst the members of the Maori Affairs Committee we were able to revisit the very concerns the parties had and the bill we are discussing at this moment is the result of that agreement. 
I also make reference to clause 14 which gives due recognition to Waitaha. We heard during the hearing of submissions a very impassioned plea from representatives of the Waitaha iwi group. In spite of their being the only people in the room who would have liked to see Waitaha get a bigger representation in this bill than they have now I think it is to their credit that they stood their ground and that they did so without any malice. At the end of the day history will show their descendants that they represented their iwi very well and that they did so without any malice. However we have to take on board the history of that relationship. We have to take on board the standing of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga in relation to this very sacred reserve. As a consequence of that we have clause 14 which gives due recognition to Waitaha. 
I think that this bill is an example of how the members of a select committee although belonging to different political parties and bringing together different political views can actually work together and produce a bill that has the support of all of our different political philosophies. I commend my fellow members of the Maori Affairs Committee who did so. Kia ora. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe. The Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill is significant legislation that transfers ownership of Mauao to Tauranga Moana iwi Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga. It also recognises the historical connections and ancestral associations of Waitaha. The bill recognises the enormous significance of Mauao to the tangata whenua. It recognises the mana of Mauao and it raises the profile of Tauranga Moana Maori. 
This bill will vest the fee simple estate of the Mauao historic reserve in the trustees of the Mauao Trust to hold on behalf of Tauranga Moana iwi. The trustees will be the registered proprietors of Mauao and the Tauranga City Council will continue to administer and manage the Mauao historic reserve in consultation with the iwi who are represented on its Mauao steering group. The trustees will own Mauao but the Crown will continue to bear the burden of any legal or financial responsibility. This is currently divulged to the Tauranga City Council under the Reserves Act. Tauranga Moana iwi and Waitaha are represented on the Tauranga City Council’s steering group. Together these measures will ensure that Mauao is returned to the tangata whenua. Mauao will continue to be accessible to all New Zealanders and it will be protected from commercialisation or alienation. 
I commend the members of the Maori Affairs Committee especially the chairman Dave Hereora in relation to the consistency and the dedication that they have shown in bringing cognisance and true recognition to nationhood. At times platitudes were thrown around but the practices were forthright. The thought that Bob Clarkson will roam up at every Treaty day is certainly something and it will be a sight to watch alongside Mita Ririnui. The fact that Ngapuhi came down and went back with the waka is an issue. It is a beacon of history and it is certainly a point of contact for our people as a nation. I again commend the select committee the submitters and all those people who have been involved especially the iwi. Kia ora tatou. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Hon Trevor Mallard the Minister of Labour. I intend to move that the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 22 July 2008 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill amends the Holidays Act 2003 in relation to the transfer of public holidays for employees whose work shift crosses midnight. It will ensure that when a shift spans 2 days at least one of which is a public holiday an agreement can be reached by an employer and an employee so that the public holiday can be recognised on one whole shift. 
This legislation is needed following a recent Supreme Court decision that found that an employer and employee cannot agree to transfer a public holiday from a day listed in the Holidays Act to another day. The Holidays Act was intended to give employers and employees the flexibility to agree to transfer a public holiday from a day listed in the Holidays Act. This could be for reasons of cultural or personal significance or for reasons of convenience. 
The current situation of not being able to transfer public holidays is having a particularly disruptive effect on shift-based operations. In these businesses many employees whose work shift crosses midnight are not able to enjoy a full shift as a public holiday. Many shift-based operations are experiencing increased production and payroll costs; for example business compliance costs are increased where employees’ wages have to be calculated at differing rates for an entire shift when the shift crosses into a public holiday. 
Currently where a business chooses to close down on the public holiday employees may be required to work up to midnight when the public holiday starts and to complete their shift from midnight at the end of the public holiday. Such arrangements are not reflective of the overall intent of the Holidays Act to promote balance between work and other aspects of employees’ lives. 
This bill responds to the needs of businesses that operate over 24-hour periods and to the needs of their employees to ensure that employers will have the flexibility to transfer a public holiday in line with their business needs and that employees working shifts that span 2 days are able to enjoy the application of a public holiday to one whole shift. The bill provides that where an employee’s shift spans 2 calendar days and one of those days is a public holiday an employer and employee can enter into a genuine agreement to transfer the public holiday to a 24-hour period that begins or ends on the public holiday if the employee is due to work a shift in that 24-hour period. 
The bill also provides for situations where an employee’s shift spans 2 public holidays; for example an employee who starts work on Christmas Day and finishes on Boxing Day. In this situation an employer and employee can agree that two separate periods of 24 hours are to be treated as public holidays if each period starts or finishes during those public holidays. These provisions reflect the intent behind allowing transfer while also maintaining a connection to the actual public holidays. 
The bill requires that agreements concerning the transfer of public holidays be in writing. This will ensure that employers and employees are clear about their public holiday arrangements. The bill also clarifies that the period agreed to be treated as a public holiday will be a public holiday whether or not the employee actually works during that period. The provisions of the Holidays Act that apply to public holidays will apply to that period. Employees who do not work in the period that has been agreed as the public holiday are able to enjoy a full shift off as a paid public holiday. Employees who work in the period will receive time and a half for the entire shift and an alternative holiday. This ensures that agreements to transfer public holidays do not lead to a reduction in the number of paid public holidays that would otherwise be available to the employee. 
The bill makes consequential amendments to the Holidays Act in respect of the definition of a public holiday and the provisions that were intended to allow for transfer of public holidays. The bill amends the definition of a public holiday in the Holidays Act to clarify that a public holiday is a day listed in the Holidays Act and that if there is a transfer agreement a public holiday will include the period agreed to be treated as a public holiday. As this bill applies only to employees whose work period crosses midnight the bill clarifies that a transfer of public holidays can occur only in these limited circumstances. 
This bill responds to the needs of employers and employees. For this reason it has the support of both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. It reflects the Labour-led Government’s policy to provide holiday and leave entitlements that are appropriate to accommodate increased diversity in working patterns. It also responds to the diverse work-life circumstances that are common in New Zealand while balancing the needs of employers and employees. I commend this bill to the House. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill. This amendment to the Holidays Act 2003 is required following a recent Supreme Court decision that found that an employer and an employee could not agree to transfer a public holiday from a day listed in the Act to another day. 
This is a very narrow bill; the issue is limited. It is not a wide-ranging bill by any means. As the Minister has stated it amends the definition of public holiday to include by agreement a period of 24 hours agreed to be treated as a public holiday but to exclude part of a day agreed to be treated as not being part of a public holiday. Then it gives the example of an employee who is to work from 10 p.m. on 24 April to 6 a.m. on Anzac Day and from 10 p.m. on Anzac Day to 6 a.m. on 26 April. The employee and the employer can agree to treat the time from 10 p.m. to midnight on Anzac Day as not being part of a public holiday in exchange for treating a period of 24 hours that finishes on Anzac Day as a public holiday. So the bill allows parties to treat one entire shift that is split over 2 days where one day is not a public holiday as if that shift were entirely worked on a public holiday. Under this amendment the employee and the employer can sit down and reach an agreement and we trust them to do that. 
Just by way of background I tell members that the regulatory impact and compliance costs statement to the original Holidays Bill before it was dramatically altered at the select committee stated in 2003: “The Holidays Act 1981 does not reflect current working patterns or social and economic developments since its enactment. The Act has attracted criticism from the public and employer and employee groups over recent years for being complicated and difficult to understand and apply.” It stated further: “During the year to 30 September 2002 59393 (26%) enquiries to the Employment Relations Service infoline related to holidays.” That was 5 years ago. In fact the select committee report stated: “By majority we recommend substantial redrafting of the bill to make it explicit in what circumstances the public holiday entitlements would arise and to clarify the intent of the bill.” 
The general policy statement overview at that time explicitly stated: “The Holidays Bill implements Government policy by providing entitlements that are easy to understand and easy to apply.” Well that did not work because it is back here again for more clarifying amendments. In fact at the time of the 2003 bill the Minister actually admitted “the current Holidays Act is an extremely difficult piece of legislation to apply and to interpret. Areas previously left to the courts to interpret and develop have been dealt with in the bill. That will mean that users will not have to refer to the numerous judicial decisions that supplement the current legislation.” 
The Minister back then heralded the original legislation as providing “certainty clarity and consistency”. All I can say to that is “Yeah right!” because here we are again a few years later back before Parliament with amendments to improve that very same legislation in order to provide certainty clarity and consistency. Let us hope that it works this time—third time lucky. 
A few years back Minister Cosgrove himself vowed solemnly in this House that the bill provided clarity but here we are again years later after a Supreme Court decision saying that there is no clarity and the legislation is trying to fix it. I have to say that I prefer the judgment and the wisdom of the three Supreme Court judges. 
With a background like that one would reasonably expect a better less complicated bill and one that is easier to understand. But no what we got was arguably much worse. We got a bill that had to go to the highest court in our land the Supreme Court which made statements such as “Parliament can hardly have intended to create this potential for confusion and disputes.” but it did. This Parliament under this Labour-led Government has created such confusing difficult complex legislation that no one seems to be able to understand it and now it is introducing a bill to fix one part of that original complex difficult legislation. 
As Business New Zealand stated clearly the Holidays Act is not up to the job. This case has now been through multiple courts. With two split decisions and another court ruling to come and with the latest ruling by the Supreme Court at 49 pages long it shows how defective the Holidays Act is. “Employers want the flexibility to meet business needs and employees want to be compensated for their part in achieving that. Employees also want the flexibility to choose the holiday arrangements they want. The Holidays Act should make it straightforward and simple for them to come to agreements that suit them both.” 
But this is not the first time that this holidays legislation has had to be amended because of unintended consequences. The Holidays Act originally came into force on 1 April 2004. Less than 6 months later—that very same year—there was an amendment the 2004 amendment to correct some unintended consequences. I have to ask whatever happened to “do it once do it right”. If we read the debate back in 2004 we see that even New Zealand First agreed and stated: “We went through this in 2003 and got it wrong by quite some. It was far worse than we in New Zealand First estimated and I think it was far worse than many of the submitters who were concerned by the 2003 legislation thought. Now this 2004 bill has tidied up two fairly minor parts of the legislation but we should be dealing with the whole thing. Let us do it once and do it right.” That was what New Zealand First members stated. They also stated: “The holidays legislation in this country is in a mess. It is absolutely in a mess. Employers do not understand it employees do not understand it.” I would have to say that they were right and that after all this time—4 to 5 years later—nothing seems to have changed. 
In that debate it was said that the Holidays Act that had been passed by the Labour Government in that last year was such a shambles that in the following week it was before the Employment Court to try to get a ruling on how to deal with the Act and we are here again. It is not before just the Employment Court. This case had gone right up to the Supreme Court before this Labour Government realised that it was just plain wrong. It got the bill wrong it had the chance to fix it once it did not and now it is trying yet another piecemeal fix to one part of the Act because of unintended consequences due to sloppy drafting and because of one case. 
But this is not the only problem caused by the complexity of the holidays legislation. Why does the Government not fix the rest of it? As one employment specialist stated in May last year: “Rather than simplify the law relating to holidays the Holidays Act has resulted in an increase in litigation as employers employees and unions all endeavour to come to terms with interpretation of differing sections of the Act.” Nothing seems to have changed. Will this bill actually make much difference? Hopefully it will fix one of the problems as highlighted in the Supreme Court case but there are other problems that it does not even mention. We are back in Parliament again 4 or 5 years later trying to fix something that has gone wrong when we should be debating other legislation in this House. We are trying to right yet another unintended consequence that has been foisted upon us by this Labour-led Government. 
National will be supporting this bill going to a select committee for scrutiny. We hope that it will get proper scrutiny. We hope even that there may be some opportunity for change—some opportunity to further clarify what is most complex and confusing legislation. Employers and employees alike need and deserve legislation that has certainty. They need to know what the legislation says. They should not have to resort to legal processes all the way up to the Supreme Court for an interpretation of what the legislation says and means. Labour has got it wrong. Is it able to get it right third time lucky? Let us hope so. National will be supporting this bill at its first reading. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I listened to the previous speech with amazement really because this is pretty simple legislation. We have the two major organisations in New Zealand that represent employees and employers Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions both saying that they support this bill. We have National members saying that they will vote for it but the member Kate Wilkinson then proceeded to spend the next 9½ minutes saying how terrible the Holidays Act really was what a mess it was and that nobody could understand it. But there was not a single word about what is wrong with giving people 4 weeks’ annual leave or with giving them public holidays with some payment which they have to be paid if they work on a public holiday. This simple bill the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill deals with a situation that has been around for as long as I can remember since the days when we had awards and we had the Holidays Act—way back in the 1980s when I started out as a practitioner in industrial relations. 
There has always been a little bit of confusion around shift work what it means and what the entitlements were but in the good old days when we had awards and national agreements that confusion just was not there. It has come about as a result of the fragmentation of the labour market. A number of people in New Zealand do not have any confusion because they work under collective agreements and it is spelt out there pretty clearly. What becomes difficult is when we have about 80 percent of people working on individual agreements. There is no guidance for those people so all sorts of arguments can occur. The National Party is saying that we should have even more confusion and more flexibility for people to sell off their holidays for dollars and cents. That is the National Party’s policy. Why did that member not state it? Are those members ashamed of it? But that is what they are on the record as saying. 
I think that Dr Wayne Mapp was sitting on the select committee when this legislation was put through so he will be able to elaborate in his speech about all the suggestions he made in this particular area to have it changed. He will be able to elaborate on the National Party’s minority report from that legislation when it came out of the select committee. Was there one? I doubt it. I doubt whether anybody on the select committee at that stage from either of the two main parties or from any other party would have thought that this would have caused any sort of confusion. But sometimes we have lawyers companies and people out there that want to take it to court and that is what happens. Then we have the Supreme Court come up with a decision that says: “Sorry you need to clarify the law.” We are doing that. It is simple and it will be done in the select committee in a simple and straightforward manner. We have had employers and employees agree that this is the way to fix it so I do not think that there should be any fuss whatsoever on that select committee in resolving this matter. 
I am keen to hear and I am sure that many workers are also keen to hear it what the National Party actually means when it says that the Holidays Act is a mess that it is confusing and that it is difficult to understand. What will National members do in terms of their policy to supposedly fix it? I am looking forward to hearing about that as I am sure many other people are because we know what they actually mean. They want to be able to have employers and employees negotiating all sorts of weird and wonderful arrangements that in the end are about selling holidays for cash. Selling holidays for cash would mean that people would have to work even longer and harder in New Zealand but they would get only a few dollars. That is the National Party’s policy on holidays. Let us hear it up front and in a speech in the House from National instead of the waffle we just heard from its so-called spokesperson who just sat down. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill 2008. As has been stated previously this bill is needed to try to amend the Act because the Act has been unclear for the courts once it was taken there by Air New Zealand in relation to how the company could transfer the Act’s provisions. As my colleague Kate Wilkinson clearly stated we are supporting that because it is simply just an anomaly that needs to be fixed and needs to be clearer. 
But I find it incredibly ironic that we are passing a bill to allow employees and employers to speak to each other. We are passing an amendment to the Act that will allow them to speak to each other. The Act that was passed in 2003 meant that employees and employers could not sit down to have a conversation and sort this out themselves. That is the fact. That is what the courts have declared; they have said that employees and employers cannot sit down together. By all means if it makes it simpler for members on the other side I can quote from the Bills Digest. It states quite clearly in the background to this bill that under its provisions employees and employers can sit down and discuss what will work best for them and make a decision that works for both employees and employers as far as transferring hours over and within a 24-hour period. 
Because the Government got it wrong in 2003 this House has to go through this rigmarole now. In the last 5 years there have been nine amendments to the Employment Relations Act and to the Holidays Act. On nine occasions we have tried to fix this legislation and on nine occasions this House has had to go through changes to try to fix mistakes that were made originally. We have sat in this House on nine occasions and gone through this process—and we will not even go into the costs incurred and the time taken in this House—so I ask why we do not fix it once and for all. Why do we not actually do something that will fix this legislation once and for all? We are constantly hearing about the problems that we have with relevant daily pay. How senseless it is that we now have to pass legislation that will go some way towards solving some of the mess that was put through in 2003 but that will not solve it altogether. This bill is simply about the fact that we need to look at relevant daily pay and what that means for employers and employees. 
Why do we not fix this Holidays Act properly and do something? We could start naming the organisations that have been talking about that. We can look at the increase in sickness and in the sick leave that people have had to take. There is absolutely no question that in many cases particularly for those businesses that work 24/7 or that do not work between the hours of nine and five it is often better for an employee to be off sick on a particular day than to be at work. Because of relevant daily pay there is a good chance they will get more money. The meat industry has certainly mentioned it and the Hospitality Association the Motor Trade Association and the health sector have been struggling under these provisions as have manufacturing plants and meat-processing industries. It really is something that needs to be sorted out. This House could have taken the opportunity to do that but the legislation has been completely ignored—much to its detriment. 
Let us talk about including incentive-based payments that are a regular part of an employee’s pay. Why not include those incentive-based payments? They should be included. Those incentive-based payments which are a regular part of an employee’s pay should absolutely be included in that relevant daily pay. But those payments that are not regular—that are sporadic—should not be included. We are hearing from people that it is too complex and too difficult to work out what an actual relevant daily pay is and there is a simple reason for that. Why do we not exclude payments for overtime that are not a regular part of the employee’s pay and exclude any one-off payments that are exceptional? If we did that we might see a simple calculation so that everyone would know exactly where they stood and what they were able to do. The key to why relevant daily pay is not working is that it differs substantially from day to day in many circumstances. The relevant daily pay is not consistent and it differs substantially. That is an important point for us to get across and certainly one that employers and employees are struggling with—what it means for a certain day when they may get incentive payments or they may not. I think it is quite simple and this House could have sorted it out as far as this amendment is concerned. But again we are not taking the opportunity to do it right. This is the ninth time the Act has been amended and I suppose we will be back again to try to sort out this mess. 
Under this mess costs have gone up considerably with no corresponding productivity lift. I think that is what is of most concern to our economy at the moment and in the questions we need to be asking. So far it has been all talk by this Government. Certainly employers are reporting an increase in absenteeism and some employers are reducing incentive payments. I think it is an absolute crime that those employees who are perhaps in most need are seeing a reduction in incentive payments and bonuses because of a relevant daily pay component. We are also hearing from some employers that employees are not getting the same opportunities for overtime because the provisions are confusing and add complexity to that relevant daily payment. So let us be clear: the Act leaves employees with an incentive to take a sickie on the day that they would earn the most money—the day on which the relevant daily pay would be the most. 
That is of some concern when we talk about the economy and what this country needs in order to turn around. We can see the hope that we can raise our productivity and get ourselves to a situation where 79000 people a year are not leaving New Zealand and moving to Australia for better conditions. We are constantly asked—certainly on this side of the House—why they get paid more there and we have to sit down and explain productivity and what that means to people. In my opinion here we have a classic example that is certainly not helping and that is certainly not working towards productivity in this country; it is actually working against it. There is an opportunity right now for this House to fix it. This is an opportunity for the Government to listen and maybe we can discuss it in the select committee because it is something that is vitally important to this country at the moment particularly when we are talking about that sort of level of productivity and what that means. 
This amendment has been supported across sectors. It is not just one or two rowdy people who are saying “Oh a few of my employees are taking sickies.” This is occurring across industries across sectors and across the country. It is affecting plants down at the bottom of the South Island and it is going right past Auckland and up into Northland as well. The health sector has been quite detrimentally affected by this. Who knows—we might have been able to pay our junior doctors more if we had seen not quite such a mess with this sort of legislation which is confused and complex and which has made everything else complex. 
The Act’s requirement to pay bonuses earned had employees not been sick—and this includes a productivity bonus that can amount to an extra $10 an hour in some plants—has been a reality for some people. Do we support the bill to give that sort of example? Certainly there is the example in the bill for anyone who may be having to listen to this—perhaps it is some form of punishment to have to listen to the House tonight but they may be interested in the sorts of examples used—of employees working from 10 p.m. on 24 April to 6 a.m. on Anzac Day and from 10 p.m. on Anzac Day. So it refers to those who are doing shift work obviously. It means that the employer and the employee can sit down and agree that they will make the public holiday that 24-hour period from say 10 p.m. the night before the public holiday through until 10 p.m. the following night. The shift workers get their 8 hours or their 8 hours plus overtime if it comes to it. They agree on that day being it and that saves having to cut pays in half for those who do perhaps only 6 hours on the actual day. So it is a little bit complex. 
It is not that sexy quite frankly but it is something that we need to fix up because it was not done in 2003. We have already wasted the courts’ time on it. We have seen the courts having to go through it. We have seen the major shareholder for Air New Zealand having to put money into it and to get lawyers so that it can go through it and now of course the House has to go through it. We have to go through it in the select committee. It is a bit of a waste of time. It is absolutely ridiculous. I do not think we will be back here doing another amendment to this Act because I do not think we will have to worry about that. Labour will not be there to do yet another one of its things. No there will not be any abolishing and there will not be any of the scary talk and everything such as “You can throw around vulnerable workers all you like.” It will not be true. So we will not get into the debate on how utterly ridiculous some of the comments have been from the other side; we will just settle with that. It is a shame that we are not fixing everything it is a shame that we are back here for the ninth time having to look at the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act but let us hope that with National’s support we do get it right. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened to that speech with some degree of interest but I cannot work out what the hell the member Paula Bennett was on about. Maybe I am a bit slow today but she was going on about relevant daily pay—clearly she wants to cut it back; clearly she wants to reduce it. Then she asks why people go to Australia. The answer is because they get paid more. 
I listened to the National Party at the time of the Holidays Act 2003. The Act incorporated 4 weeks of holiday pay. At the time National members told this House and the select committee that if the legislation were passed the world would end. They said that if New Zealanders were given 4 weeks’ annual holiday the world would end. Australians have had this law for umpteen years I think. How many years? 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Probably about 30 years. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member tells me now that they get 5 weeks there. I say to the National member who has just resumed her seat that I know people who have emigrated to Australia and I asked them specifically why they went over there. Does the member know the answer? She might be interested in this and she might be surprised. First of all it is because of the weather. 
Shane Ardern 
: What? 
PETER BROWN 
: The weather. Second it is because of the wages. Third they contend that Australians look after their children better than we do here. Fourth and finally Australians are more patriotic. They take pride in their nation. Here we sell ourselves very short. I just thought the member might be interested in why people go to Australia. 
It is true that relevant daily pay was a concern to New Zealand First at the time of the passing of the Holidays Act in 2003 but we have grown to live with it and so have most employers. It saddens me that the member who has just resumed her seat wants to cut it back. Employers who speak to me tell me that their biggest concern is recruiting people. Unemployment has gone down so low in recent times that they cannot get staff. They are prepared to pay a bit more and they are considering wages and conditions much more thoroughly but they cannot recruit people because unemployment has gone down so dramatically. 
This is a very simple bill. I will just read a little bit from the explanatory note: “The Bill amends the Holidays Act 2003 to allow for a public holiday to be transferred where certain circumstances are met. The proposed amendment will ensure that where an employee’s shift spans 2 calendar days and 1 of those days is a public holiday an employer and employee can enter into a genuine agreement to transfer the public holiday to a 24-hour period that begins or ends on the public holiday. Such a transfer cannot reduce an employee’s statutory right to public holidays.” What could be more straightforward than that? It is very simple and it is easily understood. 
It might well come as a surprise to the National members who have been so critical of the bill that both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions want this legislation to be passed immediately. The explanatory note states: “The alternative options identified above”—I will not go into that—“have been discussed with Business NZ and the NZCTU who support the amendment and consider that the costs of time delay and uncertainty need to be addressed immediately.” It is straightforward. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: That’s what we’re saying. 
PETER BROWN 
: We do not need all this whingeing from Kate—whatever her name is; I have forgotten her surname I do apologise. 
Hon Member 
: Wilkinson. 
PETER BROWN 
: Kate Wilkinson—I do apologise; I forgot the name. I cannot remember everything. This bill should go without delay to the select committee. It is a very straightforward bill. I doubt there will be many objections—perhaps only National members will object to the bill at the select committee in their submissions. I cannot find any flaws in this bill whatsoever. It identifies an issue that needs to be addressed. New Zealand First will support the bill going to a select committee and in all probability right the way through the House. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill right through the process despite its being yet more piecemeal employment relations reform from the Government. Although there is no doubt that the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill will be a worthy and welcome change for a number of workers we in the Greens think it is high time that the Government worked on a full review of the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act which could encompass all these small amendments as well as bringing in some much needed major changes. 
Most workers would agree that the recent  
New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Union of Workers Inc. v Air New Zealand Ltd 
 Supreme Court decision which found that an employer and an employee cannot agree to transfer a public holiday from a day listed in the Holidays Act to another day was not a good outcome for workers. The bill before us this afternoon will resolve the very specific problem that employees whose shifts span 2 days where one of those days is a public holiday cannot currently transfer the public holiday to a 24-hour period that begins or ends on the public holiday. 
However the bill before us this afternoon will not of course resolve some larger public holiday issues that many workers face in New Zealand. It will not for example deal with the fact that New Zealand’s total of 11 public holidays is a whole week less than Italy’s 16. Germany and Spain have 3 more days than us to spend with their friends families and communities. Those extra days no doubt help them through the equivalent of that long and for some people depressing stretch that we have in this country between Queen’s Birthday weekend and Labour Day when for months we enter a public holiday drought. I note with interest that among Japan’s grand total of 18 public holidays are Coming of Age Day Greenery Day Children’s Day and Respect for the Aged Day the latter of which fulfils a traditional veneration for the elderly that we once possessed but have mostly lost. 
Nor will this bill do anything for the many workers who do not have a shift that spans across 2 calendar days but whose shift is not the traditional Monday to Friday. These workers lose many public holidays that the rest of us take for granted and include for example the many back-office processing workers in banks who work Tuesday to Saturday and therefore miss out on holidays that fall on Mondays. In 2006 seven of our 11 public holidays fell on Mondays. This year those workers like the ones I just mentioned are relatively lucky—only four public holidays fall on Monday so they lose only a third of their holidays rather than the two-thirds lost in 2006. 
No the bill will not fix any of these problems but it was never meant to do so of course. Like so much of the Government’s industrial relations legislation at present the bill aims to deal with only one small problem at a time. Nor will this bill sort some other issues that hundreds of workers and union members around the country tell me are major difficulties they face at present. 
For example there is no clear vision that I know of in the Government’s agenda about how to deal effectively with the problem of freeloading where employers play off union members and non-union members against each other easily nurturing a culture in which staff feel just fine about bludging off the union fees paid by some for the ultimate benefit of many. This bill will not resolve the real struggle many employees are having as they attempt to bargain standard industry-wide conditions of employment or create industry multi-employer collective agreements. The bill will not help us to sign up to the core International Labour Organization conventions—convention 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise or convention 130 on the minimum working age which outline basic internationally agreed minimum working rights for all workers. The bill will not do any of these things because as happens all too often the Government at times does not seem to know who it wants its friends to be—working people and their families or large multinationals that threaten to flee every time something is proposed that they do not like. 
The Green Party supports the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill that is before us today as we will support all the other bits and pieces that the Government puts forward that we see as being in the interests of ordinary workers and their families. But we also think it is time that the Government put a holistic approach to industrial relations on the agenda—a plan that addresses the long and often uncertain hours Kiwis work the struggles they have in bargaining with employers that are increasingly adept at using foreign human resource strategies of splitting and dividing their partially unionised work forces and a plan that supports the efforts many workers are making to reintroduce into our national consciousness the concept of a basic set of pay and conditions that allows all workers to bring up a family and participate in their community. We think it is time the Government put aside its concerns about scaring the horses and put on the table a full agenda for working people rather than these small piecemeal band-aid solutions to isolated problems. 
In commenting on this particular band-aid though I think it is important to note that an overriding principle needs to be an assurance that any transfers of public holidays that occur should take place only when it is genuinely in the best interests of the employees to move their public holiday from the day that everyone has off. It is not in their interests to have it moved as a right that they have bargained away due to a disparity of bargaining power between themselves and the employer. In most cases it is undoubtedly in the interests of both workers and employers that someone whose shift spans 2 days should not have to down tools halfway through their shift on the stroke of midnight and then return to complete their shift when midnight rolls around a second time just to take a public holiday. They should be able to agree to transfer it. 
However there is an important principle as to why we all share public holidays on the same day rather than employers being able to dictate when workers can take their holidays. Public holidays are more than just a day off. They are a shared time and an opportunity for families to come together. They are a time for festivals for sporting and cultural events to take place and for us to join in many different ways to spend time together as well as having that important time to rest. The purpose and value of public holidays is undermined if everyone has a different day off. We need to work consistently as politicians to protect the right of ordinary working people to spend a legal public holiday with their children their families their friends and their communities. Leaving an issue like the one in front of us today to be resolved on its own is not enough given the natural tendency for some of those who hold a disparity of bargaining power to offer only “take it or leave it” failing to lift their eyes above the balance sheet. 
I look forward to voting for this bill because although it is piecemeal and small it is also a tiny but critical component of the Green Party’s much bigger vision of a better life for working New Zealanders and their families. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call in this first reading debate in support of the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned by previous speakers the bill is narrowly focused. It is an attempt to tidy up an approach to ensure that those who work on irregular days or who work irregular hours are able to negotiate successfully with their employers some way of retaining their public holidays by way transferring them to a more suitable opportunity. I think it is a little disingenuous of the National Party to criticise the need for an amendment bill. One would think that there is no public record of Acts put in place by a National Government that did not need further adjustment. 
One thing I do agree with a National speaker on is that one of the ongoing challenges facing us is the issue of improving productivity within New Zealand. United Future believes that if we are serious about improving productivity rates we need to address that in a working environment where conditions are fair and employment relations are constructive. We do thankfully live in a time when unions and employers are enjoying a more collaborative approach to industrial relations and it seems to United Future that this is an ideal time to look creatively at ways in which we can improve productivity in a way that is fair to everybody involved. 
We do have fewer public holidays now than we had historically. I agree with the Green member who talked about the fact that we need to be careful that we do not move into a situation where we have a number of days listed as public holidays but really have very little that is “public” about them. People are working such disjointed hours that people are allocated days off in a way that does not reflect the intention of a public holiday which is that families can get together and people can spend quality time with each other. I think we should make sure as we aim towards improved productivity that the exceptions this bill seeks to address remain just that—exceptions—and that we still enjoy public holidays that retain the meaning they always historically had. 
United Future is happy to support the first reading of this bill and we look forward to hearing back from the select committee. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National as has been stated previously supports the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill. Of course it is obviously sensible to fix up technical errors but we cannot help but reflect on the fact that there are much deeper problems with the Holidays Act than the Government is willing to admit. Government members will say that the National Party is against 4 weeks’ holiday. That is not true. We support 4 weeks’ holiday and I want to put that specifically and directly on the record. Indeed we have done so for quite a number of years going back to 2004-05. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: You voted against it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: So by 2005 I say for the benefit of the member we had concluded that we would be supporting 4 weeks’ holiday. The reason I make this point very clear is that I want to assure New Zealand workers and businesses that National believes in fairness. We understand the need for that provision; we understand that people will expect internationally competitive conditions like 4 weeks’ holiday. As has been noted by others that is the norm in Australia. 
The truth is that what we have here is the problem of a complex bill that needs constant and consistent amendment. So even faced with straightforward situations as indeed the airline pilots in Air New Zealand were faced with the legislation was so complicated that the court could not do what in fact the parties thought they wanted to achieve which was the ability to transfer holidays when people were working on a public holiday. The court said that was not possible because the wording of the legislation was so complex and so related to individual agreements and collective agreements that there had to be very clear words. That has actually been the constant and consistent complaint about this legislation. It is simply too complex and it has always been too complex and that is why we have had to have numerous amendments. 
This amendment bill is not the first. My colleague Paula Bennett referred to nine amendments—to the Holidays Act and the Employment Relations Act. In 2004 I was on the select committee that dealt with the Holidays Amendment Bill where another whole series of technical problems was being fixed up. In fact five problems were pointed out to the Government by the various submitters and do members know what? The Government ignored then and is ignoring today the major problem with the legislation which is that of relevant daily pay. 
To put it simply for members including those from the New Zealand First Party the problem with the current definition is that it can pay to be sick and that those people who are working to cover for a sick worker actually get less money than the person who is sick. Why on earth would Labour members want to defend that practice? Why on earth would they want to defend a practice that encourages people to get sick? That is what they are doing. I give a simple example. A lot of manufacturing businesses work on a production cycle. Teams of people have to work together to achieve a certain production target and some of their pay is related to that productivity. If some people are sick that productivity target is not achieved. The people who are sick get paid as if the target was achieved but the people at work do not get paid at that level. 
Why on earth would Labour members want to defend that absurd situation? That is what they did in 2004 and that is what they are doing today by refusing to deal with that issue in this bill. The Government had the consistent opportunity to fix this problem. Business New Zealand knows that. Government members would I think recognise that Business New Zealand is a moderate voice for business. It takes a fair and reasonable approach to issues. It works cooperatively with the Government on certain issues. It also knows that that issue of relevant daily pay is the single issue— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The most significant aspect of this bill is actually what it does not do. I indicated to the House earlier this evening that there are many many problems with the Holidays Act. That has in fact led to a case going to the Supreme Court which was symptomatic of the complexity of the legislation. The Government was warned of that right from the get-go—right from when the legislation was first established back in 2003. The issue was raised then and has been consistently raised by business and others that the legislation needed to be fairer so we did not get the absurdity of people being paid more when on sick leave than when working. 
The Labour members might like to defend that situation but I ask them to think about this particular issue. New Zealand is in a recession at the moment. There is no question about that. There is no quibble about it: we are in a recession. Our economy is declining. How do we know that? Unemployment went up to 3.6 percent and more particularly in just the last 3 months 29000 jobs were lost. 
Darien Fenton 
: What? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: For the benefit of Darien Fenton 29000 jobs were lost. Do members know how many that is? It is actually 1.7 percent of all full-time employees in the country. It is a 1.7 percent decline in the economy in terms of jobs. That is the worst record for 19 years. It is all very well for Labour to go on about the wonderful times over the last 9 years. Things have changed—fundamentally changed—and this Government thinks it is business as usual and that it can just fiddle around the edges and hope it will all go away. Well it will not. We only have to look at global oil prices which are already at $120—many people are projecting that they will go to $200; eminent and respectable people are saying that—and the impact that will have on the New Zealand economy. 
I say to the Government that when it is in year 8½ when it is coming up to a third-term election the public actually expect a good deal better from it than producing a three-page bill called the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill to deal with a technical issue. Yes it has to be dealt with; that is certainly true. But more imagination is required. So this Government will spend time in the House and time in the select committees dealing with this one technical issue as if this were the most important thing in employment law—as if this were the most important thing in the holidays legislation. 
When the nation is dealing with an economic crisis—a recession—we expect the Government to lift its sights and deal with the real issues which are how to boost employment how to produce real fairness in the workplace how to boost productivity how to ensure that we do not lose 80000 people to Australia and how to boost skills. Those are the things this Government ought to be paying attention to but it is not. All it can do is to come up with—let us be honest—a non-controversial three-page bill that it knows everyone in the House will vote for as if that was the most important thing. 
I have news for the Government: the New Zealand public are tired of the Government’s failure. They are tired of its failure to get to grips with the serious issues facing this nation. We expect in this House that when we are presented with legislation when we are presented with a policy it will actually grasp the core issues facing this country and not be essentially some kind of avoidance behaviour—some sort of “let’s pretend nothing’s happening in the outside world; let’s pretend it’s all business as usual and we can forget there are difficult problems facing families out there”. In 6 months’ time this nation will decide who will be the Government of New Zealand. I suggest that when this sort of thing is put up to the people of New Zealand and they are asked whether they know what this Government has spent its last few months doing and is told that it has been worrying about some technical amendment instead of fixing the serious problems they are likely to say that it is time for a change. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 22 July 2008 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 10 April. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to speak in the third reading debate on the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. This has been a most interesting debate despite the weak defence put up by the National Party and its mad decision not to support this very straightforward simple but very important bill. 
We have learnt a lot about the importance of names naming and pronunciation. We have all been reminded that Maori is an official language of New Zealand and that we all must make more effort. We have considered many examples of geographic features and the reasons for the names and we have talked about the importance of showing respect to each other in the House by endeavouring to call people by their correct names. [ 
Interruption 
] We have been reminded for the benefit of Sandra Goudie that this bill is important as it updates a 60-year-old law—and what is wrong with that? 
The bill contains some important provisions that were not in the original Act. One of those provisions is the extension of the jurisdiction rights of the board over the continental shelf. The continental shelf has Ruapehu-size volcanoes ravines up to 1 kilometre deep and sedimentary drift deposits up to 1 kilometre thick. The continental shelf is very important to New Zealand. It is over six times the area of the land mass of mainland New Zealand and it includes approximately 1.7 million square kilometres of continental shelf outside our exclusive economic zone. Right now it is the subject of increasing research and activity. So extending the board’s role as this bill does to naming features of the continental shelf will play a part in New Zealand’s effective management of the undersea resources in our area. 
I would have thought that the National members would see that as a priority. But no they have chosen to ridicule this bill and the board to focus on phantoms and imaginary problems and to take up hours and hours of select committee time for what should have been the straightforward modernisation of legislation that did need updating. 
The bill also recognises the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi in the context of the collection and use of original Maori names and geographic features on official maps and charts. As we have noted the Geographic Board already plays an important part in providing advice in proposed cultural redress for Treaty claim settlements where place names are involved—for example in the official name of Aoraki - Mount Cook. 
During the select committee process the Government Administration Committee received a small number of submissions all of which were positive about the bill—and the chairperson the esteemed Shane Ardern agrees with me. Two submitters said the bill did not go far enough in regard to Maori names and wanted to see a role for the board to restore Maori place names for all localities in Aotearoa. Another submitter said he believed that the board had not been strong enough in its policing of correct names for natural features such as original names assigned by Maori. The same person wanted the board to consider renaming New Zealand. Indeed some people might argue that “New Zealand” is actually a misspelt Dutch name and as such is no longer appropriate for our country but clause 8(2) states: “the Board does not have jurisdiction to assign a name to or alter the name of New Zealand.” 
It is also important to remember that this bill came about after a comprehensive review and public consultation process involving the public— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh get off the grass! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Does the member disagree with that? She might like to take a call and say exactly how the consultation process was deficient; otherwise she should just bear with me. 
The consultation process involved the public iwi central and local government and sector groups and it should have proceeded with little fuss. So it has been perplexing to say the least to try to unravel National’s objections to the bill. Some National members have said that the bill should not be in the House at all because it was not important enough. I do not think we can say that 1.7 million square kilometres of continental shelf is not important. The changes that the Labour Government has proposed are sensible and reasonable but the objections the National Party is raising are not. 
National claims that clause 24 gives a new discretion on whether to consult the public before a place name is changed and National states in its minority report that it believes it is a fundamental right for all New Zealanders to be involved in this decision-making process. Well that is news. Although the bill does not hamper public consultation National members complained about added bureaucracy. Then they came into the Chamber for the second reading and the Committee stage and complained about there not being enough. I ask you! In any case clause 24 which National has objected to applies only to recorded names and discontinued official geographic names and not to new name proposals or alterations of a name. 
National members claimed that clause 23 would mean enormous costs to businesses because only official names had to be in official documents such as those defined in clause 4. As the Minister pointed out during the Committee stage this is a provision in section 18 of the existing Act of 1946 though that section is worded a bit differently and it may be just too hard for the National members to get their heads around it. Let me read section 18 “Names in maps scientific manuscripts or tourist publications”. It states: “(1) No person shall publish or cause to be published in any geographic or scientific manuscript or publication or in any guide book handbook pamphlet road map or other publication intended for the use of travellers or tourists generally or on any map in any such manuscript or publication as aforesaid any name purporting to be the name of any place locality or natural feature in New Zealand to which any provision of this Act applies unless the name appears on a map previously published by or under the direction or control of the Surveyor-General or is a name assigned to or approved for that place locality or natural feature pursuant to this Act:”. 
When I talked about phantoms and problems that do not exist that was what I was referring to. We are dealing with a bill that rewrites an old Act and puts it into modern language and maybe that is just too difficult for some National members to get their heads around. This has been a very interesting bill to deal with despite National’s position. I have been offended to hear some National members branding this bill as tinkering. On the one hand the bill is just tinkering but on the other hand National members oppose it. 
We should not underestimate the importance of the role of the Geographic Board. Our boundaries and our land features and the names of the places we know and identify with such as mountains and rivers as well as settlements and localities reflect in a very real way our culture and shared heritage as New Zealanders. Members on this side of the House and other parties such as the Greens the Maori Party New Zealand First and United Future all know that the official naming of geographic features is important to communities and needs to be dealt with seriously. 
I take another opportunity to thank the officials for their patient advice and to thank the patient members of the select committee for the interesting background information and indeed for the debate we have had on this bill which has been very educational. I am pleased to support the third reading of this bill. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is with some concern tonight that I rise in opposition to the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and I ask Mr Flavell to talk to me later about whether I got the pronunciation right. Some concern has been expressed as to why we oppose this bill but let me tell members as a member of the Queen’s honourable Opposition that one of the hallmarks of this Government is overwhelmingly to provide the Opposition with something to oppose and it has done so in this bill. I hasten to add that it is difficult to find the real mischievous socialist undoing in this bill but it has provided us with ample reason to oppose the bill. 
I want to share with the House the minority report of National members of the Government Administration Committee. “National members recognise the role of the New Zealand Geographic Board under the existing legislation. There appears to be nothing wrong with the way the current legislation is operating and accordingly National members see no need for change.” That is clear. There is no ambiguity about that statement. 
The bill we are currently debating no doubt came about as a result of a range of various submissions to the Minister that there needed to be some modernisation of the 1946 Act. But during the submission process at the select committee and from the advice of the officials the select committee members could find nothing in what they put forward that would require this legislative change. We then looked deeper to find out what the bill does. We found a bit of positive stuff so it is not all negative. 
The bill provides for a number of new functions to be carried out by the board including new administrative functions in relation to the official naming of geographical features not only within the territorial limits of New Zealand but also on the continental shelf and in the Ross Dependency. So we asked the officials what happens now and why there was suddenly a need for legislation to make this a process that is easy to carry out. The officials came back to us and said that what happens now is no different from what will happen in the future. 
There is an international discussion as one would expect there would have to be when we are talking about areas that are outside our economic zone or outside our jurisdiction. I will not use the term “united nations” because it is not under the United Nations but there is a South Pacific forum I guess one could describe it as that meets and discusses these issues—although the United States obviously has an interest in that from time to time as well—and it comes to a binding agreement amongst the nations. Hence National members asked why there was a need to change the current Act and we could not find one. So at the end of the day we were unable to uncover the reasons why this bill is before the House today and why we have gone through this process. 
An additional concern raised by National members was the impact of clauses 32 and 33 on private entities that are affected by the definition of “official document” and the requirements for the use of official names for geographic features. The reasons for the concerns are simple. A lot of people have a strong affinity with various areas. There are cultural reasons for various names being used in different ways. 
Business operators and tourism activities also use those names in their promotional material and in literature they provide not only to their customers but also to the Inland Revenue Department and various other Government agencies to explain what they are involved in. Potentially the introduction of this new proposal this clause relating to an official name could impose a layer of compliance requirements on these operators that is completely unnecessary and no evidence was brought to the select committee to show why this change was necessary in the first place. The National members of the committee opposed the provision on that basis. 
The commercial impact on tourism as I have just said could be very significant if for example a board took a business operator to the High Court for failing to comply with clause 32. Many tourist attractions hold their appeal because of their colloquial names popular names or the names they use in the promotion of their activity. All sorts of different activities around New Zealand spring up as a result of an attachment to an identity. 
The final argument put to the select committee and debated was the sensitivity and consultation that takes place around the process of changing names. I give the example of Taranaki and its mountain which has always been known by local iwi as Mount Taranaki and that is where the province got its name from. But of course Captain Cook sailed past and he looked at the mountain and said it looked like Mount Egmont so he called it Mount Egmont. That is what it was commonly known as by most Europeans until about 10 years ago when local iwi said that it was wrong that it was Taranaki and that they wanted the name changed back to Mount Taranaki. It did not matter which name one preferred to believe or which name one accepted it was changed back to Taranaki. Most maps show it as Mount Taranaki and people who travel through Taranaki know it as either Taranaki or Egmont depending on their preference. The New Zealand Geographic Board was able to accommodate that change. 
The other argument put forward was that a lot of the European names that had been adopted were not the original names and that that was wrong. I used the example in previous speeches that when one drives around the coast of Taranaki one starts in South Taranaki where there is Manaia Oeo Pihama Opunake Oaonui Rahotu Warea— 
Hone Harawira 
: That’s enough Shane. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: How far does one need to go to realise that not all of Taranaki was named by Captain Cook when he sailed past? The reality is that those names have both cultural and iwi significance. They also have a great colloquial meaning and people accept that that is what they are. Even though the Act was introduced in 1946 there is absolutely no need for Parliament to be addressing this issue tonight. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e hoa ma i tenei po. Nau mai hoki mai ki te Whare ki te taupatupatu i nga take o te wa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us fellow members of Parliament tonight. Welcome back to the House to debate current business 
.] 
The importance of correct pronunciation and respect for a region or territory is centuries old. My colleague Mr Hone Harawira referred me to the Bible to Judges 12:6. We all know that Hone Harawira is a fine upstanding citizen of St Stephen’s School. I listened to him and I took down this quote. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask members to listen to this because it is very important. 
“Then said they unto him Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him and slew him at the passes of Jordan”.  
How awesome that quote is! They slew him at the passes of Jordan. In the days of the Old Testament mispronunciation bore a price obviously.  
This bill the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill made me return to the wisdom of times gone by and wonder whether the lazy or downright careless mispronunciation of geographic names should also carry a price. Death? Maybe not. Flogging? No that is a little bit tough. Sitting next to Hone Harawira? Now that could be good.  
We in the Maori Party can I say have been appreciative of the way in which this particular legislation has stimulated such a wide-ranging and thought-provoking debate about the importance of nomenclature—the selection of names. During the course of this bill we were duly advised by Darien Fenton Sandra Goudie Tau Henare and others of the correct pronunciation of their names—and the House should be suitably equipped now to pronounce the names of Tariana Turia Te Ururoa Flavell Pita Sharples and Hone Harawira with due respect and regard to the tupuna names that we carry. I am also impressed by the way in which my offer of help was taken up by some members of the House and it has been very pleasing throughout the debate to observe the efforts that some members have made to take care with the pronunciation of the geographic place names under consideration.  
There is just one more development that is needed and that is the correct pronunciation of Maori names outside of the discussion on this bill—even the word “Maori” and probably “Taranaki” I would suspect. I have a quick pronunciation sheet available here for all members of the House. I have prepared it as a follow-up so that in the future members can get it right.  
The debate has also provoked a lot of interest in the outside world. I have received emails informing me of the meaning of the names of such places as Te Urewera Panekaka and Kaikiore; advising me that Putauaki is not Mount Edgecumbe and never will be; and reminding me that Ranana is not London and that it is best that we all learn to tell the difference between those names. Naming rights are the way in which we demonstrate our respect for the origins and heritage of the place belonging to the name or more particularly for the name that belongs to the place. The bill will establish the development of rules protocols and guidelines to enable a systematic and standardised approach to the official naming of geographic features. We would hope that this systematic and standardised approach will benefit from the pearls of wisdom shared in the debating chamber over these last couple of weeks.  
Last year as part of the Speaker’s delegation to Europe I was made aware of the protocols that have been adopted in Sweden which require that all new names must have a linguistic form that is compatible with the Swedish language. The Swedish Names Act recommends that any names whose composition pronunciation or spelling are such that their linguistic form is not appropriate as surnames in Sweden will not be accepted by the Swedish Patent and Registration Office. As we debated in this House the standing of the two official languages of Aotearoa—te reo Maori and New Zealand Sign Language—and the de facto language of common use English I have wondered indeed about which language would inform the naming of geographic features and of the Crown protected areas. Would te reo Maori for example be the standard against which all geographic names would be approved? Which histories are honoured; whose ancestors are recognised?  
In her 2001 doctorate thesis  
Tihei Mauri Ora: Honouring our Voices 
 Dr Leonie Pihama describes the possibility of renaming of the places around her home town Waitara because those streets commemorate for example the chief Crown purchasing agent a guy called Donald MacLean; the Governor Gore Browne the Hon Alfred Domett Colonial Secretary at the outbreak of the Maori war; Robert Parris the civil commissioner of Taranaki who was intimately connected to the conflict at Waitara; Lieutenant Blake of HMS  
Niger 
; Governor Sir George Grey; and so on. We can imagine how the iwi of Te Atiawa feel every day travelling down MacLean Browne Domett Parris Blake and Grey Streets and recognising the history that comes with those names. We can imagine also how they would feel travelling down streets that recognise the special histories and people of Ngati Rahiri Otaraua Pukerangiora Puketapu Ngati Tawhirikura Manukorihi Ngati Tuparikino Ngati Te Whiti and Hamua.  
I would suggest that we need a new approach. Can I say that the open-minded approach of most members of this House in considering the significance of geographical names is the type of approach that we would seek at both the national and territorial level regarding naming decisions. I say that because we noted that there was a clear consensus throughout the submissions on whether the board naming decisions should be made binding or advisory only. There was some support for retaining the status quo: what could be considered to be a mix of both binding and advisory powers. Currently most board decisions are final and binding but the board is also able to act in an advisory capacity when it receives objections to a name proposal. In those circumstances a board recommendation is sent to the Minister for a final decision. 
This latter example was the situation that confronted the Minister in March 2005 when the Geographic Board sought to correct the spelling of Mount Parahaki in Whangarei to Mount Parihaka. Mount Parihaka for those who are not aware was the site of a very substantial pa in pre-European times and comes under the care of the Te Parawhau hapu as tangata whenua in the Whangarei region. Now the Minister was required to make a decision under section 13 of the Act on whether to confirm modify or reverse the board’s recommendation. One matter that was indeed of crucial importance to both the board and the Minister was whether an original Maori place name existed. In coming to the point of decision making there was unanimous agreement between the various Maori groups represented at the meeting on 14 June 2005 that Parihaka was the name that had always been used in their oratory on marae. As the case developed it became apparent that although the Native Land Court had sometimes got Maori names wrong the oral record by chant and repetition keeps the correct pronunciation coming through in its original form. The board was assured that Parihaka was the name that Maori were using in the 19th century and earlier. Accordingly the Minister confirmed the correction of the name back to Parihaka. 
I wanted to share that case study in some depth as it represents to me an excellent and robust process. It is important that we remember there are processes that work that there are people who believe in consultation and that there are local government authorities that do respect mana whenua. Sometimes when some of our more media-hungry mayors hit the airwaves yet again with their pet hate we can overlook the positives that do happen. 
I was thinking about that yesterday when Wanganui mayor Michael Laws instructed residents that any move to add an “h” to the name of Wanganui “will be fiercely resisted”. Yes here he is—“Mr Mohio”; “Mr Knowledgable” of Maori names pronunciation history and culture. You see Te Runanga o Tupoho a local iwi committee has petitioned the New Zealand Geographic Board to put the “h” in Wanganui so as to spell the city “Whanganui”. The Maori Party says it is a fundamental human right to ensure that the integrity of local language is upheld. Whanganui was the name given to the area by an ancestor over 600 years ago. It acknowledges the existence identity and status of tangata whenua. It was tangata whenua who originally named the geographic features of the district and retaining their tribal spelling is all about respecting that special relationship. Yet the local authority the Wanganui District Council slaps them in the face by describing their decision to retain the traditional spelling of the name “Whanganui” as a “needlessly provocative gesture”. Well give me a break! 
In closing I say that in that issue there could not be a more dramatic departure from the precedent established by the people of Whangarei. We will support this bill in the optimistic hope that the legislation we are debating today will enable a benchmark for best practice to assist wayward councils back into processes that serve not to undermine and belittle but to honour and respect the relationship they have with tangata whenua. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to rise to speak against the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill—and I do not mind in the least if members pronounce my name wrong. This bill from the outset lacked good problem definition. That is actually a hallmark of this current Government. Whenever it is putting legislation through the House it lacks good problem definition so what we get is usually legislation that is less than robust and full of difficulty and conflict. This bill will be another one of these bills. There would be only a few dozen people who are aware of the bill’s existence. Largely the New Zealand population is unaware of this bill unaware of the provisions of the bill and unaware of what the potential outcomes of this bill will be. We heard about those potential outcomes from the previous speaker. We heard a reference to the renaming of names in the Waikato so we could see a plethora of Maori names being promoted for use in the Waikato. 
One of the key concerns around the bill is the fact that there are some new provisions outside what is currently in legislation. The provisions include board places for two additional Maori or iwi representatives and there is now discretion on the part of the board as to whether it is going to consult. That is a serious issue. There were only about 17 submissions to the discussion document and there were only about 5 submissions to the actual bill which I consider hugely disappointing. But the majority of submissions to the discussion document supported the requirement to consult the public. I think that is absolutely imperative because place names are important to people. My learned colleague was also talking about the cost in regard to place names and I will cover that a little bit later. 
The purposes of the bill are outlined at the beginning of it. They are about widening the powers of the board and the bill certainly does that. The board can now collect Maori place names and the Maori place names and any other name that has been collected to date may be validated without further referral to the public then becoming official place names. The effect of an official place name is this. Let us take the example of Wanganui and the adding of just an “h” to its name. If public bodies and any brochures or documentation used by tourists or for travel or whatever have to change the name that they currently have from Wanganui to Whanganui—I am not sure how we pronounce it—by adding an “h” there is a cost to that. If they have to completely change a name there is a huge cost to that. That has a much greater burden of cost on local authorities and commercial enterprises that use geographic place names as part of their tourist promotion. 
If the official geographic place name is not used some words have to be added. For example if we take people for a walk down to Sarah’s Gully and it is instead called Onewhero but we want to keep the name Sarah’s Gully we have the name Sarah’s Gully on a sign but underneath that name there has to be put the words “not the official name”. That is only if the official name is not used; if the official name is used of course that does not have to be done. But if the official name is not used there has to be put underneath the name Sarah’s Gully the words “This is not the official name.” I have not heard of anything more impractical or more dumb in my entire life. Well actually I have because quite a lot of that sort of thing goes on in the legislation of the current Government. 
These are just some of the things members will find in this bill—this innocuous little bill that everybody thinks is fine and is going to be OK. But I tell members we will see continuations of bun fights up and down the country. We have them already on occasion. Simpsons Beach at Whitianga now has the place name Wharekaho. That is put in big letters and underneath in smaller letters in brackets is Simpsons Beach. So what are we going to see? 
Some of the other functions of the board—as set out in clause 11—are to collect original Maori names for recording on official charts and official maps. What will that mean if the board has a function to collect original Maori place names throughout the country? What will that mean in terms of how official names will be required to be used over and above the other names that are already there? This is not readily apparent. If these names are validated without going out to public consultation how are communities going to react to no longer being able to use their local colloquial names? Will we see a plethora of dual names throughout the country and will people want to see that? People go crazy enough about seeing so many billboards sandwich boards etc. now. 
The new discretionary powers of the board that allow it to not have to give public notice and consequently not publicly consult apply to a range of areas. They apply to the alteration of a name of a district or region geographic features outside territorial limits the adoption of existing names for undersea features the process for review and the validation of certain names. If an official geographic name exists—and bear in mind that it is the function of the Geographic Board to collect those names—then it has to be used. If it is not used then one has to put in a little statement that “this is not an official geographic name.” The organisations that have to do that are all public authorities anybody producing brochures for travel or tourist operators that use place names. Let us just think about that. Here is another cost on local authorities another burden on ratepayers that they do not want. No organisation will provide the funding assistance necessary if it has to start changing a plethora of place names. That is certainly a possible consequence resulting from the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. Do the public know that? No they have not got a clue. The problem definition certainly was not done. 
There has not been a problem with the current legislation. Why change it? One of the new areas in the bill is clause 6 “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”. It refers to those sections that come under some of the other functions of the bill which is about collecting those official geographic names. 
As my learned colleague Shane Ardern pointed out there is potential added cost if public bodies or commercial entities do not use the official geographic name and do not enter the statement that it is not an official geographic name. An injunction may be granted by the court to the Geographic Board in regard to the use of a name but the board will actually be exempt from any damages. It might be able to bring a claim against a local authority or a commercial entity about the fact that it is not using an official geographic name and it will be exempt from damages while a tourist venture could be crippled as a result of any action taken. 
The Human Rights Commission has stated: “Schedule 1 could be seen as giving rise to indirect discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origins because Maori are more likely than non-Maori to have knowledge of tikanga Maori. Non-Maori could therefore be disadvantaged in appointments to the Board. It could also be argued that clause 11(1) appears to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnic origin because it gives the Board a specific direction to collect and encourage the use of Maori placenames. There is no such direction in respect of non-Maori place names which could be of equal importance to these groups. Whether this would result in disadvantage to Maori is not clear however we have considered clause 11(1) further on the basis that it could be prima facie inconsistent with section 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act.” 
I am very proud to stand here and oppose this bill on behalf of National. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I see that the Maori Party has castigated some of the members of the House for the mispronunciation of “Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa”. I want to congratulate those people who consider the pronunciation of one of the official languages of New Zealand. We are in a time when we should not be lazy about the pronunciation of New Zealand’s mother tongue whether it be English or Maori. 
Sandra Goudie 
: There is no need to get precious about it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well it is not about being precious. It is about loving one’s nation. It is actually about nationalism. 
The reason I say that is that during the adjournment I happened to walk past a second-hand book store and for five bucks I purchased  
I George Nepia 
. I have just finished reading  
I George Nepia 
 which tells the story of one of this country’s icons. The thing that I got from reading about that man was his nationalism his love for his country—not Maori not Pakeha not English not Maori but his country—and everything that went with it; his rugby the way he did things and the way he saw the world. All it came down to I believe—and I could be wrong; I have been wrong before—is that he had respect for his nation. He loved his nation and he had respect for his nation—for the hills the valleys and the rivers—and he enjoyed everything in his nation to the utmost. 
So as I talk about the pronunciation of one of the mother tongues of this nation I say that I believe that English is one of the mother tongues as well and that it too should be enshrined somewhere in our legislation alongside Maori—which it is not actually at the moment. So we need to do something about that in the future. 
Anyway I go back to what we are talking about which is the New Zealand Geographic Board. If one is going to move that Maori language be incorporated in the name of this bill then one should actually try one’s hardest to pronounce it correctly. Some people do some people do not. I think it is intergenerational laziness— 
Hone Harawira 
: That’s a big word. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What—laziness? It is for the member from Te Tai Tokerau! The member from Te Tai Tokerau would know a big word like “laziness” but I will leave it there. 
I want to wade into the debate about Wanganui and Whanganui and the use of the letter “h” by Mr Laws up in that lovely place Wanganui. I think we should leave it up to the people up there to decide. Leave it up to the people— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: The Maori people. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No. You see this is the problem we get into if it is left to only one sector of society to have a say. Why does not everybody have a say about it put it all into the pot and let the elected officials go about their business? The Maori Party says no to letting the elected officials go about their business and I suppose that is their democratic right but it is also the democratic right of the council up in Wanganui to decide on whether to have the “h” inserted. Is it a big issue? I do not think it is and do members know why? Well let us say that tomorrow we get a rush of blood to the head and we insert the “h”. What would that do for the nation of Aotearoa or New Zealand? Well it would not sort out the educational strife that our people are in. It certainly would not stop the dairies in Moerewa selling stuff to our young people. It certainly would not stop the P epidemic that is flourishing in our neighbourhoods. Look I say we should leave it to the locals. Here is a funny story. Well I think it is funny. Just outside of Whangarei north of Whangarei by maybe 29 minutes as the crow flies there is a place called Towai. There is a little pub on the left-hand side. 
John Carter 
: What is it called? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is called Towai—T-o-w-a-i. 
John Carter 
: “Toe-why”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is absolutely correct. You know John Carter has said the correct pronunciation of what everybody else in the nation thinks is “Tor-wai”. It is not “Tor-wai”. Some bright spark forgot to put in the “u” and its correct pronunciation is “Toe-why”. So I congratulate Mr Carter on his correct pronunciation of that name. 
In Whangarei itself we have had the battle over what name we should give Parihaka one of the maunga one of the mountains in the area. I think that whether it is “Para-haki” or “Parry-haka” is a moot point. It is not “Parry-haka” as far as I am concerned. I have never known it to be “Parry-haka”. I had never ever heard it called “Parry-haka” by any of the kaumatua in the mid-north until someone had a bright spark and said it was called “Parry-haka”. Well it is not and that is the problem with these boards. 
This legislation is a complete waste of the House’s time—a complete waste. It shows a Government that does not have much to do apart from buying a few train sets. There is nothing in this bill that is new or that enhances the Geographic Board’s work. The bill fiddles around with the edges and I take the point made by the speaker just before me Sandra “Goo-dee”— 
Hone Harawira 
: “Gow-dee”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh sorry. I apologise for my mispronunciation. That was as in the words of the great poet from Tai Tokerau “lazy”. 
I will talk about the Treaty of Waitangi. How this bill has anything to do with the Treaty of Waitangi is completely beyond me. Clause 6 “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)” has three paragraphs. Paragraph (a) states: “section 11(1)(d) confers on the Board the function of collecting original Maori names of geographic features for recording on official charts and official maps;”. Paragraph (b) states: “section 11(1)(e) confers on the Board the function of encouraging the use of original Maori names of geographic features on official charts and official maps;”. Again what that has to do with the Treaty of Waitangi is beyond me. Maybe someone from the Maori Party can get up and elucidate on how that has anything to do with the Treaty of Waitangi. Further clause 6(c) states: “clause 1(2)(a) of Schedule 1 requires 2 persons to be appointed to the Board on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs.” 
Goodness gracious me! Is that what we have come to? After 169-odd years of being a nation the Minister of Maori Affairs is now doing a wonderful job by recommending two people to sit on that board. Why do we not just appoint two people who are good for the job? Let us get Cabinet the Government to do that. It is a radical suggestion but let us appoint people because they can do the job. That would be really really great. Let us have faith that Governments can appoint people not because they are Maori but because they can do the job that is expected of them. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I confess to the House that I had not even looked at this bill before tonight but I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate and I am happy to support my colleagues in the National Party and to say that I too do not believe that we should support this bill. I can find no justification for it. There is an old adage that says “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” It has not been clearly laid out for me what is broken—what actually needs to be fixed. We in the National Party have looked at a number of layers of things that this Government has done across a whole range of areas and we see that they have all ended up with one result: more bureaucracy more office space in Wellington and more central control. 
I am going to talk a little bit later about nomenclature about a place name that is important to me and why and about why I think this bill will not help the cause. I am already involved in a process of determining the appropriate correct geographical name of a significant part of New Zealand. 
But first in looking at this bill I am quite intrigued by a lot of it. As I said it establishes a bureaucracy. It continues the Geographic Board which is to determine appropriate names. We have heard quite a bit in this debate tonight about the appropriateness adequacy or correctness of pronunciation. That is an entirely different issue. It is about education. It is about a desire to actually get it right and we should all want to get it right. It is a separate issue and creating a board in Wellington will not change the attitude of the nation in terms of their desire to give the correct pronunciation. That is the first point I would make. 
When I look at what the functions of the board are I see that under clause 10 one function is to “assign an official geographic name”. So the official geographic names we have got are wrong? Well in some cases they are. Then the question is how the board would know what the correct name was. When we look at the board’s other functions which are detailed in clause 11 we see that it has been given incredible powers. Under clause 11(1)(a) it may “adopt policies rules standards protocols guidelines or similar instruments for carrying out its own functions”. Well what a huge responsibility that is. 
But supposing that at the end of the day the board actually does not get it right; what is the critique process or the review process? What happens if the Geographic Board goes bad? What would we do then? Well hello! We are not told. What if it cannot actually work out what a name should be after going through the whole process prescribed in this bill and using all its powers? Well members should have a look at clause 20; that should make them feel better! If the board cannot determine what a name should be this is what happens: “(1) If the Board does not make a determination under section 19(1) it must report in writing to the Minister” and “(2) The Minister after making any inquiry he or she thinks fit may determine the proposal …”. So we set up a board but at the end of the day if it cannot get it right the Minister makes a determination and there is no other review process. I think that is not the right way to determine something as important as a geographic name. 
Let me explain my interest in this. I live in a small rural district in the lee of the Hokonuis. It has different names depending on which map one looks at. On most road maps of New Zealand—on those in which it appears because it is quite a small district—it is Te Tipua. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What is it? 
ERIC ROY 
: Te Tipua. But the locals across most of Southland call it “Titty-poo”. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What is that—call it what? 
ERIC ROY 
: “Titty-poo”. That is what it is known as. That is clearly the incorrect pronunciation—or is it? 
Sandra Goudie 
: No— 
ERIC ROY 
: Just hold on; I will explain. The interesting thing is that a nephew said to me one day: “Uncle Eric it must be really bad living in a place whose name has two swear words in it.” Just by chance— 
Hon Member 
: Which one’s the swear word? 
ERIC ROY 
: —the middle one—this year is the sesquicentennial of this august district. In the course of the celebrations of the centenary of the school and the sesquicentennial of the district I have been trying to determine the original name. All the original maps have it as “Titipua”—one word. But interestingly when the education board got involved in 1907—it created a school—it decided without consulting anybody that the correct spelling was ”Te Tipua”. 
Some of my colleagues may wish to correct my interpretation of te reo but “te tipua” means the devil the goblin the ogre or the spirit. That is my understanding. Maybe the board named it after the schoolteacher—I do not know. Also the river has not changed its name; it is still Titipua but the district is called Te Tipua which the locals pronounce “Titty-poo”. As part of the sesquicentennial celebrations I determined that we would sort out all this stuff and find the correct name. There is only one place after all. 
The interesting thing is that the district was originally native reed tussock country. I wonder whether the name “Titipua” comes from “titi” the sooty shearwater—although the district is a long way from the coast. I asked my learned colleague Tau Henare about it; I have asked everybody. I do not have any confidence that the Geographic Board could determine it. I have asked every single te reo - speaking person of authority including Tau Henare what it means. Tau’s missus gave me— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that he should use a member’s full name. 
ERIC ROY 
: Tau Henare’s wife his lady gave me the best interpretation I have heard. Maybe she should be on the Geographic Board. She said that “pua” is the seed of reed grass. I can see that that would be a good explanation of the name of the district given that it was reed tussock country. It is far far better than a name meaning “the ogre” because that could refer to me or to anybody else living there. 
But my point is this. There is a whole range of names like that out there and I do not have any confidence that the Geographic Board would come any closer to determining and sorting out what those names should be. I have spent about 10 years on this project and I cannot find anybody in New Zealand of authority who can determine what the correct name is so the decision will fall back to the Minister. Tau Henare made the point originally that the locals should decide and should have some say. That certainly makes a whole lot more sense to me than our creating a whole bureaucracy that may not be able to resolve the matter. Quite clearly names capture identity. They are significant and important things. There is a great deal of feeling around them. The local ethos is captured in them. 
Let me conclude by saying that this bill might be a principled bill but it will not resolve the issue of pronunciation. I suggest that it will not resolve the complex issue of what precisely and exactly is the correct name. For that reason National members say that it is unnecessary that it will be ineffectual and that it is most unlikely to add anything to the geographic distinction of any place in New Zealand. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I have made a number of speeches in this House and I think that recently when speaking in the first reading of this New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill I was criticised for my pronunciation. I apologise if I cannot pronounce Maori names properly; I do my very best. One thing I do realise in spite of my faults around pronunciation is that New Zealanders are taking a lot more pride in te reo in the Maori language and in trying to pronounce place names properly. If we come from the South Island as the previous speaker Mr Roy or I do we have not had as much practise as people who come from the North Island have had but we do try. 
I think that this bill moves us down the path of recognising our nation and its culture and heritage in a way that makes us more proud of what and who we are. We have named many many places across this nation on the back of our heritage from England from Ireland and from Europe. We have brought those names to this country and they have served us well. But looking back now we can see we are trying—as we have done for some time now—to use Maori names more appropriately where those names will mean more for local people be they Maori Pakeha Pasifika or any other cultural group in this country because we are a multicultural nation made up of many ethnic communities. However we are a bicultural nation by virtue of the Treaty and Maori people were here before the others such as my ancestors from Ireland or those people from Scotland and I think that Maori have the right to name places locations and features in an important way that recognises that cultural heritage. 
One example is Aoraki. It was Mount Cook for many of us for many years but I think that it is now appropriately named Aoraki. My home river the Buller River is more often referred to as Kawatiri. 
Shane Ardern 
: What about Greymouth? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I do not know the Maori name for that. Mawhera is the local iwi group down there. I think that we on the West Coast all now refer to the Mawhera Incorporation a commercial entity and that the Maori iwi and hapu groups in our region are more recognised. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I’ll bet the locals don’t use those names. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: We use their titles with more pride unlike the member there from Coromandel who is trying to discredit the whole process. We are moving down the path to greater self-identity and take pride in who we are in a way that we should embrace and celebrate unlike the National Party which seems to be loath to make any real progress in terms of national identity. 
This Government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in building our national identity through a whole lot of means—through the promotion of the country offshore through culture art and heritage and through film. We are trying to build an identity for New Zealand Aotearoa. I think that that has been an invaluable process and one that the National Party has always failed even to recognise in terms of its value. National members do not know where they are on this bill. They do not recognise that changing and modernising a bill from 1946 is progress. It is something we should celebrate. 
The bill allows us to have a better system of naming places around this country. I must refer to what is a difficult and challenging issue in my own electorate—that is an issue in the very small and very proud community of St Arnaud by Lake Rotoiti. Those people are going through the process of deciding whether they should move forward to call their community “Rotoiti”. That is the view of a number of people. However there is confusion—and there would be of course—in identifying a South Island community as opposed to a North Island community where there is also a Lake Rotoiti. But the issue is that there is growing enthusiasm to use Maori names—names that identify a place as being in New Zealand and as being part of New Zealand—and that is very important. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Now he confirms this is what’s driving it. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I encourage that member who is now criticising the process to embrace the direction the Government wants to move us in—that is to be a proud New Zealander someone who is proud to determine his or her own destiny and to invest in his or her own future which is something that the National Party seems loath to do. The National Party seems open to any sort of outside influence. In fact as we should be reminded on a regular basis it would have had New Zealanders in Iraq because it does not believe enough in our own identity to think that New Zealanders should make a decision for themselves. Labour on the other hand made a decision to stay out of Iraq because we are New Zealand Aotearoa and we make decisions for ourselves our people and our future. This is unlike the National Party; at that time when Simon Power was speaking in Nick Smith’s electorate in Nelson he said that we should be going to Iraq too. We would have been doing what our friends in the US told us to do. I am afraid that that displayed a complete lack of judgment from Simon Power from Nick Smith who supported him and from John Key on occasion. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Is this the best he can do? Goodness me—spare us! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The member there is wondering why. It is because the lack of pride in our New Zealand identity means that the National Party does not know what it stands for who it stands for and when it should stand up for New Zealanders and for New Zealand. Well we have no hesitation in this area; we believe that we must get on. We must update the 1946 legislation by way of this bill and better enable us to identify New Zealand as an independent nation using its own language and its own terms and titles so that we and others around the world clearly know te reo whenever possible even though many of us cannot pronounce it properly. We clearly identify with being New Zealanders. 
I think this is good legislation and I cannot understand why the National Party will not celebrate its progress and passage through this House. But that is typical of National members because they really do not know who they are they do not know what they stand for and they really do not know what sort of policy they should have for New Zealanders—full stop. I look forward to the day when we can debate policies or debate anything of substance with National members because in fact they are not anything of substance. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the third reading of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. This bill has been before the House for an hour or so tonight. It is a bill that National members oppose. I want to focus initially on the reason why we oppose the bill so that it is clear to members of the public why we are doing so. It comes out quite clearly in the minority report presented in the summary of the bill. It states: “National members recognise the role of the New Zealand Geographic Board under the existing legislation.” There is no doubt there. We recognise the opportunity to name parts of the country. We are fully behind that. However the minority report states: “There appears nothing wrong with the way the current legislation is operating and accordingly National members see no need for change.” 
Therefore National members believe we are debating a bill that in our opinion is a waste of parliamentary time. We accept that there are some benefits in the new administrative functions within the bill but essentially it is more bureaucracy. We are taking up Parliament’s time to debate this bill at a time when food prices are going through the roof when petrol prices are going through the roof for hard-battling Kiwis out there when mortgage rates for hard-working Kiwis have doubled over the last 4 or 5 years and when we are seeing job losses throughout the country. I refer particularly to the loss of 500 jobs today in Oringi in southern Hawke’s Bay. 
The National Party believes that at times like this we should be debating legislation that will take this country forward. We look at this bill and we do not see it taking us forward as a nation and addressing any of those issues out there in the public domain. In fact if we look at what is on the Order Paper which includes this bill we have to ask ourselves whether there is anything on it at the moment that is taking our nation forward and addressing some of those key issues we are talking about. The fact is that we are slipping behind the rest of the world. 
If we want to tie this speech to geography then we are No. 22 in the developed world for income per person and we are falling. We cannot seriously compare our standard of living with the geography of the UK Australia or the United States which are the areas of the globe that we used to compare ourselves with significantly. If we go back to 1958 when my dad first put on his boots for the All Blacks we were No. 3 in the OECD and we compared ourselves with nations like the UK and Australia. But now it is not those key trading nations that we compare ourselves with geographically; it is the Czech Republic. That is not a nation we have been compared with before. We are comparing ourselves with families that are struggling in nations we have never compared ourselves with before. 
Right now as we are dealing with this bill grocery bills are going through the roof. Families are finding it harder to save for a holiday and it is becoming harder and harder every day to save for the mortgage. More than 78000 New Zealanders are leaving this country every year. There are 78000 Kiwis leaving this nation every year and here we are debating the New Zealand Geographic Board bill. What will this bill do to stop 78000 Kiwis leaving this nation every year? I put it to members that it will do nothing—absolutely nothing. Here we are in this Parliament taking up hours and hours of this Parliament’s time to debate a bill that will do nothing for growth in this nation and will not take us forward. 
Members will be aware that Michael Cullen said earlier this year that this year’s election would be about a contest of power in New Zealand. I have news for him; I have a lot of news for him. This election will be about other far bigger issues at stake such as grocery bills mortgage payments and job losses like the 500 jobs that were lost at Oringi today. It will be about growth and productivity—things that will take this nation forward. We should not be spending hours of this Parliament’s time debating the New Zealand Geographic Board bill. 
New Zealand needs to be focusing its efforts on the things that will really make a difference in this country. Do members think this bill will do that? No it will not. There is not a chance. Tinkering around the edges is not good enough. We have major issues in this country now. Mortgage prices are through the roof. Hard-working Kiwis are battling to keep their heads above water. Those are the issues we are facing out there. 
New Zealand needs a step change geographically. National has a plan for this. We have a plan to deliver geographically around this fine nation of ours around all the different parts of this country from Kerikeri at the top to parts of Mr O’Connor’s electorate—to Punakaiki to Hokitika and even to Motueka. We have a plan that will deliver geographically for this nation. It will not achieve what this bill has set out to do which is just more bureaucracy more administration and not taking a step change forward for us. 
National has plans to deliver an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts. We have plans to take a disciplined approach to Government spending so that interest rates will track down over time not up. Over the course of this Government we have seen interest rates go through the roof. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What plan? Waffle waffle waffle. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I ask Mr Burton how the people in his electorate of Taupo are coping with the interest rates that they are currently paying. How will this bill help them to sort out their interest rates? It will do nothing. That member’s lack of activity on this issue will drive him out of his seat of Taupo very shortly. 
We have other plans to deal with geographically. The third plan is that we will stop the massive rise in head office bureaucracy that Labour has encouraged. We will deal with the compliance issues that are affecting small businesses in Taupo in Tokoroa and all around that member’s electorate where people are struggling to pay the bills and the grocery prices. 
Mr Burton is in this House and we have Ministers here—Mr Carter is here and so is Mr Barker. They are spending time on the New Zealand Geographic Board bill when we have issues such as rising grocery prices and interest rates going through the roof. Ministers of this Government are down here debating insignificant little bills like this when we should be looking at a step change to this economy 
Here is something else we will do. We will have an unwavering focus on improving education standards. These are the things that this party will do to take a step change in this country. 
Geographically we will be investing in infrastructure because this country needs a step change in investment in infrastructure. In particular 3 weeks ago my leader announced a huge step change in investment in infrastructure. This policy will take this country forward and will increase productivity from Kaitaia to Kerikeri all the way down to Waihi down to Wairoa all the way down to Oringi—where we lost 500 jobs today—to Paraparaumu to Kaikoura to Waipara all the way down to Punakaiki Wanaka and right the way down to Invercargill in the south. This step change is about an investment in broadband; an investment like we have never seen before in this country. It will bring us closer to the rest of the country and to other nations. It will improve productivity and take this nation forward. 
These are the things that the Labour Government should be discussing in order to take us forward rather than the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill which we are debating tonight. We are spending hours and hours of this country’s time on this bill while hard-working Kiwis are battling with grocery prices battling with interest rates and battling to keep their heads above water. This bill is a waste of time. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this bill. The ordinary citizens of this country who are listening to this debate on the radio and the TV could probably be forgiven if they were confused by the speech made by my learned colleague Chris Tremain who spoke just before because he spoke about everything under the sun except this bill. He criticised everything under the sun except this bill here—the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. I just want to bring him back to the debate at hand. The first thing I say is that it is easy to criticise and very difficult to build look forward and capture a vision for this country. The other thing I say is that this bill here is part of Labour’s plan for the future. It will help to keep and preserve our unique national identity into the future. It is difficult to have a vision and easy to criticise if one does not know what a national identity is. That is what this bill is about. It is about building a strong national identity for Aotearoa New Zealand. 
The bill repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946. It modernises the official naming process of New Zealand geographic features. Places like Manukau Otara Mangere Manurewa and Papatoetoe all have meaning to the people who have given those names from long ago. Knowing the correct names and locations for places such as those is also important for people in all manner of everyday communications. I have heard the National Party attack the bill at the Government Administration Committee. Its members have said that the requirement for official names to be used in official documents is too burdensome for some businesses. Obviously those members have not been to Australia where some of the names are so long that it takes a mouthful to be able to pronounce them. However it is important for legal practice consistency and our national identity that official names are used in all official documents. 
This bill recognises the Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities in the context of official geographic names and refines public consultation processes. People in Manukau City take Te Tiriti o Waitangi very very seriously. They take the pronunciation of names very very seriously. I believe that the people of Manukau listening to this debate will agree with Labour that this is an essential bill in ensuring that we move forward as a nation that we take everybody on board and that we begin to appreciate what makes this country very unique when one is dealing with international people. Nowhere else will one find Maori other than in New Zealand. Nowhere else will one find Maori words other than here in New Zealand. As I mentioned before this bill will encourage the appreciation of names such as Manukau Otara Papatoetoe Otahuhu— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Mangere. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: —and Mangere. Those are the original names given by the people of Tainui of Ngai Tai and of Tamaki-makau-rau. Those are names that we have to be comfortable in the pronunciation of. 
I complete my speech by saying that Labour is happy to support the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill in its third reading. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 If ever there was an example of our wasting taxpayers’ money it was that contribution. I have to say that it added absolutely nothing to this debate. However having listened to some of the other contributions I must say that they are in about the same league quite honestly. What is even worse is that this one will be on just about the same level—it will not add much to the debate. But nevertheless that is part of the problem with this Government: it is tired it is old and it has run out of steam. So what do we do? We spend Tuesday evening putting around— 
Hon Member 
: Sounds like John Carter. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It takes one to know one does it not? Talk about old and out of pace! That member across the way cannot even get on the rugby paddock. 
If ever there was a bill that showed that a Government had run out of something to do it is this bill tonight. It is old tired and exhausted and all it can do is bring up a bill that says we need a system for changing place names—a system that has worked since 1946 I think. 
I have to say that in all the time I have been a member of Parliament I have not had one constituent come to the electorate office and say that there is a serious need to change this legislation. Other members may have had that happen—not that I have heard anybody mention it tonight. If any members have had a constituent come up to them and say: “Could we please change the New Zealand Geographic Board legislation?” I would be really pleased to hear from them. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: When was the last time the member was in his constituency? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I hear the member Rick Barker making some suggestions about constituents. Of course he still has to get his first constituency clinic going—and he has been in Parliament for about 10 years! 
A couple of points are worth noting tonight. I listened very carefully to my colleague from the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell make his contribution. He is one who stands in this House and talks about pronunciation. There he was as he was talking— 
Sandra Goudie 
: And I gave him permission. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well I just want to make the point that he was pronouncing Sandra Goudie’s name as “Gow-dee”—I think that is how he pronounced it. And Shane Ardern’s surname is actually pronounced “Ar-din”. If we are going to pronounce names incorrectly then maybe we should call Te Ururoa Flavell “Toheroa” Flavell or something like that. 
Brian Connell 
: Oh! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well there is nothing wrong with that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The fact is— 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find no reason why the speaker should be insulting my colleague to make a point. If he wants to make a point he should use an example that points at one of his own colleagues. 
Brian Connell 
: I have been listening to this debate in my office and I have to say that this is a robust Chamber and I would expect that points of debate would be allowed to flow. Mr Carter was just making some clear observations. I do not think it is necessary for the member to oppose that type of robust debate. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I say to my friend from Te Tai Tokerau that if it is all very well for Te Ururoa Flavell to mispronounce the names of my colleagues then he should expect to get the same response. I do not like Sandra Goudie being called by anything other than her correct name and I do not like Shane Ardern being called by anything but his correct name. He should be called Shane “Ar-din”—that is the correct pronunciation. I respect the name “Te Ururoa Flavell” and I do my best to pronounce it correctly. I do not want to call that member by any other name and I say to my colleague who raised the point of order that that is why I raised the issue. If we are going to have this sort of legislation and if we are going to stand up and say that we should use correct pronunciation then that rule has to fit everybody. It cannot be good just for some and not for others. I think it is important that we recognise that point. 
I want to make two other points before I get on to the most serious point— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say to the member who made those claims that I appreciate the sentiment he was trying to put across but I want to explain to him that before those statements were made I asked his colleague in the National Party about the correct pronunciation of her name and she guided me on that. Therefore my pronunciation according to her was acceptable. So I ask that Mr Carter be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I will not do that but I thank the member for clearing that up. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I respect the statement the member has made. It was actually quite good because it added to the debate a little and put some flavour into it. So it was very helpful. Kia ora. 
I want to make this point. Let me move on to some names and some issues that are hotly debated in Northland. There is a township that I grew up calling “Manga-why”. Now there is a debate as to whether it is pronounced “Manga-why” or “Manga-fy”. It is one of those cases where as my colleague Tau Henare was saying earlier it is hard to say who is right and who is wrong. It has been known as “Manga-why” since forever and all of a sudden now that we are politically correct we have to start calling it “Manga-fy”. Well as far as I am concerned it will never be “Manga-fy”; it will always be “Manga-why”. It is the same with the township spelt O-m-a-p-e-r-e and called “O-maa-pirry”; now people are saying it is “O-ma-perry”. Well my mind boggles. It is no wonder my mum does not know where she is going these days; she does not know whether she is in “O-maa-pirry” or “O-ma-perry”. I was listening to my colleague Eric Roy. If mum had gone to that town he mentioned she would not know whether she was in it out of it or coming through it quite honestly. It has three different names. She would not have known whether to go in backwards and walk out frontwards or what to do. 
Let me come to the most serious point about this bill. The problem with this bill is that it gives a board the power to change place names. That is all very well and we will consider and debate endlessly whether that should or should not happen. The worry I have every time a bill like this comes into the House is that from a local government perspective sixty-nine different pieces of legislation have been passed by this Government in the last 9 years and those bills have imposed costs and more costs on the ratepayers of this nation to the extent that it is now estimated that the changes made by this Government—just the changes—have cost ratepayers in excess of 6 percent of the rates they now pay. That is not the cost of the Government doing anything; it is the cost of just the changes themselves. The fact is that a bill like this will heap more and more cost on to the ratepayers of this country. 
Of course when a place name is changed all the official documents have to be changed. Let us say that a local authority changes a name from “Otamatea” to “Ota-ma-taa-ta” for some reason. Suddenly all the documentation and all the leases and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all—the history of it—has to be changed officially. What is the cost of that? It is a huge cost. 
Brian Connell 
: Who’s paying for it? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The ratepayers of course are paying for it. There is an extra cost on their rates. That is the problem with this sort of legislation. It is all very well for the Government to come along and say it would be nice to change the name of this board and to give it more power. Those members do not think of the consequences. The consequences are that the long-suffering ratepayers in this country face another cost. I tell members that we are heading into another rates revolt and we will have to have another Shand report to try to appease the ratepayers. They will not accept rate increases this time. Here is another cost being loaded on to the ratepayers of this country. The last thing the ratepayers of this country need is more cost to bear. They have problems now with rate increases. I read an article just the other day by Mayor Michael Laws of Whanganui or is it Wanganui—how do we pronounce that one by the way? 
Brian Connell 
: Wanganui. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Wanganui or Whanganui or whatever it might be. Well the fact is that Mayor Laws is saying that the cost to his ratepayers of the changes made by this Government is $4.6 million. That is in excess of 6 percent of their rates. That is nuts. We have just had changes to the building legislation. The councils now have to have buildings accredited. When the Government brought in that legislation it said it would be cost neutral—that it would not cost anything and there would be no increase in bureaucracy. Well as a consequence of the accreditation provision the number of inspectorial staff has gone up by 20 percent. Some city councils have increased their staff from 40 to 50 which is a 20 percent increase. The cost across the country just to implement the first stage has been in excess of $40 million. 
Brian Connell 
: That’s the cost of the train not the cost of running it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh bless my soul! We will not get into trains and choo-choos will we! The fact is that this sort of silly nonsense legislation means more cost to the ratepayers and more cost to the taxpayers. 
I conclude on this note. Can someone remind me of how much it costs to run Parliament every minute? Is it something like $1000 a minute or is it $10000 a minute? I cannot remember but it is a significant sum of money. We have spent the last 2 hours debating this legislation at great cost to the country and to the taxpayer and I would like the Labour members to stand up and tell the taxpayer what benefit and value they will get from this bill tonight. I will tell them: zilch none nothing. Quite honestly that is one of the main reasons why the National Party opposes this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time. 
Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 17 April. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When the House was last debating this bill the Hon Darren Hughes was speaking. He has 6 minutes remaining. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Mr Deputy Speaker— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has according to my records spoken on this bill once. Does the member wish to speak again? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Yes. I seek leave to finish that part of the debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No you may seek leave to take another call if you wish. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I seek leave to take another call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. I call Brian Connell. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I rise to reinforce the fact that National strongly opposes this bill. We do so for two fundamental reasons. One of them I will canvass in some detail and one of them I will just touch on. 
The latter reason is that the argument put forward by the Minister of Internal Affairs and by the Labour Party specifically is that this bill is about identity fraud. Well that is a smokescreen argument. A cursory glance at the statistics demonstrates to all those who are interested in consulting statistics that the number of identity fraud cases in this country has dropped off markedly. I will come back to that a little later. 
The key reason we object to this bill is that it implies restrictions on access to information. The National Party put these arguments in a very coherent fashion to the members of the Government Administration Committee and I am convinced that the Labour Party members felt that those arguments had merit. I am of the view that they went back to the Minister and presented these views to him but the Minister for some reason best known to him simply would not accept those arguments. So the National members were forced—and we did it reluctantly—to put our position in the commentary on the bill. 
I want to touch on that commentary because I think that after the Minister had read it he started to think that maybe he had made a mistake and that that led to our now having two more Supplementary Order Papers before the House. That would have been totally unnecessary had the Minister listened to our arguments because embodied in the Supplementary Order Papers and in one in particular are the arguments that I want to put before the House. 
The first reference I want to make as I said is to the National Party’s commentary. It reads in part: “The Government failed to consult widely on the bill prior to the bill being introduced to Parliament and consequently struggled to get widespread community support.” I will demonstrate to the House through the course of this debate that that argument is meritorious. 
The second thing we want to say is that a significant number of submitters raised this concern as well. They went on to add that they felt that the key component leading them to object to this bill was the access restrictions. The National Party’s commentary goes on to say: “It is the view of National members that these restrictions will continue to hamper academic and genuine genealogical research and other legitimate purposes needing access to births deaths and marriage information.” The National Party members on the select committee argued that our party supported openness and transparency that we believe that they were being denied to the public and that our position was not being taken in isolation. 
A number of academics of renown also take that view. One in particular comes to mind and that is Professor Geoffrey Rice from Canterbury University who heads up the history faculty there. He took the time to write a detailed submission to the select committee. I want to refer to just one paragraph of that submission because his argument is compelling. It sums up why this bill did not get public support why the Government at a million miles an hour started to back away from it and why we have a Supplementary Order Paper before the House right now. He said in part: “If passed this Amendment Bill would render the writing of New Zealand’s twentieth century social history well-nigh impossible.” Which select committee members who were in their right mind could deny when confronted with that statement from someone of such renown that this bill was something that needed further discussion? 
I then said to the members of the select committee that we should have Professor Rice and the other academics who had taken the time to write to the select committee expressing their concerns come in front of the select committee to put their positions because on the one hand we were getting petitions from petitioners and on the other hand we were getting advice from the Government members and officials that those people’s concerns were wrong. I argued that we should have those academics come in front of the select committee so that they could put their position to it. The Labour Party members backed off that proposition at a million miles an hour. 
Professor Rice went on to say: “The value of such data for genealogists family and local historians has been invaluable and their work has contributed enormously to the enrichment and understanding of New Zealand’s heritage.” He also went on to say: “The Minister of Internal Affairs Mr Barker referred to the prevention of ‘identity theft’ as one of the aims of the amendment but such cases are rare in New Zealand”—which is a point I have already made—“and this legislation will not prevent them.” The most compelling sentence of his whole submission is this: “Here is an example of a bad law being proposed to remedy a very small problem.” 
Again I made the offer to the members of the select committee that we have these academics come in front of the select committee so that we could understand their concerns in more detail so that we were in control of all the facts and so that we could put together coherent legislation. As I have already argued and articulated in the House the Labour Party members were opposed to that proposition. 
And those are not isolated examples. That socialist rag that tabloid in Christchurch that some will know as the Christchurch  
Press 
 which will do anything to pursue a populist theme took the time to write an editorial and I want to quote to the House a couple of sentences from it as well because it sums up public opinion on this legislation. It starts by stating: “It is not often that historians and researchers get stirred up about a matter that makes it into the newspapers. But an innocuous-sounding bill quietly put before Parliament … ” has done just that. The emphasis there is on its having been quietly put before Parliament. The Minister argued earlier in the House that there had been widespread consultation on the introduction of this bill and that is simply not the case. The Christchurch  
Press 
 on this occasion got it right. It went on to say that the bill “would almost close free access to public registers that have been open to everyone since not long after colonial government was established in New Zealand.” It goes on to say: “There is no compelling need for the secrecy provisions of the bill and certainly no sign of any public call for them. … it is yet another encroachment that chips away at information that should be publicly available to all.” The last sentences are these: “These registers have been public information for centuries long before they were kept by governments. No other free society has this kind of restriction. There is no need for it here.” 
What is driving the argument on the behalf of the Government? It is a silly misconstrued argument that people will have their privacy interfered with if other people go about their legitimate business of accessing data so that they can pursue social histories family tree histories genealogy and accurate historical accounts of where New Zealand has come from. This bill will impede good scholarship and National has to oppose it. Any person with any dignity— 
Peter Brown 
: You’ve got it wrong. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Unfortunately Mr Brown has not been listening to the evidence that has been put before the House. The Christchurch rag got it right Professor Rice got it right and the 164 submitters who submitted to the select committee got it right. But Mr Brown stands up and says that we have all got it wrong. 
Mr Brown will do anything to support the Government because he knows that in a few months’ time things will get a bit—well let me just say that he probably will be dusting off his CV along with a few other non-Government members who continue to vote with the Government. I know that that will mean a huge loss of quality in this House but unfortunately that is the way things are starting to pan out. That is the cost of their voting with the Government. The logic of what is being suggested by everyone who is opposed to this legislation is starting to catch up with some of my colleagues. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 The previous speaker Brian Connell referred to those who made submissions on the bill to the Government Administration Committee. I was one of those who did so in concert with my good friend Mr Keith Locke. I think it is fair to say that we made a submission on the bill as it was introduced and on some serious shortcomings we saw in the bill but we now see that the amendment the Minister is proposing—the Supplementary Order Paper that will be moved at the Committee stage—substantially addresses our concerns. 
The view we took was that this bill would impede those who were seeking family histories that the limitations it contained originally were excessive and we doubted its impact on resolving the issue of identity fraud. The Minister and the select committee have listened and the amendments they propose will address those issues. To some extent though the whole issue is somewhat of a fiction. In the last couple of months I have taken the time to catalogue my own family’s history back through all of my own grandparents great-grandparents great-great and great-great-great-grandparents for the previous five generations. I have all of their data but none of that has been obtained by accessing official records in this country. I have gone to cemetery records I have used overseas records newspaper accounts and some of the National Library’s provisions and I have built up a pretty complete picture of my own origins. I am quite satisfied with having achieved that as a spare-time hobby. But it does raise the issue again that we were concerned about at the time we made the submission on this original bill. 
The amendments being proposed remove some of the immediate problems we foresaw about access beyond certain periods. But I think it remains a fiction to suggest that even with this amended bill which we will be supporting the fundamental issue that was put up as the reason for it in the first place is valid. As I recall telling the select committee and as my experience in recent months has confirmed it is pretty easy when one sets out to trace information about families and about people if one has a few basic tools. 
I will give members a “for instance”. The member who preceded me is from the Christchurch area. The Christchurch City Council has available on the Internet all of the cemetery burial records for Christchurch cemeteries. So if people know the name of an ancestor or a family member they simply type it into the search page and it will give them all of the details date of death description of where the person is buried occupation age and last-known address. It has nothing to do with registers of births deaths and marriages; this is information that is held by other sources. If people are then interested enough they can go to the National Library’s Papers Past website which has a record of previous New Zealand newspapers up until around the first years of the 20th century. One can search death accounts obituaries and other pieces of information there. 
Genealogists and amateur historians will know this well but the point I am making is that even with this bill even in its most Draconian original form and certainly with the amendments now being moved to it it will not have any impact on people’s ability to access that degree of information. So a number of the concerns that were being raised are readily able to be addressed. 
That then leaves the question of identity fraud and whether one wants to put restrictions on the period through which one can have access to records to prevent the exploitation of fraud for those purposes. It reminds me of a story attributed to the late President Johnson who in earlier days in Texan politics was part of a group of people who used to visit gravesites at night to find the names of the dead whom they could then enrol to cast votes for them in current elections. A story was told about one evening when a group of people were going through a particular cemetery. The trick was to go back several generations so that there was no prospect of the person they were having vote ever having anyone who would turn up and say “Hang on that’s my uncle who died a few years ago.” They were going through the cemetery and Lyndon was particularly punctilious in going to the oldest graves he could find to get the names. His contemporaries were saying to him: “Come on Lyndon we haven’t got time for this. Just grab these names and go.” He turned to them and said: “He’s got as much right to vote as anyone in this cemetery.” 
The point I am making in relation to identity fraud is that although the bill puts some restrictions in place if people are determined enough they can find their way around it. That may be an extreme example for a nefarious purpose but to go back to my example of cemetery records one can find people there. One can find out that they did not have any descendants so one would be quite safe in assuming their identity. As members will be aware we have had many cases of people adopting multiple aliases for fraudulent purposes. It is a comparatively easy thing to do and the restrictions in the bill will not prevent that from happening. 
So why support the bill? I think we need to make an effort to offer some level of protection. I think that the amendments the bill contains—and certainly the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has indicated he will move subsequently—are an improvement on the original. I think that is indicative of the fact that the select committee did listen to the submissions made to it. I have talked to a number of those who made submissions at the time who feel somewhat more comfortable about the bill in its likely amended form than they did in its original form. Most people acknowledge that some protections need to be put in place to prevent the rampant misuse of information that is held about people but clearly at the same time they also acknowledge the old proverb that where there is a will there is a way. 
We should not think that by passing this bill we will absolve ourselves of the difficulty of identity fraud. We should not think that we will prevent people from getting legitimate access to information because they will and they will obtain it from all variety of sources but we are in a position to offer some modest protection against the misuse of the official information that is currently held by the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages and civil unions are probably now added in there as well. For those purposes we think that the bill is a reasonable step forward and we will support it given the fact that it is a vast improvement on what was originally introduced. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I am giving this speech on behalf of Keith Locke who is unable to participate in the debate this evening. The Greens will support the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill now that the Supplementary Order Paper has dramatically transformed it. We thank the Minister Rick Barker for recognising the role that the Greens and in particular Keith Locke have played in this transformation. Keith was of course added to the Government Administration Committee to represent the Green Party on this bill. 
As has been mentioned by previous speakers including Mr Connell just previously the original bill met with huge opposition—in fact from virtually every genealogist historian biographer and journalist in the country—and rightly so. The original bill largely eliminated the traditional free access to births deaths and marriages records or at least people would have to go through a hugely cumbersome time-consuming and costly process of trying to get immediate relatives to give them permission to look at records of relatives who had died less than 50 years ago were married less than 80 years ago or had been born less than 100 years ago. The Green Party responded to these concerns and said that we would not support the bill going any further. We linked up with United Future and in the best MMP tradition Peter Dunne and Mr Locke presented a joint submission to the Government Administration Committee which was considering the bill and Mr Dunne has referred to that. 
With several MMP parties plus National being against the bill the Government did not have the numbers to pass the bill in its original form. Rather than simply opposing the bill as the National Party had done the Greens tried to look for a way through and we think that it has been found. The key point is that we have pretty much kept open access to records. If people want it they can get it. However there is provision for people to close their records but the Greens successfully pushed for this to be on prescribed grounds and for a prescribed purpose. We were given confirmation in the House by the Minister that it will not be easy to meet these prescribed grounds. He said it must be on “substantive” grounds and the prescribed period cannot be too long either. We reiterate that position particularly for the reference of those making the regulations and for the Regulations Review Committee. 
The select committee looked at a real substantive ground that might occur infrequently. It looked at cases like a woman who had left a spouse and set up a new relationship and did not want her former partner to be able to track her down. The former partner may be able to track her new address by getting hold of a marriage or civil union certificate finding out the new partner’s name and then the address. So it has to be something serious to close a record. It cannot be done just on a whim and for a long period. The period would not need to be for years and years because there is the right of renewal with the registrar. 
After the big changes made to the original bill New Zealand remains like Britain and parts of the United States in that it is holding the line for open access to records. We do not need to exaggerate security concerns because Government officials could not identify many people who were stealing other people’s identities by using the births deaths and marriages records. In fact it is much harder to steal a person’s identity now due to computerisation and checks in the records of the Department of Internal Affairs. It is much much harder to steal the identity of a dead person— 
Sandra Goudie 
: There never was any correlation between access and fraud. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: All I can hear is yak-yak-yak. It is much harder to steal the identity of a dead person because a death is now registered in the computer records in the same file as the person’s birth marriage or civil union details. If someone goes to the Department of Internal Affairs for a passport plenty of questions can be asked of a fraudster to check them out. Some defenders of the bill in its original form said that might be true but what about the private firms banks and various agencies that might be deceived about someone’s identity if information on births deaths and marriages is too readily available? Well if they do not do the proper checking it is their lookout. We do not need to close off the records because of their incompetence. 
There are a couple of new checks and balances in the revised bill that are not too onerous and will give people some protection against fraud. First people accessing information have to provide some identification and their access to a particular subject’s files will be recorded on that subject’s access register. Secondly if people have some worries that a particular person might be trying to get at their details with ill intent they can check their access register regarding their own birth marriage or civil union details. The death details are outside this process for obvious reasons—it is a bit difficult for a deceased person to fill out the relevant forms. Thirdly the identification criteria for the person accessing records will presumably not be too onerous. The requirement is for any means of identification that are reasonably necessary. It will not be watertight identification but it will make it easier to track down harassers and fraudsters. 
Presumably it will not be necessary for bulk users like genealogists to go through a lot of hassles and repeatedly lodge ID. They might be identified by a particular email address for repeated searches. Cost and ease of access is rightly important for many genealogists. They are often retired people without much income who often have to go up many paths to track down forebears. The computerisation of records should make it easier for them to get printouts and hopefully will be cheaper for the recipient in that there is a much lower administrative burden on the Department of Internal Affairs with computerised records compared with paper records. What are known as historical records will be readily available—that is where the person was born 100 years ago and the like. 
There is a provision in the bill for the Department of Internal Affairs to provide information on whole categories of people in an easy form. This could be very important for some historical research. For example one researcher did a project on what types of people were most affected by the 1918 flu epidemic in New Zealand and where they lived. A comprehensive look at the death records during the several months of the flu epidemic was obviously required. The downside for researchers is that the Government will not now be providing sets of hundreds of people’s records or summaries often called indexes in the same way it did previously. People will not be allowed to put whole sets of records on the Internet. How this will work in practice is anyone’s guess because the long arm of the New Zealand law does not necessarily get to Internet jurisdictions on the other side of the world where foreign websites may host the mass genealogical records of New Zealanders which currently exist. This question of whether a mass of records or summaries of them should be available on the Internet and the practicalities of preventing it is one we will have to work through over the 5-year test period of the legislation. 
In finishing the Green Party thanks the dozens of submitters to the bill who were instrumental in paving the way for this bill to be changed to allow open access of records. Mr Locke says it was also nice to see the two Tims—the two previously faceless editors of the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the  
Dominion Post 
—Tim Murphy and Tim Pankhurst pop their heads above the parapet and jointly make the case to the select committee for freedom of information. The original bill was very unpopular. As the Green MPs talked about it around the community we discovered that almost every second person appears to be a genealogist which is great not only for family histories but also for the refining of our nation’s history. We praise these genealogists just as we praise the historians and biographers who will gain greatly from the changes in this bill. In the main genealogists historians and biographers work long hours month after month year after year generally unpaid—in fact spending money out of their own pockets quite often—just to bring some enlightenment to their families and their nation. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. This Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill is important to a lot of people for many reasons but it is very important to Maori because it deals with information that is an essential element of whakapapa and whakapapa is a very very special part of being Maori. 
Whakapapa is not something introduced through 21st century computer-based family tree programmes or family history websites. Indeed whakapapa is not even just about genealogy; whakapapa is far far deeper than that. 
Nearly 80 years ago Sir Apirana Ngata presented a paper to the Wellington branch of the Historical Association in which he challenged the prevailing practice of depicting genealogy and history as having started in this country only with the arrival of the European settlers. Ngata referred the historians to the minute books of the Native Land Court describing them as containing “the most diversified use of the genealogical method as illustrating the Maori customs relating not only to land tenure but also to birth marriage death war peace-making conquest gifts mana chieftainship … and other aspects of pre-pakeha life of the Maori people.” Whakapapa is the basis of our history the basis of kinship underpinning the whole concept of whanau hapu and iwi and an essential element in how Maori see ourselves as tangata whenua here in Aotearoa. 
I recall just last year a good mate of mine by the name of Joe Te Rito gave another perspective on the complexity of whakapapa research. He talked about how he was trying to trace his whakapapa all the way back to Papatuanuku with particular interest in the 16 generations from Rongomaiwahine high chieftainess of Te Mahia down to himself. Joe drew on Ngata’s legacy to explain the concept of whakapapa as a genealogical story told layer upon layer ancestor upon ancestor. 
He also talked about the many different ways Maori had to describe the detail and the history of births deaths marriages and relationships such as the notion of whakamoe or intermarriages within a person’s lines of descent; the concept of taotahi or listing ancestors’ names without including those of wives or husbands; tararere or tracing a single line of descent without showing intermarriages or other kinship relationships; and the notion of tahu or setting out the main lines from the progenitors of a tribe—ancestors for example like Ikanui and Wheeru for Te Aupouri Tuwhakatere for Ngai Takoto Rahiri for Ngapuhi etc. So members can see how identity and having access to the records of that identity are crucial in enabling people to better understand their history their place in today’s world and their potential for the future. 
I recall for example when I first came to Parliament I was asked what name I would like to have on my door. So naturally I told them that my name was Hone Pani Tamati Waka Nene Harawira. Just as naturally Parliamentary Service told me that it could not do it that I could not have my name on my door that it was too long. Did I have a shorter version? Would I mind if one of my names was dropped? But the reality is that my name defines me through mana tupuna and mana whenua as well. Indeed with a name like Tamati Waka Nene it would not be possible for me to be anything but a member of Parliament for the mighty Tai Tokerau. I carry my name with pride in my ancestry and pride in the relationships I have through my tupuna to a goodly number of other MPs in this House including MPs from Labour National New Zealand First and the Maori Party. 
Peter Brown 
: Are we on that computer? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I say to Peter Brown that he is not but members of his party are. 
Far be it from me to risk causing offence by chopping off one of my names because through my whakapapa I am also the living image of those who have gone before us. So rather than agreeing to chop one of my names off I simply asked that Parliamentary Service work it out and lo and behold it came to pass. 
Whakapapa can be complex it can be frightening it is always keenly watched by observers and it is a mark of maturity in those who are able to capture its essence albeit at wildly different levels. The recalling in proper order of whakapapa is one of the greatest skills of our most treasured orators—our kaumatua—and increasingly the young sharp minds of our rangatahi. 
There is nothing like listening to a master in the art of whakapapa and I have been privileged in my time to hear some of the truly great orators of the north including the Rev. Maori Marsden and Sir James Henare himself who used whakapapa to build connections between people who had no idea of their relationship to others in the same house who used whakapapa to define the value of historical links between hapu and iwi who might have been at loggerheads with one another and in a truly masterly display Sir James Henare used whakapapa to completely destroy the arbitrary boundaries laid down for Ngapuhi by highlighting the deep whakapapa connections between hapu inside and outside of that arbitrary boundary line. 
I was speaking to Angeline Greensill the Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato about this very bill just last week and she said that it was really really important that the Maori Party supported the right of tangata whenua to be able to access information about births deaths marriages and relationships as it is one of those essential aspects of our whanau hapu and iwi that must be preserved. I followed up that discussion by making a call to Monty Ohia the Maori Party candidate for Te Tai Tonga to see what his thoughts were and I was not surprised at all to learn that he was of the very same mind. Indeed he said that the Maori Party should also support the right of all other New Zealanders to have access to that information for the same reasons because he believed that genealogy helped people to build awareness of themselves and their relationships with others through knowledge of their own ancestry. 
And Derek Fox the Maori Party candidate for Ikaroa-Rawhiti added that the concept of mana tupuna was equally important in helping Maori to define our status as tangata whenua and as a distinct people. He said that mana tupuna was the bridge that linked us to our ancestors that defined our heritage and that gave us the stories that defined our place in the world. 
And although we accept the importance of security measures to protect personal details from abuse it is because of the critical importance of whakapapa to Maori and the safeguarding of the art of whakapapa as a key asset in the survival and renaissance of Maori as tangata whenua that the Maori Party will be supporting the right of whanau to continue to have access to registered information on births deaths marriages and relationships for the legitimate purpose of discovering more about one’s whakapapa and all the relationships that flow from that knowledge and those connections. Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on this matter to highlight the inconsistency of the National Party’s opposition to this bill. This bill of course is aimed at moving births deaths and marriages registration into the 21st century and the hallmark of the turn of the century has been the increase in the information age and the accessibility in electronic form of much data. The price of that of course has been a greater vigilance of privacy and one cannot have the ease of access through information technology without revising the barriers in order to protect privacy. So this bill seeks to achieve a greater degree of accuracy by facilitating the interdepartmental swapping of defined information so that the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages has an accurate register. 
At the heart of this bill is the search for accuracy. Of course that makes ironic the comment by the National Party members if one listened to them this evening—and as far as I can tell this seems to be summed up in the National Party’s view in the Government Administration Committee report when it could not agree on any changes to the bill—that the restrictions proposed in the bill will hamper academic and genuine genealogical research and other legitimate purposes for which access is needed to information on births deaths and marriages. Well let us just look at that. If the National members want to have an Act that continues to rely upon inaccurate information then the whole pyramid of academic research and genuine genealogical information is a house that is built on sand. It is a pyramid of no substance. What better basis could there be for academic research and genealogical analysis than accurate records? 
This bill simply moves the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act into the 21st century even though Sandra Goudie is still walking on the streets of the 18th century. This bill seeks to impose high levels of accuracy on the registrar-general and it recognises the effect of our information technology on the recording and exchanging of that information between the various Government agencies and individuals who possess it. The bill enables individuals to accurately describe aspects of their identity. It enables some individuals in sensitive occupations to suppress their details and it restricts the unlimited access of those with prurient interests. But the bill also opens up the right for individuals to give consent to further research and after 100 years of course it opens up the books entirely for proper research. 
So at the heart of this bill is a search for accuracy and that search for accuracy of course puts a lie to the National Party’s opposition when it wants to retain outdated and inaccurate records using the claim of academic freedom. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is good to get an opportunity to speak to this bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. Just following what the last speaker said I think probably the point that needs to be made and restated is that there has been a lack of consultation within the process of developing this legislation and that displays a level of arrogance that is borne out in most of the legislation that comes forward from this Government. We have only to think about legislation such as the Electoral Finance Act which has been put there for a purpose but was not consulted widely enough on and will not survive. Really when we look at the process of democracy inside this country we see we are starting to understand just how thin a veneer of democracy we have left under this Labour Government. 
That was also borne out by this Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill when the original version of the bill that came before the House was poorly conceived. That certainly did raise the hackles and ire of the genealogists and the process of hearing submissions by the Government Administration Committee certainly raised that issue. The point I make is made again in an editorial in the Christchurch  
Press 
 that said: “The idea appears to have been one cooked up by bureaucrats in a closed circle in which they consulted only other bureaucrats. It came about after a policy review but although 15 government departments were able to have their say on it no outside opinions seem to have been solicited. The bill will go to a select committee” but as it says there the opportunity to make submissions will be quite limited. 
When we look at the size and substance of the Supplementary Order Papers it is quite easy for us to say yes we have got it sorted. But I do not think we have. I mean once something has been made crooked it is very hard to make it straight. I have absolutely no confidence that the Labour Government has been able to get this matter sorted. The information that is quite relevant is that 68000 corrections have been made by the public to the information on births deaths and marriages. The Department of Internal Affairs would not have the capability even to be able to access and source that information and to keep it correct.  
When we look at this bill we have here before the House with its associated Supplementary Order Papers we can see that it is in the johnny-come-lately style we have become very used to from this Labour Government. It is certainly not what the National Party would call creditable Government. On that basis it is still very appropriate that the National members are opposing this bill because once something has been made crooked it is pretty difficult to argue that it can be made straight purely by putting in a couple of Supplementary Order Papers. Restricting the public’s opportunity to see the full substance of the bill originally was a denial of people’s democratic rights and democracy is something we must value at all costs.  
The thoughts about identity fraud are a typical example—a very lightweight excuse sort of thought up on the fly to justify this bill. When we look at the access restriction we see is a very serious matter. We had the member from United Future before talking about how he was able to build up a pretty complete picture without going anywhere near the registers of births deaths and marriages but that is not necessarily always the case.  
The arguments that have been put forward by the National Party are very relevant. The Government has failed to consult. That is a pretty serious indictment when we consider that the public have every right to be able to submit on something. The ability to put forward Supplementary Order Papers—this has become the custom of this Government—at the very last hour denies the public their right to be able to articulate their views and to ensure that our lawmaking in this House is well considered and that the public are well and truly engaged. The fact that the majority of submitters opposed the structure of the original bill was bad enough in itself. It is important to recognise that in relation to the history of this country as has been related in this House it is important that we are able to carry out accurate research with regard to our genealogies. That is something we all take very very seriously.  
So the National Party I believe is certainly in the right space on this bill. Openness and transparency were denied to the public. The Government’s continuing custodial role is therefore brought into question. It is quite clear that the Minister of Internal Affairs referred to the prevention of identity theft as one of the aims of the bill but such cases were considered to be very rare according to the submission that was put to the select committee. So let us not forget the experiences that we are having from this Government as it works its way through a very lightweight Order Paper. We have to realise that democracy in this country is being challenged by virtue of the fact that we are constantly seeing the public kept out of the discussions around how this country is run. This bill on that basis should not progress and the National Party is quite rightfully in the position of objecting to it. Thank you. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Unfortunately I missed my turn for my call so I am taking a tail-end Charlie. I have to say that the contribution of the member who has just resumed his seat Colin King was quite disappointing. I usually listen to him with some interest because he usually talks common sense but here he was talking gobbledegook—absolute gobbledegook. When this legislation was first introduced by the Government it all seemed very very straightforward and New Zealand First supported it going to the Government Administration Committee. But shortly thereafter we found a number of flaws were identified by the genealogists the historians and the people who represented adopted people. They all registered huge concerns. A number of submissions outlined the details of those concerns none more so than that of the Hon Peter Dunne and Keith Locke where they combined together and outlined their concerns.  
In order to ensure that the select committee took on board the submitters’ concerns Sandra Goudie—and the member can tell me whether I am correct—got somebody to extract the records of I think her own family without anybody whatsoever challenging it. She came back to the select committee and told us how loose the system was. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I don’t have a problem with that part. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member does not have a problem with that part but she will vote against the bill. She will vote against it. She identified quite clearly that there was a problem in the current law and the National members will vote against the bill.  
But I say “fair go” to the Minister because he took on board all the concerns and realised that the legislation was not doing the job that he thought it would do. It needed amendment and he has produced a Supplementary Order Paper to address all the concerns. The Minister needs to be complimented on that. He wrote to the select committee addressing all the concerns and I have a copy of his letter here. [ 
Interruption 
] One of the concerns—and it is the concern of the member opposite who is going into hysterics as I speak—was that if Joe Blow goes along and asks about the background on the criteria on or the information about a certain person then Joe Blow is captured on an access register. Under the legislation as it was originally written there was nothing and that is considered to be a solution. 
Sandra Goudie 
: That wasn’t a concern. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh the member is agreeing with it. 
Sandra Goudie 
: No I said that wasn’t a concern. I don’t mind people having access to the information but the member actually doesn’t understand the issue—nor did the Minister. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is quite confused. She is opposing this bill and she knows that the current law is inadequate. The member knows that the current law is inadequate. She was a member of the select committee—a rather vocal member of the select committee—and she is advocating that the National Party does nothing. She knows that there is a problem and she wants nothing to be done.  
New Zealand First thinks that the Minister has taken all the concerns on board. He has produced a Supplementary Order Paper to address the concerns that the public raised before the select committee and New Zealand First will be supporting it.  
I am conscious that I am running out of time but I just want to talk a little about another concern of New Zealand First. When one goes for a death certificate when a person has died it states whether that person is buried or cremated but if one goes for a computer printout it does not state whether the person is buried or cremated. It does not use those terms at all; it states where the body was disposed of. Many people many New Zealanders find that to be insulting. They find that to be insensitive. We made representations to the Minister and to the select committee and that wording will be changed in this legislation. That is a significant improvement and I compliment the Minister on listening to that concern and taking it on board. Thank you very much. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Births Death Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.