Volume 631 Week 14 - Wednesday 10 May 2006 
Volume 631 Week 14 - Wednesday 10 May 2006 
[Volume:631;Page:2897] 
Wednesday 10 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Hospitals—Public and Private Capacity 
1. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why is the Government building more public hospitals when there is underutilised capacity in private hospitals? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Although the use of the private sector to deliver publicly funded surgical and medical services is increasing year by year the truth is that the total level of health provision under this Government is increasing even faster. That is why this Government has undertaken the largest hospital-building programme in living memory. 
Judy Turner 
: Given the long lead times involved how will building new hospitals solve the current waiting list crisis when there are empty beds in private hospitals? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That there are empty hospital beds in the private sector might reflect a lack of efficiency in the private sector and therefore it might not be the case that there are as many empty beds as people might think. However it is worth noting that in the annual report of the Ministry of Health for 2004-05 there is very clear evidence that the amount of medical and surgical work that is publicly funded but is done in private hospitals not only is increasing but is many times higher than was ever the case under a National Government. 
Ann Hartley 
: What reports has he received on keeping public hospital services free for all New Zealanders? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen three. One is a firm commitment to preserve free public hospital services for all New Zealanders. A second would strip all non-emergency care out of public hospitals. The third which is unusually equivocal—or perhaps I should say “usually equivocal”—is that in answer to a direct question the respondent could neither confirm nor deny whether he supported charging patients who use public hospitals. We can guess that the first is from the Labour Party the second is from the ACT party and the third is from Don Brash who is for the moment the leader of the National Party. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How much underutilised capacity is there in public hospitals as a result of workforce shortages? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Generally rather little although one can end up with workforce shortages causing a shortage in a particular discipline within a hospital. Most public hospitals in New Zealand are run at a high or very high capacity by international standards. It is worth also saying that the most recent hospital to be opened which was last Thursday by the Prime Minister has been purpose-built so as to imbed so to speak private sector beds within the same building to allow staff to move freely between the two sectors thus improving the efficiency of both. 
Judy Turner 
: What steps is the Government taking to pursue actively the provision in the confidence and supply agreement with United Future that “appropriate private hospital capacity will be used to reduce waiting lists where this is feasible.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Most obviously by requiring hospitals progressively to increase their service provision in very many medical and surgical areas. I would say that the very substantial increase in private sector provision of publicly funded services that we have seen in recent years is likely to continue not least because of the agreement we have with United Future. First and foremost there is a direct benefit to publicly funded patients from this activity. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If there is direct benefit to patients from asking private hospitals to do operations when the public hospitals do not have the capacity to do them why do we not do a lot more of that? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have just pointed out to the House that not only do we do more of it but we do many times more than was ever done under the previous National Government. Further I draw the member’s attention to the last paragraph of an article in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
by an associate professor in health economics who says: “It is important we have this debate about how the public and private sectors can work together more effectively. But the debate must be informed by the best evidence that is available rather than by ideological calls for change.” 
Australian Budget—Public and Private Capacity 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “it is time to move to the next level in the economic transformation agenda.”; if so how is that agenda affected by last night’s Australian Budget? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. It is not. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the package of measures announced in the Australian Budget including across-the-board tax cuts and tax threshold increases worth A$37 billion A$2.3 billion in road and rail funding and tax simplification for small businesses; and in light of those bold initiatives does she see any hope now of New Zealand closing the income gap with Australia and stemming the exodus of skilled New Zealanders across the Tasman? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I have seen the reports. They show that most wage earners will get about $10 a week while the rich will get hundreds of dollars a week which I assume is why the Australian Budget appeals to the National Party. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of Australian Green Senator Bob Brown’s criticisms of the Australian Budget that it is good for politicians but it is not good for the next generation and that the A$2.3 billion in road funding is all about the fuel-driven on-road transport system and not about fast efficient public transport in the big cities where it is needed; and can she reassure New Zealanders that her Budget will not make the same mistake as that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seen many comments about the Australian Budget and of course the National Party loves it for the reasons I pointed out before. But many others like Senator Brown have raised a range of issues and I can assure the member that the Labour Government in New Zealand does see a very important role for public transport as part of the mix to address transport problems. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is her reaction to comments made by the Australian Labor Party finance spokesman Wayne Swann backed up by his leader Kim Beazley that the tax cuts in the Australian Budget are “modest and overdue” and that they appear fair but do not go far enough in returning money to taxpayers’ pockets? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is no wonder the Australian Labor Party said they were modest when most wage earners are to get 10 bucks a week and the rich hundreds of dollars. That is why Dr Brash likes it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Government intend to raise the top tax rate to 45 percent which is what the top rate is in Australia after the last Budget as appears to be advocated by Dr Brash? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has not the slightest intention of bringing New Zealand’s tax rates into line with Australia’s. If that is what Dr Brash wants we look forward to his tax-raising policy being announced any day soon. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Did the Prime Minister see in the Australian Budget that the Australian economy is forecast to grow at between 3.25 and 3.5 percent a year over the next 4 years when our economy is currently not growing at all; and will she tell New Zealanders today whether her Government has any answers to the new challenges posed by last night’s growth-enhancing Australian Budget? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I did see that forecast and I am all ears as to how the Leader of the Opposition suggests that we shift to New Zealand large deposits of iron ore and bauxite so we can ship them to China like the Australians do. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the next level in the economic transformation agenda include putting sustainability at the heart of Government policy rather than out on the fringes by rapidly increasing energy and water-use efficiency reducing reliance on fossil fuels and incentivising forest planting for erosion and flood control and improved water quality? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: All of those are important policy options and I want to acknowledge the work the member is doing particularly on energy efficiency and sustainability issues. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that average after-tax incomes in Australia are already 33 percent above average after-tax incomes in New Zealand and that the gap will obviously get wider as Australia continues to grow more quickly than New Zealand and as Australian workers enjoy tax reductions; and will it take until Australian incomes are 50 percent above those in New Zealand before her Government does anything significant to narrow that gap? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think we should credit the average Kiwi with some common sense. Kiwis will not be crossing the Tasman for $10 a week. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister recall a former Governor of the Reserve Bank supporting to the hilt the Rogernomics revolution in the late 1980s whereas Australia went down the path of incremental change; and is it not a bit rich that he now seeks to pick the eyes out of the results in Australia given that he was a big fan of what Rogernomics started in the first place? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree with the member that the Leader of the Opposition is highly selective in what he wants to borrow from Australia. If he wants to borrow the lot I look forward to his announcement of a rise in tax rates any day now. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that New Zealanders to whom she credits a great deal of common sense left New Zealand at a rate of more than 600 per week over the last 12 months; and is it not true that as Australia continues to grow faster than New Zealand and as the Australian Government continues to cut taxes that exodus will only increase? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: New Zealanders to whom I credited a great deal of common sense actually did put a Labour-led Government back in office and not the profligate National Party which offered to throw away money and fuel inflation. 
Telecommunications Changes—Business Reaction 
3.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports on business reaction to the proposed changes to telecommunications regulations announced last week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen numerous reports of the overwhelmingly positive response of business to the changes announced last week including even a front page editorial from the  
National Business Review  
applauding the decision. About the only negative reaction I have seen is from the Business Roundtable Federated Farmers—which is yet to read the fine print—and the members opposite who of course opposed it before they supported it. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he received any reports suggesting significantly different approaches to telecommunications? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report describing the decision as bizarre and an act of political desperation that will send New Zealand into the technological backwaters. I have also seen a report indicating that legislation to implement the proposals warrants support at least as far as a select committee. The difference between those two reports may have come as a result of reading emails from the business community because both reports have of course come from the National Party. 
Australian Budget—Tax Rates 
4.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will he be following the lead of the Australian Treasurer Peter Costello by raising income tax thresholds and/or cutting tax rates in his 2006 Budget; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have no intention of raising the top two personal tax rates to 40 percent and 45 percent plus a 1.5 percent Medicare levy as in Australia. 
John Key 
: Is he aware that Australian tax thresholds have been raised and/or taxes lowered in Australia in 2003-04 again in 2004-05 again in 2005-06 again in 2006-07; and why is it that we in New Zealand have to wait 3 years to get the better part of 67c which he is telling us we probably will not get anyway? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It has already been announced that the Hon Peter Dunne and I are undertaking a review of business taxation where those matters will be dealt with. The Australian Government of course last night projected what it called an underlying cash surplus of about $10 billion. The National Party’s policy would have implied in fact substantial extra borrowing in order to pay for it. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What recent reports has he seen on the tax burden on the average New Zealand worker? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: According to a recent report from the OECD New Zealand has the third-lowest tax rate for the average worker. Australia had a higher tax burden on the average worker than New Zealand had. 
John Key 
: Can he explain why tax cuts are affordable in Australia when they will be running a future surplus of 1 percent of GDP but apparently they are not affordable in New Zealand when we will be running a surplus of 2.2 percent of GDP even after he has fully funded the New Zealand Superannuation Fund? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That really does show the member’s ignorance of how Government accounts are calculated. The Australians report what they call an underlying cash surplus which is on the core Crown activity in Australia. This Government will not be reporting a cash surplus at all for the next 4 years. 
John Key 
: Has he seen Australian Labor leader Kim Beazley’s comments in support of the Australian tax cuts when he said: “You can’t keep failing to give when you’re running surpluses like they’ve been running. You can’t keep failing to give to middle Australia a tax cut.”; if so why does he think that Labor leader Kim Beazley thinks tax cuts are affordable when their surplus is half what New Zealand’s surplus is—or does he just think that Peter Costello is being totally irresponsible in announcing tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I tell the member again he does not have the foggiest idea how Government accounts are calculated. The Australians report on a different financial basis— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members know that barracking is not permitted; interjections are. It is very difficult to hear the member’s answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You might require the Minister to answer the question rather than starting with the provocative statement that he did. If we could ask a question by saying something about the Minister of Finance’s inability to understand his capacity to deliver tax cuts that might be fair. But for him to respond that way will unfortunately just lead to the sort of response we get. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I say to the member that the Minister was getting to his answer and I did notice that some questions have been prefaced by superfluous comments as well. So perhaps we could all stick to the rules in future. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Australians report their Government finances on a different accounting basis from New Zealand. Their headline rate is what is called the underlying cash surplus. New Zealand’s underlying cash surplus on the Australian basis is already lower than Australia’s and will be negative for the next 4 years. Large tax cuts in New Zealand over that period can only be paid for either by slashing social spending—and every member opposite calls for increases—or by increased borrowing and rising debt levels. Mr Costello’s proudest boast last night was that he had paid off Government debt and Australia had a net debt of zero. We achieved the same position in March this year. Thank God we did not have a National Government! 
John Key 
: Has the Minister bothered to reflect on the fact that if an Australian worker earns $30000 or $40000 a year—not a lot—he or she will pay $1500 a year less in tax or $30 less a week than the equivalent New Zealand worker earning exactly the same amount of money; if so what is he going to do about that for the New Zealand worker? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That same person in Australia also pays a 1.5 percent Medicare levy. That provision is not payable within New Zealand; here it is met out of general taxation. That same person will also pay a very large payment of stamp duties if he or she buys a house. That person would also be subject to general capital gains tax and indeed to a range of taxes that are not payable within New Zealand. That person would also qualify for a State pension that is income and asset tested which it is not in New Zealand. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister bothered to calculate that if a New Zealand truck driver earns $45000 a year his tax will be $9720 leaving him a take-home pay of $35280 to live on and that when he emigrates to Australia he is likely to earn $60000 for the same job and have a take-home pay of $48400; or does the Minister not consider that the $250 a week extra that the worker would get in Australia is material? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am always amazed that any members opposite still live in this country. If they think Australia is so good then for God’s sake let us benefit both countries and let them all go to Australia. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that wages went down in this country as a direct result of the Employment Contracts Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm there were serious cuts in both wages and conditions for many New Zealand workers particularly in terms of conditions such as time and a half on overtime which of course Mr Key never does—at least not in respect of his work. Indeed the largest gap between wages in New Zealand and Australia occurred during the period when the policies that Dr Brash and Mr Key are most keen on were being implemented. 
John Key 
: When the Minister finally gets to read the rest of David Cunliffe’s Budget next week will the cheering from his back bench be because the whips have told them to fall into line or because they have worked out that under the Minister’s financial stewardship they have the privilege of paying $6540 more in tax than if they had earned their $118000 back-bench salary in Australia and is that why the Prime Minister has signalled that next week’s Budget will almost certainly be his last because she agrees with the back bench that they deserve a tax cut? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can understand that somebody who is worth $50 million would have had to arrange his affairs to qualify for a Wellington accommodation allowance as a member of Parliament and would regard an MP’s salary as somewhat miserable. I have to say that most Kiwis would be happy to earn $118000—and I would be happy if almost anybody on that side actually earned their $118000. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I was amused to hear Winston Peters criticising the Employment Contracts Act and I seek leave to table the third reading vote on the Employment Contracts Act which Mr Peters voted for but of course that was when he was on this side of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Dr Smith should pay attention. I have not asked any questions today other than the one to do with question No. 2 to the Prime Minister. I did not ask any questions in respect of the last line of questions so why is he accusing me of having done so? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member is quite right on a point of information. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Historical Claims 
5.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What recent steps has the Government taken to further its commitment to settle all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 On Sunday I announced new funding of $5.2 million over the next 4 years. That will provide the Office of Treaty Settlements with the additional staff and resources to further progress Treaty settlements. 
Dave Hereora 
: What other initiatives have been taken through the Treaty negotiations portfolio towards meeting the 20/20 deadline? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The new funding builds on the momentum of the past 6 years by the Labour-led Government to settle historical Treaty claims in a fair and a timely manner. We have continued to improve the claims process—for example through funding a claims development team that facilitates claimants going into negotiation. That is in addition to bolstering policy legal and in particular front-line negotiation capacity. These improvements are reflected in the escalating pace of negotiations entered into and most important settlements reached. 
Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand Ltd 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why has she not asked each of her Ministers for an assurance that neither they nor any members of their staff were responsible for last week’s leak of the confidential Budget-related Cabinet paper? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Because I trust my colleagues unlike the member and because the State Services Commission inquiry is under way. I do note that it is the deputy leader of the National Party who is asking questions about leaks today. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Prime Minister explain why given that only her Cabinet Ministers and their closest advisers would have had access to the Cabinet paper which had a commercially sensitive header on every page she or her staff did not take the most obvious step and ask each of her Ministers whether they or their advisers were responsible? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is wrong. The material referred to I understand went wider than Ministers’ offices. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is her failure to ask Ministers the obvious question because she knows that the answer she might get is an answer she does not want to hear? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Absolutely not although I appreciate that is probably why Dr Brash has not asked Gerry Brownlee a recipient of the email whether he leaked it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has she contemplated the investigation being widened to other MPs and their leaks of sensitive information—such as this email which talks about targeting tactics the most effective ways to achieve political objectives a boast of being involved in a US$2 million to US$50 million campaign formulating a specific plan and consultancy and strategic advice—and would she consider widening the ambit of investigations to include an email from two Americans to Dr Brash and Peter Keenan of the National Party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect this question is to do with investigations of leaks of sensitive information. I am just asking the Prime Minister—in fairness—why she would stop with her own administration when others in this House are having similar problems in respect of such behaviour. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Because obviously there is no responsibility for that matter which is why I have ruled accordingly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would the Prime Minister be interested in receiving the advice that the only American bagman involved in the 2005 election campaign was a gentleman by the name of John Edward Foote who has admitted he has connections to American political systems and has admitted that he was in receipt of funds from the US—and who was in fact the campaign chairman for the New Zealand First Party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that matter. [ 
Interruption 
] Could we please have supplementary questions that are within the context of the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister interested in widening the ambit of investigations to include the Parliamentary Service which provisions the offices of MPs to do with leaks such as this one in which a senior businessman has suggested: “We can best serve your campaign if Sam and his family consider living in New Zealand for a period of time.” and further: “This would be a unique opportunity to see one of the most beautiful countries in the world and change it for the better.” Does she not think that that sounds perilously—[ 
Interruption 
] There are five people there that should be sent out of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I know. But the Prime Minister has no responsibility for the Parliamentary Service so if the member would like to recast the question to bring it into context. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister may not have responsibility for the Parliamentary Service but she sure has responsibility for investigations and she can determine the terms of reference as wide as she might wish including the Security Intelligence Service. That is what makes her responsible in the manner in which I have asked that question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is also my understanding that under the State Sector Act I think the Prime Minister does have the ability either to invite or direct the State Services Commissioner to inquire into matters that involve Crown entities as well as departmental spending. Therefore for those reasons I think the question does come within her very broad responsibilities. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members for their assistance. It is certainly true that it would be within the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister to widen the terms of reference but unless she does so it is not the subject of a question. So when she does that if she does it it would come within the context of questions in the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Prime Minister consider asking the person in this House in charge of the Parliamentary Service to conduct an investigation into leaks from MPs’ offices of the nature I have just outlined today which suggest interference from abroad to change the country and positioning people in this country to run strategic advice for a certain political party—in this case the one led by Don Brash? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes that could be considered but I doubt the Opposition would want the inquiry widened because the leak seems to come from rather too close in. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Speaking of leaks coming from close in have any members of the Cabinet or their staff had their access to Cabinet papers revoked or restricted since last week’s leak; if so in which ministerial office are they located? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Not to my knowledge. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was the Prime Minister aware when Gerry Brownlee asked that question regarding one John Foote that Mr Foote is a New Zealand citizen— 
Hon Member 
: Is he American? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well he was born in America yes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member was asking a question. There was a deliberate interjection from a member of the party that is always asking for impartiality. You are all on your last warning. Would Mr Peters please start his question again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was the Prime Minister aware when Gerry Brownlee asked that question that John Foote like many members of this Parliament was born overseas but is a New Zealand citizen and has been for years that there is no truth whatsoever about any funding coming from anywhere internationally to New Zealand First and that in fact Mr Brownlee was just making it up as he went along? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am intrigued that yesterday Mr Peters was accused of being anti-American yet today National has attacked him because someone born in the United States helped with his campaign. Those National members should make up their minds. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister asked the Hon David Cunliffe for an assurance that neither he nor any of his staff were responsible for the leak last week; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said unlike members opposite I trust my colleagues. I know that Mr Cunliffe would no sooner have leaked that paper than flown to the moon. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That answer was an interesting one. It perhaps addressed the question but the answer certainly was not in the public interest. Although we know that David Cunliffe is an ambitious man certainly we accept that he himself would not have wanted to leak such a document. But we do want to know whether he has been asked about his understanding of his staff’s involvement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member indicated the Prime Minister did address the question. As members know answers are not required to be “Yes” or “No”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister intend to ask the Speaker of the House who is in charge of the Parliamentary Service and therefore for MPs offices to tighten up security within those offices to avoid the kinds of leaks that concern two emails—the subject of which are a party leader’s denials—one dated 6 July 2004 which is about to be tabled today and the other dated 20 July 2004 which irrefutably demonstrate his total knowledge of what was going on? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is that in order Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is in order. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I will leave the issue of investigation to the Speaker’s judgment but I am indeed intrigued by the inconsistency between these emails and what Dr Brash said before the election. It does not add up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Now that the National Party is flying a white flag I seek leave to table the following document. It is an email from Sam Van Voorhis and Kurt Anderson to Dr Brash and Peter Keenan dated 6 July 2004. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Treaty of Waitangi Claims—Funding Increase 
7.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I runga i te ahua kua tohaina te rima miriona tara mo nga tau e wha ka taea e te Minita te ki mai e hia nga tono e pa ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi ka oti i runga ake i nga tono i whakaritea kia oti mehemea kare i tukuna e ia te rima miriona tara hei putea? 
[ 
Given the $5 million funding over a 4-year period how many Treaty of Waitangi claims does the Minister believe will be completed over and above those that would have been completed had the $5 million not been made available? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The additional funding will primarily be directed at front-line negotiation and will boost that capacity by around 20 percent. This will meet the increase in demand from Maori seeking to enter into negotiations that in the last financial year alone have seen five groups have mandates for negotiation recognised by the Crown. The nature of the negotiations means that the number of settlements reached depends on mutual agreements being reached between the parties. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Na te aha i marama te Minita ka tere ake te ahua tono ki te Taraipunara o Waitangi mena ka tukua e ia he putea rima miriona tara mo nga tau e wha? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
How did the Minister determine that all that was necessary to speed up the process of Treaty claims was the expenditure of $5 million over 4 years? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Certainly that is not the case. This is simply the latest increase—in fact it is the fourth in the term of this Labour-led Government—that has enhanced the research legal negotiation and pre-negotiation capability of the Office of Treaty Settlements. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister intend to recommend to the Attorney-General that a person’s holding the dual roles of Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal is incompatible with the tribunal’s goal of quickly reaching determinations that may assist with more speedy settlements? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Stop stealing our policies. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just been accused of being a thief by one of the great political thieves of this nation. I am upset and I want him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear what that member said but if the member took offence would that member please withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I merely said to the member that he should stop stealing our policies. If one looks at the chronology of events one can see that that is precisely what National did on that issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member took offence and the convention of this House is that all the member has to do is to withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Something has emerged in this House of recent date and that is that the National Party just cannot take it. Their members come down to this House fling all sorts of insults—[ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order and there they go again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The problem for the member is that it is not a point of order; it is a statement or a debating point at this stage. We have handled that matter so I would like us to move on if we can. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order if I had been allowed to get to it despite about 20—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members will be leaving the Chamber! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: My point of order was simply that if we are going to have—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Who interjected at that point? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Bennett did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There has to be some order in this House. No one is admitting to it. The laughter obviously came from outside the Chamber. Would members please respect the rules. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: My point of order is that if we are going to have points of order raised on the basis that Gerry Brownlee raised his—that he took offence at someone accusing him of stealing this policy—then this House will be so puce and antiseptic as not to be worth joining in the first place. That is probably a suggestion that the National Party would like us to follow but for my part I think that this is a most robust debating chamber and that people should have a bit more gumption that that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: One of the most famous sayings in 19th century politics is about the leader of one party stealing clothing from the other party’s washing line and that saying is in relation to policy matters. We really have got to the stage where we will be so un-robust in terms of our language that Parliament will be like a PC kindergarten—and I wonder when the spokesman on PC eradication opposite will intervene in this debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members have had their say on this matter. As members know I try to conduct a robust debate. But the truth is that if members take offence then there is a convention and that will be judged accordingly. [ 
Interruption 
] Does the member have another point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I was just going to say that I probably did overreact. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has said it. Could we now have an answer to the question please. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: For those who have forgotten the question the member asked me about referring a matter to the Attorney-General. Unfortunately the member asked me to make a reference on a matter for which I have no ministerial responsibility. I am responsible neither for the Waitangi Tribunal nor for the Maori Land Court. But to be helpful to the member I tell him I understand that the matter is under consideration. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that the policy of removing the head of the Waitangi Tribunal or the head of the Maori Land Court appeared on a political party’s website a full 3 years before the National Party decided to purloin it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As it happens I am; indeed I recall that the New Zealand First Party supported that policy some 3 years ago. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kei te manawa pai te Minita ki nga ahua whakatatu tono ki te Taraipunara o Waitangi ahakoa he rahi nga tono atete nga whakawehewehe ngau i waenganui i nga hapu me nga iwi i runga i te ahua tuku tono a mena kei te manawa pai he aha i pera ai? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Is the Minister satisfied with the process for settling Treaty claims given the counterclaims and iwi-hapu divisions that have occurred as a result of the processes adopted; if he is satisfied why is he? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am satisfied generally that the process which is a difficult and challenging one is making progress and accelerating. I think that the challenges include cross-claim tensions but I have been extraordinarily impressed by the way in which most hapu and iwi resolve those tensions and work towards settlement. We saw a really good example of that just last week in this House when the majority of members supported the first reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is very difficult to settle Treaty claims when a group sits on the fence? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I can because in the end the settlement process requires constructive engagement. When we engage and seek to find solutions rather than to sit on the fence then we make the progress that this Government has indeed been making over the last 6 years. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the response of the Maori Party disappoint the Minister; and does he believe that the refusal of that party to support the Te Arawa tribe in their Treaty settlement is likely to undermine the interests of the Te Arawa tribe? 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The vote by the Maori Party was not in opposition to the desires of the Te Arawa tribe; it was against the decisions of the Labour Party to deny them justice in their claim. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a point of explanation. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I do. Frankly the claim the member has attempted to make by way of a point of order belies the fact that that was a negotiation between two parties. To suggest that the kaumatua of Te Arawa are not capable and that they do not have the mandate and the mana to stand and negotiate a full and fair settlement on their own behalf I think is to insult them. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Ka taea e te Minita te whakamarama na runga i te aha i whakaritea kotahi piriona toru rau miriona te wariu o nga tono ki te Taraipunara o Waitangi a he aha hoki koira tonu te rahi o te putea ahakoa he aha; mena kahore he aha ai? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Can the Minister describe the formula and rationale used to determine the value of the Treaty claims and the rationale for continuing to compensate claims on the basis of a $1.3 billion fiscal cap; if not why not? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I take the latter part of the question first—no I cannot because there is no such fiscal cap. To the first part of the question I say that each claim is unique and individual and is negotiated accordingly. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I seek leave to ask an additional supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask an additional supplementary question. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Consistency 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Would a student sitting an NCEA external examination in 2005 have had the same chance of passing a given standard as he or she would have had in 2004 in the 10 mainstream subjects analysed by Professor Warwick Elley; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. Because the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) has standards that stay the same students have the same chance of achieving them. However when we have different students in different years attempting different questions different numbers of students of course may well reach the standard. What we can achieve in national school exams are acceptable levels of consistency from one year to the next and I am reassured that the processes of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority are delivering on this. In the case of the 10 subjects quoted by Professor Elley I am advised that student results in the mainstream subject areas are very much in keeping with what the New Zealand Qualifications Authority expected. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority told the select committee that a fluctuation in pass rates from year to year of 7 to 10 percent would be acceptable and does he endorse that position? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: By way of clarification I point out that I think the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is referring to the fact that we can have variation in standards that is equivalent to a question within a subject and therefore we can have quite substantial variation like 7 to 10 percent. But when we take the overall range of standards that make up say a subject like biology we get an acceptable variation. 
Moana Mackey 
: What processes are in place to improve year to year consistency in exam results? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: NCEA is now in its third year of full implementation and with every year we get additional information about student results. That additional information each year informs the interpretation of standards the development of examination papers and marking guides and the training and monitoring of markers. Through experience as is the case of course with all exams we build consistency and confidence in the NCEA. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the Minister say that NCEA in 2005 was fair to the 100000 students who sat the 10 mainstream subjects analysed by Professor Elley when that analysis showed that 35 percent of those standards—in fact over 35 percent—fell outside the acceptable limit of 10 percent variation set by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Any exam system produces some variability because students sit different examinations. In the interests of fairness the level of variability must be contained so that the same level of student performance is consistently awarded the same level of recognition. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has publicly acknowledged that there are issues with a small number of standards and an even smaller number of subjects and it is committed to working constructively to fix them. The problem with the member’s question is that he looks for examples of variability within particular standards that as I said before is the equivalent of one question in an exam then implies there is something wrong with the whole subject or the whole system. The variability is coming from those particular questions. When we look across the whole of a subject we get a variation that is seen as acceptable. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister not see that it is the students’ point of view that matters not his national statistics and that the students who sat geography this year then found out that 1000 more of them had failed—out of 5000—than would have been the case if they had sat the exam last year might think it is unfair that whether they succeed depends on sitting the right exam in the right year because his system will not deliver consistent assessment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the real strengths of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s NCEA system is that students not only have a system that is committed to being fair and consistent but also get their papers back. This is something that I think is unique compared with any other system in the world. So the students who are at the centre of this system— 
Hon Bill English 
: Answer the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —as the member who is yelling out knows—are able if they disagree with what has happened to make sure that paper is looked at again. 
Hon Bill English 
: How is NCEA fair to students when 35 percent of the standards sat by 100000 students did not meet the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s own benchmarks of consistency and fairness? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will try again. The point the member is raising is addressed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in its reply to Warwick Elley where it points out that the problem with the question he is raising is that he is focusing on essentially a question within a subject—like an exam question. There may be variability on that particular question but overall the variability is something that the authority is able to say is fair and consistent. 
Hon Bill English 
: You don’t care about students. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Mr English may not like the answer but it is the answer. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister answer the question that is relevant to individual students—or is he not aware that students get results for the individual exams they sit—which is that if they fail the geography geometry accounting or economics exam that they sit when they would have passed it had they sat it in the previous year then that is unfair and that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority produced a benchmark that showed that 35 percent of its mainstream exams were not fair and consistent with last year’s? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I pointed out before the member may not like the answer but the answer is that he is looking at individual questions for example within a subject. The variation across that subject is acceptable. The students themselves are empowered to have this looked at by the unique fact that they get back the exam script. 
Environmental Education—Initiatives 
9.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What initiatives is the Government implementing to support environmental education in light of the Labour-led Government - Green Party co-operation agreement? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to support today’s announcement by the Green Party of $13 million over a 4-year period for environmental educational support for teachers and schoolchildren. The funding which will increase progressively over the next 4 years will be used in the following three areas: $7.4 million will build and support the national coordination of the existing education for sustainability programme; $4.6 million will go to the Enviroschools Foundation to support its programmes; and $800000 will go to resources and coordination for total immersion and kaupapa Maori schools. Finally I would like to thank the Greens for the way we are able to work our way through this Budget and for their strong advocacy of environmental education. 
Metiria Turei 
: What reports has the Minister received about this most excellent initiative? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know we have had responses from all around the education system and outside it to say what a good policy this is. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams said that this is a significant funding increase and that he is delighted to see education for sustainability recognised. The World Wide Fund for Nature has also welcomed the investment saying that this funding will give much-needed resources for environmental education for schools. I see that Irene Cooper the national president of the New Zealand Educational Institute has said that funding environmental education represents a sound investment in the future. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How does this initiative build on existing environmental education programmes put in place by this Labour-led Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This initiative does build on the already existing excellent policies of the Labour-led Government—initiatives in schools that have seen a doubling in the number of people employed to coordinate initiatives at a regional and national level and enabling key programmes like Enviroschools now to be offered to 450 more schools. All of that builds on work around sustainable organic school gardens the Sir Peter Blake Environmental Educator Award support for learning experiences outside the classroom and electronic resources and links on the Ministry of Education’s online learning centre. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that comprehensive environmental education from early childhood to tertiary will leave today’s children in a much better position to deal with the very serious issues of climate change scarce oil resources and environmental degradation which sadly are our legacy and the legacy of previous generations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I do. 
PlunketLine—Quality of Service 
10.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement “What I’m satisfied by is that PlunketLine in terms of calls picked up was not providing a good service”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. As I told the member last week the rate of calls not picked up by Plunket was high at 87.3 percent in the year ended December 2005. Plunket is not on track to answer the number of calls specified in its subcontract with McKesson. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why should the public believe a single word this Prime Minister says when the Ministry of Health’s Dr Pat Tuohy has publicly stated that PlunketLine did not lose its contract because of the unanswered call rate; what is the real reason that her Government has abandoned PlunketLine? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure the Minister of Health would be quite happy to give the member a briefing on the very thorough process that was followed to evaluate the PlunketLine contract. I understand that one of the critical issues is that the technology and processes that Plunket tendered on the basis of were not considered to be up to scratch. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why should New Zealanders believe a single word this Prime Minister says about PlunketLine; who is right: the highly respected iconic Plunket service which has been caring for New Zealand kids for 100 years and which refutes the Prime Minister’s claim that PlunketLine was offered additional funding or the Prime Minister who in the previous answer has just changed her story yet again? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The iconic service referred to which was not supported by National when it was in Government has indeed said that it was offered more money but that it did not like the conditions. Perhaps the member would like to know what the conditions were. They were conditions like PlunketLine being asked to add a recorded message along the lines of: “All our nurses are busy at present. Please hold the line if you would like to speak to a Plunket nurse or press now if your child is unwell and you would like to speak to a Healthline nurse.” That would have meant that PlunketLine nurses would be in a better position to answer the volume of Well Child calls as per their speciality and the service agreement. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Prime Minister the same Helen Clark who pledged: “Getting a good start [in life] is crucial to later success. My government will expand early intervention programmes. The first step will be to fund the Plunket Line service on a 24 hour a day seven days a week basis.” or is there a different Helen Clark who said that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes and we did fund a Well Child service 24 hours a day and we will continue to fund a Well Child service 24 hours a day—something that would not be possible if the National Party was trying to fund $11 billion of tax cuts. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is she the same Helen Clark who said this is “a symptom of the crisis in health in this country. What could be more dreadful than to see the most basic service in this country well-child health-care abandoned by a Government that cares more about competition amongst services than continuity of quality Plunket services in our community?” 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I hardly see the funding of Plunket to the tune of about $34 million a year from the Government as abandoning anything. Our Government unlike the National Party is committed to funding a 24-hour Well Child service and we will do so. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Can the Prime Minister remember making this scathing statement about Jenny Shipley: “We have a Prime Minister who claims to be passionate about making life better for mothers and families but stands by while the Plunket telephone line collapses.”; and does she not realise the irony that those words now describe her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mrs Shipley and the National Party were not prepared to fund a 24-hour Well Child health service. The National Party now says that irrespective of the quality of the service money should be spent on Plunket’s specific one rather than funding one that can do the job. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One is a press release from the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society stating: “Plunket refutes offer of funding for PlunketLine”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The second is a document that shows that Plunket has cancelled the launch of its centenary celebrations at which the Prime Minister was to have been the guest speaker next week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Work and Income—Services 
11.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that Work and Income services are meeting the needs of New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 As a result of a 72 percent drop in the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit under Labour—from 161000 in 1999 to 44500 now—this Government is rolling out a new service approach throughout the country. It is reshaping services to provide comprehensive employment help to all Work and Income clients regardless of their benefit type. As a Government we are committed to a modern responsive social support system that actively encourages into work those people who are able to work while ensuring that those who cannot work receive appropriate financial and social support. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What further work is the Government undertaking in this area? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government is currently working on reforming the social support system to replace the seven main benefits with a simplified benefit system. The purpose of these changes is to ensure that we have a modern responsive system focused on what people can do not what benefit type they are on so that our benefit system is aligned to our work-focused new service approach. 
Police—Recruitment 
12.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 8 December 2005 that “we will recruit another 1000 sworn front-line police” and does she mean that there will be 1000 more sworn police on the streets by the end of this term on top of the current 7657 sworn front-line officers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I stand by my statement. In line with our supply and confidence agreement with New Zealand First this Government is committed to providing all the resources needed over the next three Budgets to recruit an extra 1000 front-line staff 250 non-sworn staff and all the infrastructure to support these extra 1250 police. The training schedule at the Royal New Zealand Police College has been drawn up to cater for all these extra recruits as well as to have the normal recruiting and training programmes to cope with attrition. 
Simon Power 
: Is it not true that the Government will not reach its target when in the year to 30 April the police have lost 379 staff—with a 22 percent increase in resignations and a near doubling in the number of retirees—meaning a net increase of only 130 more staff than at this time last year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No to the first part of the question. I believe we will be able to recruit those numbers. When the member speaks of attrition I tell him that the current attrition rate in the police is around 4.9 percent. Let me remind the member that when National was in Government in the 1990s the rate of attrition was 6.7 percent. Of course the then Government did not have voluntary attrition; it was planning compulsory attrition because it intended to get rid of 500 police as seen in its Martin report. That is how National treated the police when it was last in Government. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the training for the new police recruits be revamped so that recruits do not in any way think it is OK to pepper-spray arrested people who are either handcuffed or otherwise restrained as was the case with Scott MacDonald in Auckland last Thursday and with Simon Oosterman on an anti-GE protest in Rotorua last year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am aware that the police are constantly looking at their training methods protocols and policies. I am also aware that the commissioner is very interested in the current protocols for the use of pepper spray and is already looking at them. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister be sure the Government will reach its target when at the current rate of attrition of 4.9 percent the 438 recruits who will be trained between now and October will yield a net gain of only 42 sworn officers once resignations and retirements are taken into account? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can be reassured by the police because they have informed me that their active recruiting campaign starts in July. They have not actually started an active recruiting campaign. Leaving that point to one side I can tell the member that out of his own region the police have managed to recruit 50 people and that was without that member’s help. Maybe if he did a bit more they could have a few more. 
Simon Power 
: Is it not true that the Police Association estimated that 2500 recruits would be needed to be trained in order to meet the target of 1000 new sworn police by the end of this term? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I know that the Police Association has accepted that all efforts will be made to recruit 1000 extra police. In terms of the additional numbers we will need to train that will depend on the rate of attrition. I am very pleased it is nowhere near the rate it was under the National Government. I have a lot of confidence in the ability of the police to get out and recruit. I know the member would like the recruitment campaign to fail but I think most New Zealanders want it to succeed. 
Simon Power 
: How can she be sure that the Government will reach its target when the average number of inquiries to the 0800 NEWCOPS line has declined by 22 percent since 2003 and when the number of applicants accepting a place at the Police College has declined by 20 percent since 2002? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member likes to quote figures from the 0800 NEWCOPS line. In 2003 there were 7707 inquiries. The number dropped to 5442 then went up to 6630—and that was before we even started a recruitment campaign. The fact is that one does not have to ring 0800 NEWCOPS in order to be recruited; the police can recruit in many different ways. I am going to put my faith in the police’s ability to be able to recruit not in that member’s wanting them to fail and going around New Zealand saying: “They’re not going to make it. They’re not going to be able to do it.” I believe that the police have a will to do it and this Government certainly has. 
Simon Power 
: Can she confirm that 51 out of the 76 UK police officers recruited in 2003 are still employed—an attrition rate of one-third—if so how many of the 100 UK police officers being trained this year does she expect will remain in the force by 2008 given that she has confirmed in responses to written questions that those officers are not required to undergo a minimum period of service? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I can confirm the figures he has just given the House in terms of the number of UK police who are still in New Zealand. I can confirm the number who have left New Zealand and returned home or gone into other jobs. That is their right. And I can say we have 51 UK police in New Zealand—who have many years of experience—working hard on behalf of New Zealanders and we can be pleased about that. We have 96 UK police officers in training now and I hope many of them stay. But I also know that this is a democracy and they will have the right to leave if they want to. 
Ron Mark 
: Just how good is it for the Minister to start off in this new role with all the resources allocated to her portfolio courtesy of such a brilliant supply and confidence agreement—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just ask his question and he is to ask it in silence please. 
Ron Mark 
: Just how good is it for the Minister to start off in this role as Minister of Police with such a supply and confidence agreement behind her—that gives her the resources to recruit not only 1000 extra uniformed police but another 250 non-sworn police complete with all the staffing equipment and resources they need to use in order to make New Zealand a safer place—and why would anyone in the Opposition want to continue to run down and demean such a brilliant position and policy for this country? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have to say that it is about as good as it can get and I cannot imagine why those whingeing snivelling National Opposition members would want to go around trying to bag a really good policy. I suppose one could say it is a bit of green-eyed jealousy because they never got to do it. 
Tabling of Documents 
New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing that the person who was responsible for the daily management of Winston Peters’ and New Zealand First’s 2005 campaign was previously a fund-raiser for the Republican Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Would the member please indicate clearly whether there is any objection to the tabling of that document. There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the past you have allowed people to seek points of clarification so they might make up their mind as to whether they would object. That was all I was attempting to do because I know that the man mentioned was not the campaign manager for New Zealand First’s 2005 campaign. He was the campaign manager in one election for the Tauranga electorate. All I was seeking was a point of clarification—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member has made a statement of what was in the document. The member presumably stands by that statement as being a statement of fact. What the member is doing is actually debating the point. We are about to have a general debate so may I suggest that if it is a point of order please make it a point of order not a point of explanation or information. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. My point of order is a question to you on the decision you made to sit me down and not hear my point of order. You have on many occasions in the House—and I could go to the  
Hansard 
—allowed people to seek clarification as to the request for which leave has been sought. On numerous occasions you have allowed people to clarify as to precisely what the document states. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What does the member want clarification about? 
RON MARK 
: That was all I was going to seek but you sat me down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please make your point. 
RON MARK 
: Madam Speaker it is too late. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is not too late. If it shortens this very long non - point of order could the member please just ask for what clarification he wished. I thought I had clarified whether the member had stood by the statement he made. But if the member has another point of clarification please make it quickly. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you. I ask whether the document states that the person ran the New Zealand First campaign. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 In response I have been given leave to table the document so it will be on the Table very shortly. The member can pick it up and read it for himself. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has leave to table the document and is perfectly entitled not to give that information. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table evidence as to why John Foote joined me upon my departure from the National Party—because he could not stand the corrupt party at all; nor could I. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. It is really interesting to see that the pretenders are all here but the leader is not. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member knows that is out of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is a very strong convention in this House that members do not refer to the absence of members but Speakers’ rulings do not make that an absolute. There may be contexts in which it is appropriate. In this particular context where the member was about to discuss certain activities of the Leader of the Opposition it was noticeable that he drifted out of the House just before the end of question time to avoid the start of the general debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member should withdraw. It is a convention that we do not make reference in the House to absences from the Chamber. That is the point the member is wishing to make and I uphold it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. I will start by noting that someone else did as well. Like many New Zealand politicians I have on a number of occasions spent time in the United States studying their political system—right back to 1988 when I was a guest of the US Government to watch the Bush and Dukakis campaigns and watch Dukakis lose the “unloseable” election. I have spent time in the United Kingdom staying at Michael Hirschfeld’s sister’s place and have spent time with the British Labour Party. The difference between the Leader of the Opposition and myself is that I can remember and when asked about the facts I can recall them and I can state them clearly. 
I think that what National Party members are focusing on now in the back rooms all around the place is whether they would prefer to have the leader who gave them the worst loss in their 70-year history the Hon Bill English or John Key the member who during the election campaign when he was enrolling could not work out where he lived. He is the man with $50 million who rearranged his affairs in order to get a Wellington allowance as a member of Parliament. National members are faced with a dilemma and they are trying to work their way through a problem. 
But one thing is very very clear. Don Brash misled the New Zealand public when he said: “There is no one I have met who is an American involved in our campaign.” He knows now that is untrue. He knew previously that was not true. I agree with Bill English that it is not necessarily a lie. It is not necessarily a lie because to lie means one deliberately misleads and knows what one is doing. That is the choice we are faced with on this occasion. Does Don Brash know what he is doing and deliberately misleads or is he just confused and does not understand—as with the Exclusive Brethren? 
Who could do better than Dr Brash at the press conference yesterday? He went into a press conference to refute some comments around an email. Did he have the email? Had he read the email? Maybe. I think he probably had; I think he has short-term confusion—and it may be long term. What did he say? “Can someone pass me the email? I do not have it with me.” He got it from a journalist. He said: “You’re quite right. I had frankly overlooked the fact that they were there.” This is the email about which he called a press conference! This is the email that says an American Julian Robertson had highly recommended strategists for the National Party. This is the email that says Julian Robertson had been recruiting strategists for the National Party. There is nothing wrong with that but if that were the case why did Don Brash say: “There is no one I have met who is an American involved in our campaign.”? Clearly there is. If he knew he lied; if he did not know he is incompetent. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Yesterday in this House Mr Peters tabled an email that poses serious questions about at least two members of this Parliament—not I hasten to say about Dr Brash. All the email reveals about Dr Brash is that he passed on an offer of assistance which was ultimately turned down. The tabling of the email though does raise serious questions about the judgment and motives of Mr Peters and Mr Mallard. People in Washington read New Zealand newspapers. Reckless and irresponsible comments by Ministers in New Zealand come at a cost to this country’s interests. Of Mr Peters in particular who holds the warrant of Minister of Foreign Affairs the most serious questions must be asked. He is the same Mr Peters who told us upon his appointment that his most important task was to resurrect the relationship between New Zealand and the United States and he is the same Mr Peters who then proceeded to travel almost everywhere in the world—except to Washington. 
Dr Brash by contrast has been to Washington. Dr Brash went to Washington to support Mr Goff Mr Cunliffe and leading New Zealand business people who were there to improve the New Zealand - US relationship. Dr Brash did that because he cares about the improvement of New Zealanders’ future wealth and security and he is prepared to put aside petty party politics in order to achieve that goal. Mr Peters has demonstrated to us by his actions yesterday that he does not do that—and that he will not. 
The Washington visit signalled an important turning point and an important development in the conduct of foreign affairs of this country because senior politicians from both the National Party and the Labour Party decided that New Zealand’s overriding interest in improving our relationship with the United States—our second-largest trading partner—should take precedence over narrow partisan politics. We worked in a bipartisan fashion to try to take the relationship forward. Mr Goff has been reported in the newspapers as taking some credit for that shift and I do not begrudge him that. There have been some signs of progress underlined by yesterday’s reported statement from assistant secretary of State Christopher Hill. 
The need to improve the relationship is a no-brainer; I would have thought even Mr Peters understood that. Every New Zealand serviceman or woman who serves in one of the trouble spots of the world would be safer if we could secure a relaxation of the current restrictions on the ability of New Zealand and US troops to train together—something Mr Goff has advocated recently. Every New Zealand citizen would be safer if we could overcome some of the obstacles in our defence relationship with Australia caused by US restrictions on access to its intelligence and technology. Every New Zealand citizen would be richer if we could over time achieve a free-trade deal with the United States to match the free-trade agreement secured by Australia 2 years ago. All of those projects are not short-term projects but are at the very best medium-term projects. They will not be achieved in the lifetime of one Government. That is why we must start now and must work together. 
Just yesterday assistant secretary Hill signalled that we are making some progress in the relationship. For any Minister of the Crown let alone the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the self-appointed champion of better relationships with the United States—to sink a harpoon into the very heart of our international interests and wantonly destroy the progress that is being made is utterly beneath contempt. Mr Peters will know because his officials and the US officials will have told him of the huge cost to this country of Mr Mallard’s reckless behaviour at the commencement of the last election campaign. The effect of Mr Mallard’s comments at that time introducing those about a bogus American bagman was to kill constructive dialogue with the United States cold stone dead. It has taken time and effort from Ministers on the Government benches from members on the Opposition benches and from business interests in this country to get things back on track. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As you well know the allocation of speaking spots for this debate is published well in advance. New Zealand First does not appear on the sheet today. Can the House have some explanation as to why Mr Peters now stands to take a speech? The fact is that this is supposed to be a Labour Party slot. Of course many people are now saying that Mr Peters has joined the Labour Party but I think the House is owed an explanation of this matter. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That is the kind of brainless point of order that that member is famous for with no Standing Order and no Speaker’s ruling cited. It is not his business who speaks next; it is yours. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Speaking order is in the gift of the party and Labour is not the only party that has decided to reallocate a speaking slot in this particular debate. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Madam Speaker— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He’s joined the Labour Party. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no—if New Zealand First reminds anyone in New Zealand of another political party it is of the National Party when it had a bit of truth honesty and integrity. That is what New Zealand First reminds most people of: the National Party when it had leadership and a sense of decency and honour—not the shallow shilly-shallying group over there now on the Opposition benches who have no policy and no principles but are permanently obsessed with just one thing; power. Those members just want to have power. The speech made by Mr McCully reminded me of a deer caught in the headlights. The National members are flailing around for an escape hatch. Don Brash got nailed yesterday. In the House he took a bazooka out to the press conference and he turned it on himself—not me—and that is why he must go. 
First of all I say I have been abroad. I went overseas to study political campaigns in the USA in 1988 at the request of the American Government and was with the Republican campaign. For people’s information I say I have been to Australia likewise and to the UK. The issue is not that the Americans might have been involved—or the Germans or the outer Mongolians or the Russians or the British—in any campaign that is going on. Do members know what the problem is? Don Brash denied that. He said it was not true. He said just as he did over the Exclusive Brethren funding National that he knew nothing about it. When the question was first raised as to whether Don Brash knew anything about the Exclusive Brethren paying for National’s campaign and doing all the pamphlets he said no he did not. He was asked whether he knew who had put out the pamphlets attacking the Greens and he said that he did not know. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Come on Winnie—own up. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Then a few days later he owned up yes. I thank Tau. That is right; a few days later he owned up—I thank the member very much. I was searching around for the word “confessed” but “owned up” is good enough. It is standard 3 English but that is OK. 
The issue is not that the British the Americans or anybody else might have been involved in any party campaign; the problem arises when one denies that and then resorts in this House to pure fiction. John Foote is a New Zealand citizen. John Foote did not bring any money in from overseas. Do members know that John Foote was offered $87 an hour by the National Party to run its campaign? I ask National members to deny that. That is the kind of hypocrisy that I am hearing now. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh I say to Tau that that is very good—it is a boomerang. He is quite right; it is a boomerang. But here is the truth: Dr Brash said all the allegations were a thundering lie. 
Hon Member 
: How did you get on in Tauranga? What did you lose by? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I tell people what I have not done in my career. I was not promoted for exactly 48 hours. A promotion did not so overwhelm me that I had to go off and get some Valium and I did not find a promotion to be so much for me that I lost my nerve and my mind—and that after being described by my leader as “the best deputy National could ever possibly want”—and was gone within 48 hours of being promoted. That is what I have never done at all. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is this the best you can do? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no I can do better than this. I am just warming up. 
Here is the truth: the National Party denied overseas involvement in its campaign. It denied American involvement in its campaign. There is nothing wrong with having American involvement; why do those members not just own up? But last night at the end of the press conference we again found out the truth. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who paid the legal fees for the wine box? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Who paid for the wine-box inquiry? Yours truly. That member should go and ask the BNZ. I will tell members who did not pay 1c: Tau Henare. He got into Parliament on my back and on the back of New Zealand First and he never paid 1c ever. [ 
Interruption 
] That was another boomerang question. I would never have thought Tau Henare would have the temerity to raise that question. Shame on the member! I had to carry the whole can by myself. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 When one’s political career is at its end when one’s reputation is in tatters and when one has nothing to look forward to one turns round and joins the Labour Party. Mr Peters very very cleverly came to the House yesterday with a pile of emails. He said they would destroy people. He made the erroneous connection between National and some Americans all the time knowing that his own campaign was run by an American called Mr John Edward Foote. 
Are members like me—a little bit uncertain about why New Zealand First did so poorly in the last campaign? Here is the reason: the American genius selected by Winston Peters to run his campaign had previous experience running the Williams Brothers shopping centre campaign the Cumbria County Council campaign the Moro Friends of the Library campaign and various training sessions including one called “Collins for Congress”—thank God it is not our own Collins! But the kicker—the big thing—that Mr Foote hangs his hat on is that he was once a fundraiser for Dan Quayle. This is the guy that Winston Peters chose to run his campaign. The only American bagman in the 2005 campaign was carrying the bag for Winston Peters. 
I say to Winston Peters that leaked emails go two ways. I have an email in front of me that was leaked out of a New Zealand First office today—at 2.41 p.m. actually. The writer states that he or she has seen Sky News has watched the leader of New Zealand First Winston Peters and has now come to the conclusion that Mr Peters is nothing more than a Labour Party stooge. The writer states that any further votes for New Zealand First will not come from the writer’s household. I am told that New Zealand First’s email system is clogged with those sorts of emails. 
Perhaps one of the worst aspects of yesterday’s so-called revelations by the leader of New Zealand First— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not usually do this—I would wait until the end of the speech—but I think the member should table the document right now and then we will see who is telling the truth. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: First of all points of order are heard in silence. The Speaker has warned the whole House this afternoon and many members could have been out then. No that was not a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Perhaps one of the worst aspects of Mr Peters’ revelations yesterday was the fact that he attacked a gentleman called Julian Robertson. I invite members of Parliament on the other side of the House to tell us how many times they have enjoyed hospitality at various institutions owned by Mr Robertson. I would like them to tell us how many times they have been in helicopters owned by Mr Robertson. How many times has Darren Hughes been up to Kauri Cliffs? How many times has that whip signed the leave papers for Labour Party members to go snivelling up to Mr Robertson at Kauri Cliffs? I want them to own up to the fact that the only person who got a donation from Mr Robertson at the last election was Dover Samuels. He is the man who is happy to say that Mr Robertson has provided thousands of jobs in the north. 
Then we have the other issue. Recently at Te Papa there was an exhibition of paintings by Cézanne Picasso and other leading artists—paintings that New Zealanders would not ordinarily get the chance to see. Those paintings were on loan to Te Papa by the gentleman in question and his wife. It was a generous gift to the whole country and I want to know what the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Rt Hon Helen Clark thinks about that attack. This is an attack by Mr Peters. It is a little bit like a mauling by a mouse when we think about it. He is a man at the end of his political career—this is a sad sad end to it. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is almost impossible to hear and I ask you to ask members of the House to allow those of us who want to listen to be able to hear. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right. The barracking is coming from my left. In courtesy to the members who do want to hear what the member is saying members on my left could tone it down a bit. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to start again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought by the member to start his speech again. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I return briefly to the comments made by my colleague Murray McCully who I think very very clearly and carefully put out the underlying problem that we are likely to face as a nation if our Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to continue along these lines. We know he has a bundle of papers. It has never bothered us—we could have set the police on him or undertaken all sorts of other investigations but we have been quite unworried by that. But what does worry us is that at a time when the New Zealand Parliament is for the greater part concerned about re-cementing our relationship with the United States Mr Peters is ripping it apart. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an email that demonstrates that the only person who ever raised Julian Robertson’s name was one Don Brash—not me at any point in time so the member should stop making it up as he goes along. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be silence when points of order are being dealt with. 
Document not tabled. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider something right now. It is a question of bias. On 5 April this year Mr Brownlee Mr Hide and Mr Smith all accused the Chair of bias. On 2 May this year Rodney Hide accused the Chair of bias. On 3 May Nick Smith again accused the Chair of bias. On 4 May Mr Brownlee accused the Chair of bias so did Mr Smith and Mr English also challenged the Chair. None of those occasions resulted in any of those members being evicted from the House. In fact a track record is now established whereby National Party members continue to challenge the Chair and there is no ultimate consequence. Through today’s proceedings the Chair has given the National Party about four final warnings—or at least three. Once again we have seen interjections during a point of order and now you Madam Assistant Speaker have not acted on the final final warning. It seems to me that a different standard is being presented in this House as suggested by Mr English Mr Smith and Mr Brownlee but today it quite clearly favours the National Party. I would like to be assured that this House is treating all parties equally that laws and rulings will be applied equally and that if there is another interjection on any point of order rather than finally warning the House again you will Madam Assistant Speaker exercise your authority and evict the person responsible. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Obviously I cannot comment on past rulings but the member does make a fair point. There have been warnings given on warnings given on warnings today. I certainly assure the member that I will act. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Seven years ago in 1999 visiting public policy expert Dr Camara Jones noted: “Understanding the impacts of socio-economic status on health and how this contributes to ethnic disparities in health does not go far enough. If we are really going to eliminate health disparities we need to understand the contemporary structural factors … That is we need to address institutionalised racism if we are really going to make change.” Seven weeks ago the United Nations special rapporteur Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen reported that: “significant racial inequalities continue to exist in health housing employment education social services and justice”. 
The Maori Party is here today to say that we will not wait another 7 years another 7 weeks or another 7 days to put up with the price of racism. This week the reputable academic partners of Statistics New Zealand Public Health Intelligence and the Wellington school of medicine joined forces with the Ministry of Health to report that higher mortality for Maori relative to non-Maori cannot be explained purely by the overrepresentation of Maori in lower social classes. This analysis can no longer be ignored or dismissed by a range of riddles that diminish research if it comes from the United Nations—from an anthropologist and an international expert. 
It is New Zealand’s aptly named Public Health Intelligence that is urging us to seek explanations for the ethnic disparities in mortality.  
Decades of Disparity III 
 reports that the impact of racism on ethnic inequalities in health is likely to be mediated through both socio-economic—institutionalised racism—and non - socio-economic or interpersonal and internalised racism pathways. In essence this final report in a series of three that examines disparities between Maori and non-Maori from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s reinforces the impact of personal cultural and institutional racism in this nation—and we are not alone. Another reputable source the  
British Medical Journal 
 describes a growing literature showing an association between racism morbidity and mortality. A  
British Medical Journal 
 editorial states: “Cross sectional studies in the United States report associations between perceived racial discrimination and hypertension birth weight self related health and days off sick. In a recent study from the United Kingdom victims of discrimination were more likely to have respiratory illness hypertension a long term limiting illness anxiety depression and psychosis.” It therefore stands to reason that countering racism must be considered a major public health issue. 
If the “r” word is too scary members should think about the following questions. Why is survival from cancer—even adjusting for age and stage—lower among Maori than non-Maori? Why is that although the prevalence of paediatric asthma is similar for Maori and non-Maori Maori children have more severe symptoms when they present to the health provider require hospitalisation twice as often as non-Maori and are less likely to receive adequate asthma education or even be prescribed preventive medication? The analysis is clear consistent and convincing. Differences in access to and quality of health care create different outcomes for Maori compared with non-Maori. Considering racism to be a cause is an important step in developing a research agenda and response from health services—and it is about time. We must start getting real about the links between racism and health if we are really and genuinely committed to preventing disease prolonging life and promoting health. There is no time to wait. Only then will the Maori Party be able to accept the catchcry of one law for all. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 If people cast their minds back to the last election they will remember that the National Party fought its campaign on three things: massive tax cuts racial division and Don Brash—and it lost. Straight after the election Don Brash was asked whether he wanted to be the National Party leader and he said he did not really know and was not really sure. From that minute on he became a dead man walking. 
Since the election no doubt on the advice of highly paid American strategic folks—or Murray McCully; one of the two I guess—National members have gone on the attack in a personal sense. They have been led by the rising—now fading—star Judith Collins. The plan has not worked; it has folded back on them. I say to people like Mark Blumsky that it is obvious—the National Party has gone down that track and now all of those attacks have left it with no real plan at all. They have not worked; nothing has happened. But once the attacks have gone away—drained away—the National Party has been left with nothing of just about anything. It has no policy; it has no plan. National Party members have nothing to say in the House—they are doing nothing. 
A back-bench member like Mark Blumsky would expect that into this vacuum would charge the leader and that that leader would give scene-setting large speeches; that he would come to the House and ask penetrating questions and would be seen and heard in every hamlet across the country as he led the charge in the rebirth of the once-great National Party. I ask members whether that has happened. I ask National Party members why Don Brash has virtually disappeared off the scene in New Zealand. 
I ask why Don Brash’s speeches are so bad. Members may recall his speech after David Parker’s speech to the House which was reminiscent of Jimmy Stewart in terms of its quality—it brought tears to our eyes. It was an occasion for a leader to rise and bring his troops with him into a major debate. But Don Brash embarrassed every single National Party member by bumbling his way through his speech for 15 minutes. I ask why Don Brash cannot ask a question in the House—he has been here for a while; why can he not do it—why he has no policy and why he hates New Zealand. What does he have against New Zealand? He talks about Australia Singapore China and Malaysia—anywhere but here. Perhaps he does not know he is here—he is confused about everything else so maybe he is not sure he is in New Zealand. 
I can tell that the National Party does not like this situation because its members have done some cruel cruel things to this man. Mr Nick Smith—the bagman for Bill English—got Don Brash to go all the way down to the southern lakes stand in them and say we would have a power shortage because of a lack of water. If he went back there today and stood in the same spot as he was in last time he would drown. How awful can Nick Smith get? 
Have members noticed that John Key has gone quiet? If there is ever a sign of someone moving towards a leadership challenge it is when that person goes quiet. John Key is so cruel. Bill English has had a haircut and got a new suit. What further signs do we need that he is trying to overthrow the leader? Gerry Brownlee stood behind Bill English out on the forecourt while Bill English led the charge on the Telecom leak. Bill English was there with big Gerry right behind him—as if Bill was the leader. How cruel and how cutting can the National members be? 
It is no wonder. After Don Brash made the latest bungle yesterday with the email leak National members must now be plotting. Members should look at the press release I have here. It came out after the email leak and states that a spokesman for Dr Brash had said that how to respond to the email leak was still being discussed. Then a press conference was called. No National MPs went to it. There was no big Gerry Brownlee standing behind the leader at this press conference—he had already been behind Bill. No one turned up and then we found out that Dr Brash—who his staff were saying was thinking about how to respond to the email leak—had not even read it. He called a press conference went along said a series of things that were completely and utterly mistaken had to be given the email by a journalist and said: “Frankly I didn’t understand.” 
The National Party members are sitting up and I want to say to them that the 70th National Party anniversary on Thursday will be the last supper for Don Brash. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 One of the puzzles of New Zealand politics over the last 10 years has been why Winston Peters does not want to be taken seriously. This is a man who most people would agree has some media presence and political capacity—there is no doubt about that. Some of us who have known him for quite a long time have always thought he would one day take the opportunity to be a serious politician. After the last election it looked like he might have decided to do so. He raised a serious issue—the relationship between New Zealand and the US—and he looked as if he might have meant what he said which is a bit hard to take sometimes from a man whose ferry bottom has scraped Cook Strait more times than I can remember. But it looked like he would have a go at it. 
The National Party was interested in going along with him. Don Brash played his part in a way that I had not seen an Opposition leader play it before. He went off to Washington with a senior Minister from the Government—I cannot recall that happening before—to talk about an issue that has been politically sensitive in New Zealand and he did so with good will with good intent and there is absolutely no doubt about it with the New Zealand interest at heart. Winston Peters was not there because he has not been to the US but I presume he was as Minister of Foreign Affairs going along with it. But he cannot help himself. On the very day when the Americans signalled some shift in that relationship Winston Peters let his personal animosity towards Don Brash cut right across the national interest. 
Do members not think that officials in the US embassy and our own civil servants in foreign affairs would have been sitting there asking themselves how they could take Winston Peters seriously? Phil Goff asked that question yesterday if quietly. He wants to know how to handle the situation when he goes back to America and when they say that his man said he wanted a better relationship but then made out like being an American was some kind of disease—some kind of terrorism—and it is some kind of interference if an Opposition politician talks to one of them. 
Let us see what sort of American behaviour Winston Peters is endorsing. His campaign manager who my colleague Gerry Brownlee has talked about used to be a Republican Party fund-raiser. Is that how Winston Peters knew on  
Morning Report 
—or said he knew—that the Republican Party was worried about Americans in New Zealand politics? I believe he had been talking to John Foote his campaign manager when he said that. What a ridiculous and stupid thing for that man to say when he was representing our country. 
Another bit of conspiracy theory if he wants one is that Helen Clark is in the process of dropping Plunket from PlunketLine—it will be a line with no Plunket—which is an iconic New Zealand community organisation. Who is getting the contract? A large American corporation with a US$70 billion turnover that is currently enmeshed in fraud proceedings in the US. So I ask Winston where his conspiracy is. I want to know whether Glenn Owen or Owen Glenn—whatever his name is—who donated $300000 to the Labour Party is a shareholder in the McKesson corporation. Why is this Government with Winston Peters’ support trying so hard to shaft Plunket—to the extent that the Prime Minister is now not invited to its 100th anniversary—and hand the contract to a multibillion dollar American corporation in which a Labour Party donor might be a shareholder? Members opposite should answer that question. 
One can see how we can go into all sorts of theories about Americans—including about Winston’s campaign manager. As my colleague Maurice Williamson said it is a bad case of foot in mouth. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 If we had been sitting here waiting for a defence of the National Party leader by Bill English we would have been sorely disappointed by that speech. But given that it was Bill English who was stabbed in the back by Don Brash—several weeks after Dr Brash had affirmed his undying loyalty to Mr English—we could not really have expected that from him. 
I want to go on the record and correct the statements made by Bill English and Murray McCully that this matter is something to do with the relationship with America. It is about no such thing. This debate is about the deceit the dishonesty and the misleading behaviour of the National Party and its leader. Speaking of deceit I point out that it is nothing but a double standard for the former Minister of Health Bill English who refused year after year to give PlunketLine money to get up and condemn this Government which has every year funded a well health-line for children. 
I make reference to the United States by saying that in the United States when a condemned man walks from his cell to the execution chamber people call out: “Dead man walking!”. That refers to a man who is still alive but is facing the inevitability of imminent death. Don Brash politically is a dead man walking. On today’s  
Midday 
 news the TV reporters who had been going around Dr Brash’s colleagues in the National Party came to the conclusion of the inevitability of a leadership challenge. Is it any wonder? It was cruel of Bill English John Key and Gerry Brownlee—the three would-be assassins—to set up their leader Don Brash as they did yesterday. For them to send him to a press conference to explain an email that they had not even given him to read is nothing short of a cruel and cunning plan. I ask members to listen to what this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
wrote about this matter: “What kind of National Party leader calls a press conference to downplay the contents of a potentially embarrassing email—only to front without a copy of the document or any indication of having read it properly beforehand?”. It provides the answer: “A short-lived one.” We can see from the debate today that not one of those assassins will defend their leader. They will try to claim this as a red herring but secretly they know that Don Brash is a dead man walking. 
Dr Brash was dead long before this latest bungle. He was dead when a newspaper that is one of the most reliable supporters of the National Party offered the headline: “National offers little inspiration”. That paper made the point—quite clearly—that the National Party’s leader and its members were indecisive unconfident and lacking in inspiration and momentum. Those are not our words; it is what the media are saying about the National Party—the most unsuccessful National Party in the history of this country. Members should not just blame Don Brash—it is that group of hopeless incompetent disloyal people on the front bench who constantly undermine their leader. The people on the back bench of the National Party who will not be here after the next election—they are an aberration—will not stand for that. Those members do not want just Don Brash to go; they want that whole incompetent front and middle bench to go with him. The issue with Don Brash is one of a lack of credibility—he is the “gone by lunchtime” man who could not deny saying that but could not remember saying it either. 
Then Lockwood Smith and Don Brash improperly asked a group of American congressmen to support politically National’s pro-nuclear campaign. The American congressmen quite properly rejected that suggestion but it is an indictment on Dr Brash and Dr Smith that they even made it. 
Then we saw the plain common deceit that was shown by the National Party and Don Brash who denied that National was being funded by the Exclusive Brethren to the tune of $1.2 million. Don Brash even asked for the diary entry on his meeting with them to be removed so that the public would not know about it. The mainstream man who was seeking election on the basis of the funding of a small and extremist religious sect denied that he knew anything about it and 2 days later he had to admit he had deceived this country. It is no wonder that that hopeless party is in this situation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What Phil Goff has in common with Winston Peters is that for political ends he will compromise New Zealand’s best interests. We saw that with Phil Goff when he abused Foreign Affairs confidences and used them as a Security Intelligence Service to spy on members of the Opposition and we saw it with Winston Peters when on the very day that there was a warming in the relationship between New Zealand and the United States he jumped into the exercise of anti-American jingoism to get a few cheap political points. 
The real reason why Winston Peters and Phil Goff do that and are doing it today is that they are so embarrassed about the pre-run for the Government’s Budget. We remember the “mother of all Budgets”. We remember the “chewing gum Budget” but this year’s Budget will go down as the “collander Budget” because it leaks like a sieve. Never in the history of New Zealand have we seen such a leak from a Budget. This is a $1.8 billion leak for which this Government will do anything to get if off the front pages. And to make it even more embarrassing all the signals are that the leak came from none other than David Cunliffe’s own office. 
But that is not the only leak we have seen in the last week. We have the “leaky homes leak”—and I am not talking about the Beehive. This Government will provide discounted loans for leaky-home owners. After we revealed this the Government said that yes it was planning a pre-Budget announcement. Well that would make a good Tui’s “Yeah right!” ad. When the Prime Minister was asked whether there will be a loan scheme for leaky-home owners did she deny it? No. She said: “You will have to wait.” I say that that leak is significant because every single day leaky homes are being bought and sold. They are being sold at very low prices because of the huge difficulty of the problem and there were speculators out there over the weekend buying them up because of the Government’s mismanagement of secret Budget information. 
What is behind that leaky-home issue is that in the middle of the election campaign 3 years after doing nothing about leaky homes the Government announced a review. The Government said the review would be completed by October and 6 months later we still do not know the result of that. That is why there is such bad feeling about this Government on that leaky-home issue. 
Where did the leak on the leaky homes come from? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Where? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It came from Clayton Cosgrove. He has been bragging to his mates. He has been saying he is the big mover and shaker within the Government and that he has this multimillion dollar package for the leaky-home owners and he has been saying it to everybody. We have two super ambitious Ministers in David Cunliffe and Clayton Cosgrove who will do anything to crawl over the dead bodies that lie on the front-row and second-row benches of this Government. They will do anything to replace the worn-out tired and discredited Ministers of the Government front bench. Members will remember that it was Clayton Cosgrove who organised the anti-Clark protests outside his own parliamentary colleagues’ homes in Christchurch back in the 1990s. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Was it really? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes it was. Clayton Cosgrove organised personal protests outside Lianne Dalziel’s home and outside the office of Ruth Dyson such is the blatant cynical ambition of Clayton Cosgrove. Clayton Cosgrove bears the scars of the leaks that Helen Clark and her team did on Mike Moore and this Budget is about “leak revenge time”. We are seeing it from Clayton Cosgrove and we are seeing it from the Minister of Communications because they have their ambitions ahead of this Government. I want this Minister to explain this “collander Budget”. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 If I had time I would rush across with my hanky so I could wipe the member’s chin. I suggest that he take a little time out wipe it off and clean himself up. He got very agitated during that speech. He said that Phil Goff has a lot in common with Winston Peters. Well I have to tell Nick Smith that he does not have a lot in common with members in this House because he is the only member in this House to be found guilty of contempt of court. He is the master of leaks. His leaks are usually in pursuit of publicity for himself. He is well known for it. 
“At some point National MPs will start asking: ‘If you can’t use your leader in the House and you can’t get him to front a press conference when can you use him?’ ”. That was the penultimate sentence from the political editor in a  
Dominion Post  
story today and it is the question that is being asked by National front-benchers and back-benchers. I could add to that list of questions that ought to be asked so I will add a couple more: “What do you do when your leader can’t remember who he talked to and what he said to them?” and: “What do you do if your leader says one thing in private and is less than honest in public?”. 
I think we ought to go through those questions and see whether we can give the members opposite some answers. What can they do if they cannot use their leader in the House? We know that is true—they cannot use Don Brash in Parliament any more. He is here about one day a week. He makes a fleeting appearance and then shoots out of here so fast that one would think he was being chased by somebody. Murray McCully said that Don Brash has gone to Washington. Yes Don Brash has gone to Washington. He would rather go anywhere than be here in this Parliament. He would rather be in Picton. He would rather make a speech to a regional conference. He would rather be at home writing that speech than be in Parliament where he can be accountable and can front up to this Government and take us on. Every time Dr Brash does stand up in this Parliament National’s stocks go down. He bumbles he mumbles he stumbles and he even fumbles and then he grumbles that nobody listens to him and the back-bench members cringe and crumble. He is permanently AWOL from this Parliament. He would prefer as I said to be anywhere other than fronting up in this House. So that is why members opposite have to ask the question of what they do when their leader cannot front up in Parliament. 
As to the second question about getting a leader to front a press conference I have to say that one of the bread and butter jobs of a politician is to be able to front up to the media. National members rolled out their leader on a big day when they had to front up to the fact that there was a leak within their own caucus—somebody in their own party is leaking emails to Winston Peters their old enemy. Someone—probably Gerry Brownlee—is leaking emails straight to Winston Peters. 
So Dr Brash rocked up for the hastily called press conference. I agree with Phil Goff that it was a set-up by the National Party members. They were not there to support Dr Brash. They shoved him in the room. He fumbled and bumbled his way up to the microphone wondering what it was all about and looking as though he was a possum caught in headlights. Then he asked: “Now where is the email?”. He had to ask Guyon Espiner to hand him the email. So he was handed the email and he hastily read it and said: “Ooh! You’re quite right. I quite frankly forgot the fact that they were there.” This was the man whom National had sent out to fix the problem. He forgot. [ 
Interruption 
] I will table the transcript for Mr Key. He said that was rubbish—well here is the transcript. 
Dr Brash did not have the email. He called the press conference to explain the email. He forgot about the email. He did not have the email. Do members know something? Dr Brash forgot why he was there. He did not know why he was having a press conference. That is why National members cannot send him out to have a press conference. He embarrasses his minders. It generally looks like his next career will be as an undertaker. That is what it looks like. 
Now I will talk about the third question. What if leaders cannot remember who they talked to and what they said? Well we know that is true—Don Brash cannot remember. His memory lapses are so long now and they are growing by the day. What will members opposite do with him? They will get rid of him. He is gone. He is a “dead man walking”. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 In listening to the debate in the House today one would think that the only important thing in New Zealand—the only thing obsessing New Zealanders—is the leaking of emails. The New Zealanders whom I have talked to are sick and tired of worrying about who leaked which email because they actually have other things on their minds. 
I want to talk about one of those things today and I am glad to say that it is not just on my mind but is on the minds of other intelligent MPs in this House—MPs such as Maurice Williamson who I am delighted to see sitting in the House today. We are talking today about an icon of Wellington—Mark Blumsky will acknowledge that that is what it is. It is a dilapidated icon but an icon nevertheless—namely Wellington’s trolley bus fleet. Maurice Williamson to his great credit got the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to write a letter—very unusual—to Stagecoach stating that in the current environment with New Zealand having to meet strict emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol with the Government’s desire to increase use of public transport and with the fact that trolley buses are a Wellington icon and have huge public support it would seem foolish to do anything to hinder the continuation of the service. 
But the extraordinary thing is that this icon—the trolley buses of Wellington—is being put at risk by none other than the body set up to promote and encourage sustainable transport Land Transport New Zealand. Trolley buses use renewable energy: they use electricity and they could use wind. They reduce our dependence on oil they are non-polluting and they do not emit particulates. 
Mark Blumsky 
: They’re quiet. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Mark Blumsky adds that they are quiet. But their future is at risk because Land Transport New Zealand is refusing to fund them fairly. It is refusing to fund 50 percent of their cost as it funds other forms of public transport. This is creating a Mexican stand-off and therefore the long-term contract for the trolley buses has already been put off by 15 months and is in danger of being put off for another year. Indeed the Wellington City Council is having to say that because of the stubborn and incomprehensible funding formula used by Land Transport New Zealand it may not be able to continue with its trolley bus fleet and may have to switch to diesel buses. I call on the new Minister of Transport Annette King who has trolley buses in her electorate to intervene in order to end this Mexican stand-off. She should require Land Transport New Zealand to fund the trolley buses properly. Smart and sustainable cities such as Vancouver San Francisco and Rome are falling over themselves to invest in and expand their trolley bus fleets because they know that trolley buses do not require fossil fuels are non-polluting and are therefore an ideal form of public transport. 
Land Transport New Zealand has a wonderful objective of promoting sustainable transport. It funds 100 percent of the maintenance and capital costs of roads. Why is it not funding 100 percent of the capital costs and maintenance of public transport? It should be at least funding 50 percent of the costs of public transport. I repeat my call to the Minister of Transport who may not have been listening earlier to call a meeting of interested parties and intervene to save the trolley bus network in Wellington. She does not want to be known as the Minister of Transport who allowed the trolley bus network in Wellington to be put at risk and collapse. She will not want that to happen so she needs to step in and make sure that the trolley buses in her electorate remain. She must realise that there is cross-party support for this cause in Wellington and she must intervene. 
Stagecoach is saying that it is prepared to spend $30 million on refurbishing the trolley buses but it cannot do that because a contract needs to be signed to ensure the buses’ future. Vector and all of the parties involved want to fix the ageing infrastructure. The trolley buses are 22 or 23 years old. They are dilapidated and are becoming unsafe. Their brakes are old and so are their windscreen wipers. They are literally at risk. I call on the Minister to intervene to solve this crisis. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 What we have seen from Labour in recent weeks is a reckless Government and reckless departments Ministers and ministries. They have been leaking like sieves. But it has been a big week for Mr Hughes’ friend David Cunliffe. No longer does he have to bleach his hair no longer does he have to bring a crutch down to the Chamber and no longer does he have to wear a 15-kilogram greenstone carving around his neck to get noticed. All he has to do is get his part of the Budget leaked and in doing so make the front page of every newspaper. My good colleague John Key referred to this Budget as the “David Cunliffe Budget”. That is what it is from this point on. We know that it will be Michael Cullen’s last Budget and David Cunliffe could not wait. No he could not wait until Michael Cullen was swiftly dispatched. Before Michael Cullen walks away David Cunliffe is up and moving and ready to make the job his. 
Then my colleague the Hon Nick Smith discovered that more ministries and departments are leaking like sieves regarding the building weathertightness announcement that will be in the Budget. We know that the Budget will be a miserable tiny Budget for Michael Cullen to deliver next week but two of his newest Ministers have stolen two of his reasonable bits of news. 
The interesting thing that we have to ask ourselves is what David Cunliffe and Clayton Cosgrove have in common. It is well known around the Chamber that they are close friends—very close friends—and it is interesting to those of us on this side of the House who monitor behaviour that the two of them are climbing up the scrap heap and competing for Dr Cullen’s job which will be vacant when he is despatched in the next few months. 
But it is the arrogance of this Government and its Prime Minister on the PlunketLine issue that was so brilliantly exposed by my colleague Tony Ryall. The Prime Minister has been caught out in a blitz of third-term arrogance by completely disregarding such an iconic organisation as Plunket. She is completely out of touch with all of the young mothers in New Zealand and those families who have waited on the end of the phone to get through to PlunketLine. This is obviously the beginning of the end. Petitions are being circulated around our electorates and Plunket representatives are visiting our offices. They have had a gutsful of this Prime Minister and they have had a gutsful of the arrogance of this Cabinet. The tide is turning on this Government. 
Those who know that are smelling the decay and are getting ready to leave. Jim Sutton and Paul Swain are starting to enjoy the general debate and seeing their colleagues being made fun of. They sit there with grins on their faces as does George Hawkins. He is grinning away there at the back and thoroughly enjoying things. Others are on the managed exit list—Russell Fairbrother Dianne Yates Jill Pettis and Dave Hereora. Who is Dave Hereora? Who knows at this rate he could be in Cabinet by the end of the week. Others are Marian Hobbs Dover Samuels Paul Swain and Martin Gallagher. 
Meanwhile according to the weekend’s  
New Zealand Herald  
Phil Goff sits in his caravan until 2 a.m. and waits. Phil Goff is playing the waiting game. He is the Prime Minister that New Zealand will never have. We on this side of the House have heard that in the first Labour caucus meeting after the election Rick Barker got on his feet—and Annette King knows that this is right—and said that the National Party with its new MPs was reinvigorated and looked like it was ready to go whereas the Labour Party had the same tired old group of people. We on this side of the House heard that there was a round of applause in the Labour caucus. [ 
Interruption 
] We know that is a fact. It is the first time it has happened to Rick Barker in 9 years. We know that was the case—it leaked over to this side of the House some time ago. 
Will it be Phil Goff versus Steve Maharey? Will it be Phil Goff versus Trevor Mallard? Will Parekura Horomia finally make the move—or any move at all for that matter? It has to be said that Annette King might just stay for Phil Goff but she certainly will not stay for Trevor Mallard or Steve Maharey. The left thinks it has it all sewn up but Phil Goff has the sausages and the tongs out. He knows what has to be done in order to secure the numbers. We know that Darren Hughes wanders around Otaki and says to the business people there that he is secretly on Phil Goff’s side that he is secretly in the Phil Goff pack that he is one of those in the right wing of the Labour Party and that the business people should not worry because that is where he will go when push comes to shove. 
This Government is in decay. It is on its way out. The vultures are circling the pretenders are moving and David Cunliffe no longer has to bleach his hair. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Education Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 9 May. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I was rudely interrupted last night at the closure of the House. I was really disappointed that we could not go for an extra 4 minutes after 10 o’clock and that we could not go another 2 minutes in order to have the vote because members opposite wanted to get home and lick their wounds as they do every night at 10 o’clock after the House has closed. That is why we have not finished this bill. It would have been only 6 minutes; we would have had to wait only 4 minutes for me to speak then 2 minutes for the vote. It would have been all over but oh no it had to be put off until the next day so that members opposite could rush home and most probably watch the end of  
Boston Legal 
 because therein lies what members opposite are like. Darren Hughes is like Denny Crane in  
Boston Legal 
. But I digress. 
We are talking about the Education Amendment Bill—the regulations the micro-management of this legislation the bureaucracy and the sanitised way in which we go about educating our young people. Next year we will have cotton wool on the ground so that little toddlers will not hurt themselves when they go outside to play. Our mothers and fathers and our grandparents— 
Dianne Yates 
: Somebody bounced you on your head. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What was that? Did the member say that she does not have a grandmother or grandfather? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are to be no interjections while members are walking on the floor of the House. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Our grandmothers and grandfathers our mothers and fathers went through the Second World War for goodness’ sake and they went through the Depression. They brought up their kids they sent them to school and nothing happened. Yes there were broken legs; yes there were scratches when we fell out of trees. But we are not allowed to climb trees any more because nanny State has taken the responsibility instead of parents. Nanny State tells us how to educate our kids what sort of education they are to have and where to send our children whether it be to kohanga kindergarten or whatever. 
The Education Amendment Bill will do one thing that I abhor and it is that after 20 years of the kohanga movement 20 years of great Maori work in early childhood and whanau development this lot over here without a skerrick of consultation want to make kohanga like kindergarten playcentre and everything else—a one-size-fits-all approach and members opposite think it is OK. That will never happen. 
The other thing is that over the next couple of years every early childhood centre in this country—educating 180000 children—will have to be relicensed. Who will pay for that? It will certainly not be this Government and it will certainly not be the Ministry of Education; it will be those individual centres which can hardly run now because education is so so costly. This is nothing more than a PC look at how education is supposed to be delivered and not an opportunity to let individual centres work it out for themselves. The legislation should make sure there are minimum standards but it is over-bureaucratised over-sanitised and over-regulated. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The purpose of this bill is to implement the Labour-Progressive Government’s commitment to extend paid parental leave to self-employed parents who are not currently covered by the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. In doing so the bill furthers a number of the Government’s objectives to support working parents on the birth or adoption of a child. 
Paid parental leave is one component of the Labour-Progressive Government’s policy to promote high-quality working lives. So far more than 77000 working parents have benefited since the Government introduced paid parental leave for employees in 2002. A year after introducing paid parental leave the Government conducted a review that showed that the scheme has been very successful and that both employees and employers have adjusted well to the entitlement. The review also found that the scheme could be improved by extending its coverage to self-employed parents who are not eligible for paid parental leave. That is what the amendment bill does. 
The bill supports the Government’s commitment to families and to enhancing equity by ensuring that the paid parental leave scheme is accessible to a wider number of individuals. It does so by allowing workers to access paid parental leave irrespective of whether they are employees or self-employed and by supporting the health and well-being of new mothers and their babies. The bill is intended to provide parental leave payments to self-employed people on a basis that is consistent with those that are provided to employees where that can be achieved while also recognising the particular circumstances of self-employment. 
It is estimated that just over 2000 self-employed parents will apply for paid parental leave each year. Self-employed mothers will be eligible if they have worked an average of 10 hours a week or more during either a 6 or 12-month period immediately before the expected date of delivery or adoption of a child. Self-employed mothers will have the same rights as employees to transfer this payment to their eligible partners who may be either self-employed or employees. Self-employed people will be entitled to receive paid parental leave if they are engaged in more than one type of work consecutively and/or if they have a break of 30 days or less between engagements. Like employees they will be required to stop working while receiving payments. However they will be able to maintain a level of oversight of their business during the leave period. 
The bill provides that employees and the self-employed will become eligible for a subsequent period of parental leave and parental leave payments if the expected date of delivery or adoption is at least 6 months after their return to work from a previous period of parental leave rather than 12 months as at present. That provides fairness between first-time parents and parents of subsequent children. It will extend the eligibility to paid parental leave to a small number of employees who are currently ineligible. 
The bill enables the Department of Labour to approve applications for payment where there are technical problems with the application. Currently these applications must go to the Employment Relations Authority before they can be approved. That amendment will save applicants from having to go through that process. However the department may not approve applications if the problem is in dispute between the employer and the employee. The bill also includes a new provision that explicitly provides that employees or self-employed persons may apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a review of a decision made by the Department of Labour about their eligibility for a parental leave payment. 
The changes contained in the bill will be monitored after their implementation and will be included in the findings of an evaluation of the entire parental leave scheme which is currently under way. The evaluation is looking at the experiences of women partners employers and those who are ineligible for this scheme. It will assist the Government to further understand how well the parental leave scheme is meeting its objectives and it will identify potential areas of further improvement for the future. 
The bill reflects the Labour-Progressive Government’s commitment both to working families and to building strong families. It will extend coverage to a range of self-employment activities including the working arrangements of farming families. Giving practical financial help to families and supporting positive health outcomes for both mothers and babies are significant steps. By extending paid parental leave to self-employed parents this Government is ensuring that more New Zealand working parents irrespective of whether they are employees or self-employed have the best opportunity to raise their families while continuing to participate in the paid workforce to their full potential. 
I conclude by thanking the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee membership for its efficient hard work on the bill. I also extend my thanks to the clerks and to all those who took the time to make submissions. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National supports the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill which provides paid parental leave for self-employed persons. It was in fact National members’ major concern back in 2002 that Labour had in essence cherry-picked those who were to be provided with support and we noted in particular that the self-employed had missed out. More broadly I also put on record—because this has been subject to question by the “Labour-Bureaucratic Government”—that we recognise that this policy is embedded into the New Zealand social structure. Paid parental leave is now part of the fabric of society and of the expectations of parents. 
Ms Dyson made great play that this legislation was part of the Labour-Progressive coalition Government’s initiatives. It is too bad about New Zealand First; that party was ignored in that statement. The truth is that the approach the Government has taken would really be better described as being by the “Labour-Bureaucratic Government” because its members have gone for a complicated expensive administrative approach. They believe it is best for everyone to be subject to welfare given in 14 equal payments because after all parents could not possibly be trusted with a lump sum. A lump sum would be far simpler and more effective as a mechanism of payment. The Government is going to have inspectors checking out the number of hours and going in to look at log books inspect premises examine records provide reviews and so forth. It is the sort of approach that could be loved only by a bureaucrat. The Government as befits its nature has chosen an expensive and a cumbersome bureaucratic approach to delivering benefits and advantages for parents. 
The Government has said that it has done a review and that it will do further reviews. I actually asked by way of interjection and in anticipation that I might get a response whether the Families Commission would be involved in that review. I asked that for a deliberate reason. The Families Commission at least in part is the creation of United Future. That party has spent a lot of time talking about how the Families Commission could advise the Government on better and more effective ways of supporting families. I hope that United Future members will take a call on this particular bill because if there were ever a bill that dealt with issues of concern to United Future this is it. 
So I am looking forward to United Future’s contribution today on how it will be developing family-friendly policies. Its members say that is actually the reason why the party is in Parliament. They should make contributions on these kinds of issues although they did not make a contribution—unfortunately—at the Committee stage. Some of us were looking forward to that so I am certainly looking forward to the contribution today. Why do I stress that? I stress it because the Families Commission is now charged with being the principal adviser to the Government on family-friendly policies and on how the machinery of Government and indeed the community can promote families. 
Probably the most significant submission on the bill was the Business New Zealand submission—and not I say for the usual reasons. Normally one would expect Business New Zealand the Employers and Manufacturers Association and so forth to be focusing on compliance costs on procedures on how the legislation will affect administration in employment and so forth. Business New Zealand certainly did that in the technical parts of its submission but it also took a more overarching approach that I think would have been very instructive to this Parliament and indeed to the select committee. It said that the problem with the current system is that it still divides families between those in employment and those who are self-employed. It asked why families who make the choice of not being in either self-employed or employed work should not get the advantage of a community-provided—I guess that is what this is—benefit. Why can they not have that benefit as well? 
Did I hear the Government make any acknowledgment of that issue at all? The answer is no. Yet I suggest that is actually the critical issue that should be being debated in this Chamber today. When an organisation like Business New Zealand can actually ask Parliament—across all parties—to look at the broader issues then I think that in third reading speeches Parliament has an obligation to consider those issues. United Future in particular given its kaupapa has a very important commitment and obligation to make a contribution on those issues in third reading speeches. 
After all—and the Government makes great play of this all the time—we should be looking forward. It is very easy for people to stand up in this Parliament—as they do from time to time—and go on about what happened in the 1980s in the 1990s or even dare I say it in the last 6 years. But the public really wants to hear about what the future holds. People have lived the past. They cannot relive that; they can only live the future. So the policies of parties and indeed of Parliament itself as a whole should be looking forward. I suggest that the Business New Zealand submission is a very important one because it actually points to a direction for the future of social policy. 
 If the Government were really interested in that sort of thing it would be examining how young families are making choices. Certainly in my experience young families are increasingly making the choice that the principal caregiver—usually the mother—will not go back into the workforce. Where they have a choice that is the choice being made. I know a number of mothers are in Parliament. They tend to be usually in their 40s and 50s or thereabouts and by and large they have had a somewhat different life experience from contemporary mothers as they generally—and I talk about this on a cross-party basis not distinguishing between parties on that basis—accept the view that women should be working pretty much straight away after having a baby because that is the way to maintain and sustain careers. I know that a large number of women made that choice thinking it was the right choice. Many I say now actually question whether it really was the best choice for themselves their families and their children. Their daughters are making different choices in many cases. They are making choices to try to stay home where possible and families are making substantial financial sacrifices to achieve that outcome. 
The problem with this legislation is that it is focused primarily on issues relating to the 1980s and 1990s. I am certainly not suggesting that there should not be parental leave for those people who work; obviously there should be. But I am saying that we should look further forward take on board the submission of Business New Zealand in relation to—increasingly—young families in New Zealand and extend the coverage. I think that when a business organisation is taking a leadership role not on a business issue per se but on a broader social issue it behoves the entire Parliament to take that on board. 
That submission was intended to be a submission about the social nature of our families and our communities and I think that is precisely the issue the Families Commission should be focusing on. I hope the Government will be asking the Families Commission to do some serious research on that issue as it has indicated it wishes to do so in the future. National is supporting the bill but we want the Families Commission to look at the issues more broadly in the future. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my privilege to be able to rise in support of the third reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill. It is wonderful for me to be able to note that there is wide support among parties for the legislation. It demonstrates to us that when a good progressive Government is in for long enough that actually starts to lift the bar right across the board. 
When paid parental leave legislation was introduced into the House by the Labour-led Government in 2002 there was opposition to it and there is not any longer. So that is a sign of really good progress. We are going forward as a country and we are being led through that because a good progressive Government has been in for long enough. So we want to keep that going and we want to keep the support for this progressive type of legislation which does make for a level playing field. The previous speaker said this bill somehow brings in a division between working parents and those who are self-employed. In fact it does quite the opposite of that so I am not quite sure how he made that assessment. We do have widespread support among parties for the bill. 
It was my pleasure also to be on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which heard submissions on this bill. It was apparent that having a progressive Government for this period of time has lifted the bar among community organisations as well. I cannot recall one submitter who came in and said that we should not have paid parental leave in this country. There was widespread support among all sorts of community organisations business organisations and unions. The whole community came along to our select committee to say well done and that they wanted to see this introduced and it could not come soon enough. 
For me personally as a mother of young children and having raised them both as a waged worker and as a self-employed person operating my own business it makes absolute sense to me that there should be consistency between the approaches. Certainly in having my babies and raising young children the pressures on me were the same whether I was in waged or salaried work or was self-employed. Self-employed people who run their own businesses have a great deal in common with waged and salaried workers in this country because they are operating on a very similar level. The pressures are the same in those families and this bill recognises that. Since 2002 77000 working parents have benefited from the commitment that this Government has given to building stronger families through paid parental leave provisions and that is going to continue. It has been estimated that 2000 self-employed parents will apply each year. There is a lot to be proud of in putting this bill through this afternoon. 
The other thing that strikes me from a personal perspective from where I come from is that parents in rural areas will do very well from this bill—certainly in the areas that I am very familiar with such as the townships of Cambridge Matamata Te Aroha Huntly and Ngaruawahia. Many self-employed people who run small businesses in those small communities and also many farming families in all the geographical areas in between will applaud the third reading of the bill this afternoon and then the enacting of it. In fact when I was campaigning at the last election this issue was raised with me often on the campaign trail by self-employed people who were wishing to start families or were in the midst of raising their families and who wanted to get the same benefits that this Government has brought forward for working families. 
This bill encourages choice for women parents and families. It is not the baby bonus type of approach that has been taken by some other countries that somehow try to give a financial incentive to lure people to produce babies. It is not a baby bonus scheme. It will quite proudly ensure that families have the right resources available to them at that very precious time in a baby’s upbringing. 
It is my privilege to stand up and support the third reading of the bill. We have been through a very good and thorough process in the select committee. We heard from many submitters who had very valid points to raise on many technical issues and that helped us to ensure we got this right. I note that the previous speaker said there was bureaucracy in terms of the bill. We certainly wanted to ensure that we covered all our bases because we want to make sure this is a fair and an equitable law. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. Self-employed people work hard. They are the backbone of the country. They are the people who take the risks and they are the ones who put themselves out there say they will stand up for something and give it a go. They struggle against the bureaucracy that actually makes it more and more difficult for them to run their businesses. Instead of supporting small businesses we find a Government that in general just keeps piling on more and more taxes and more and more paperwork that needs to be done and making more of a burden. 
The risks those people take currently when they are trying to employ people are embarrassing and should be embarrassing for us as a country. Time and time again in my previous role in the recruitment field I spoke on a daily basis to employers and to those who were looking for work and I heard the same story from small employers. They said it was too hard and too risky to take people on. They said if it did not work out then their small businesses with profits being absolutely tight and often non-existent could not afford to look at taking other people on. These were plumbers retailers and people who had stepped out there and were trying to do their best even though they had often been badly burnt. I spoke to one couple who had a plumbing business. The business had expanded and they had taken on a couple of employees. They were willing to train some young people in the business and put them through everything but they said they could not do it because of the extra costs. They could not take the risk. They reverted to running the business just by themselves. 
The National Party has advocated strongly for this amendment. Self-employed people deserve recognition. I have been told by many people who are in this position that when they step out and take 14 weeks off to have a baby they may use this payment to get an accountant to step into their business part-time and oversee it for them. I was talking to a hairdresser who said that this legislation would give her the opportunity to employ someone on a part-time basis to step into her business and work on her behalf. The difference between these people and the ones who are in employee roles is that more often than not rather than just keeping their own income people say they will use this money to pay other people to do their job while they step out of their business. The thing the National Party is most excited about with this amendment bill is that it starts to give the self-employed some choices. The National Party advocates hugely for choice—that is what it is about for us. 
When we talk about choice we can refer to rural women. I notice that the previous speaker identified rural women as an important group. We do not find it often but as has already been stated this is something we agree on. We agree on this bill but we also agree that our rural women are equally as important as women who live and work in the cities. Rural women deserve this recognition and deserve this amendment bill because they are our true backbone. They are the ones who not only run the rural businesses—because we girls know what really happens out on the farms—and get out there and work in the cowsheds but also run the households as well. They are the ones who really work their fingers to the bone. 
David Bennett 
: Keep the guys in line. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: They keep the guys in line as one of my colleagues has just said. Rural women did however ask for a lump sum. This is not a new concept to the National Party and we were interested to hear it come through in some of the submissions. As it is part of our philosophy what we really liked about it was that again it just opened up those sorts of choices. Rural women said to us that a lump sum would give them choice in how they use the money and in what they do. I have worked out that the $347.50 a week adds up over the 14 weeks to just over $5000. 
One of the other things that rural women identified was that they have problems getting specialist care in the rural areas. We could go into that because that is a shame on us in itself but it is not what we are here to discuss. They said they may even choose to use that lump sum if they get it for specialist care. One woman said that if she received a lump sum it would give her the option of flying in her mum or her mother-in-law from another part of the country. She would have the money to be able to get that level of support. Others talked about how expensive it is to have babies with all the equipment and everything else that they need. They stated that having a lump sum would help them to pay for some of that. It is a huge advantage that these women can now have some choice. I certainly challenge our current Labour-led Government to think about how it could push that issue a bit further and to think about how it may be able to open up more choice for women. 
I suppose that element of choice is what I would like to move on to now because it is something that is rather dear to my heart and is one of the main reasons that I am here as a National member of Parliament. For me in particular it is about choice for women. I cannot be more adamant and more blatant about saying that my agenda is about choice for women. I am asking the Government to start looking at some of the bigger-picture stuff. I am asking the Government to stand up and identify that there are some real issues in our society—issues that are occurring now and will just keep growing in the future. Unless we start asking some of these questions we will never ever come up with any answers. 
They are not the easy questions and they are not the ones that we all readily have answers to. But let us not have any doubts about it—women are having fewer babies. The facts are that they are having them later and that we have a declining population. The reality is that some of those women do want to be stay-at-home parents. I do not think that we as a society recognise that any more as the valuable role that it truly is. Instead we have a push into paid work. Is that what we want? I do not really know but it is a question we need to ask ourselves as a society. 
Childcare options are something that the Government in all fairness has opened up to a bit more. It says it is opening up to those in this term. It is like putting a piece of chewing gum in a hole when there is a leak. The question and the answer are so much bigger than just the issue of childcare. How about we reward those families that decide that a grandparent will help them look after the child? How about we open up more choice in how we fund the childcare side of it? How about we recognise those parents who choose to stay at home instead of treating them like second-class citizens as we currently do? I do not know the effects of having a child in long-term day care but neither do other members and neither do we as a society. Unless we start asking those sorts of questions and unless we start doing a bit more research to identify what we are doing to our children with our changing society we are in real fear of having to fix problems later instead of looking at the big-picture stuff now and identifying how it goes through. 
I stand in support of this bill but I see it as a small part of what we need to be doing as a country. I ask for a bit of vision and for more leadership than this small amendment bill gives us. But I commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which looked at the bill. I certainly thank those who brought submissions to us and I proudly stand and support this amendment for the self-employed. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 We have said all along as the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill has progressed through the House that the Green Party is delighted to support the extension of paid parental leave to the self-employed. During consideration of the initial paid parental leave legislation we advocated alongside many submitters that self-employed workers should be included within the bill’s coverage. It is great that we have finally achieved that today and I would like to thank and congratulate the Minister of Labour the officials the submitters the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and everyone who was involved in finally getting this legislation through Parliament. 
Although the main purpose of the bill is to extend paid parental leave to the self-employed that is not its only purpose. It also reduces from 12 months to 6 months the minimum period before an employee is entitled to a subsequent period of parental leave and a parental leave payment. It gives power to the Department of Labour to accept applications for paid parental leave even if there are irregularities in the application. It gives review rights on paid parental leave to the Employment Relations Authority. I am very pleased to see the reduction from 12 months to 6 months of the period of eligibility between periods of paid parental leave. It helps those parents who may be adopting again before the 12-month period is up and also those parents who themselves have another child within 12 months of the earlier one being born. The changes to ensure that there are cost-effective review and appeal mechanisms are also supported by the Green Party. 
Although we are totally supportive of the bill it is not the end of the struggle to have a world-class best-practice paid parental leave system in this country. In fact we are still only about halfway along the path towards delivering such legislation. We can be very proud of what we have achieved so far—we can even pause briefly for a half-time break. However the journey is not complete and further legislation will be required to extend the scheme to make it world-class to make it best-practice and even to make it comply fully with our international obligations. I am pleased to see by Minister Dyson’s comments today that she also acknowledges we have not reached the end of the paid parental leave journey. I am glad she reminded us that the entire paid parental leave scheme is currently being evaluated and that she hopes the evaluation will identify areas of further improvement in the future. 
As I said earlier in this debate even after the bill is passed I believe improvements will still be needed with regard to eligibility criteria the level of paid leave the length of leave and how much is paid. A number of those issues will probably need to be addressed before New Zealand can ratify the relevant International Labour Organization conventions on paid parental leave. 
What other areas still need to be addressed? I mentioned three earlier. The first is the issue of the right of working mothers to breastfeed. Again despite a number of submissions and the views of the Human Rights Commission on this issue it has not been included in this bill. I strongly urge the Minister to ask her department to undertake work on breastfeeding in the workplace and to develop further legislation in this area as soon as possible. 
The second issue is around whangai and other customary adoptions. This matter also seems to have been consigned to the too-hard basket—once again—in this bill and in previous paid parental leave amendment bills. It is time for the Government to engage in this issue deeply and carefully—in consultation with iwi hapu and whanau and with Pasifika and other cultural groups—with a view to extending the legislation to cover those situations as soon as is practicable. 
The third issue is the continuing difficulty that casual and seasonal employees have in accessing paid parental leave. Those are the most vulnerable workers in this country. They often miss out on all sorts of employment rights and of course they miss out altogether on the right to paid parental leave. We should no longer allow through our legislation the cancer of casualisation to continue to grow and we should not turn a blind eye to the inability of those particularly vulnerable workers to access basic employment rights like this one. 
In conclusion I reiterate that the Green Party is pleased to support the third reading today. We are pleased that the Government has acknowledged the discrimination against the self-employed that was enacted through the previous legislation. We also support the additional matters that are included in the bill and we look forward to the day when we fully comply with International Labour Organization standards. 
Finally I would like to say a word or two about what Dr Mapp and Paula Bennett were speaking about. I was struggling to identify the nature of the Business New Zealand submission to which Dr Mapp referred as I did not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and was not privy to that submission. But it appears that both National MPs were talking about the whole issue of parents who choose to stay at home rather than enter the workforce. 
That is an issue of deep concern to the Green Party and I am sure to all of us and I would love to engage in that sort of social policy debate in this House. It raises issues for me about whether the National Party would support or at least begin to think about supporting things like a universal child benefit or even a form of universal basic income or citizens’ income. That debate is happening in places like the European Union and I think this Parliament could usefully engage in such a debate. I am not sure what National’s policy is on tax-free income for the first $5000 or $10000 of income or on further financial incentives for people who choose to have babies. That is happening a lot now in those European countries where populations are decreasing. 
I would support a debate on all those kinds of issues if that is the sort of debate that those members are calling for. It would be a very useful discussion for all of us to have because we should be supporting the choice of mothers to stay at home if that is what they would like to do. It is really sad that so much of our ideology now is about driving mothers into the workforce. I would hate to see bills like this one being used as part of that ideological push because it is very important that those of us who choose to stay at home and look after our children can do that. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I start by clarifying the New Zealand First position: we will definitely without a shadow of a doubt be supporting the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill. We are actually quite delighted that finally provision has been made for the self-employed to receive paid parental leave entitlements. We believe that the provision is long overdue. 
The third reading of the first paid parental leave bill came before the House in March 2002 and it did not include any provisions for the self-employed. Those people were simply ignored. The second bill came before the House in 2004 and again the self-employed were ignored. Until last night it was my perception—and it was only a perception—that New Zealand First had supported the first bill and if I have misled the House by saying so in earlier parts of the debate on this bill then I apologise. I genuinely believed we had supported the first bill but in reality we did not support it. My attention was drawn to that fact last night and I looked up the  
Hansard 
 and saw that was the case. 
The principal reason we did not support the first bill was that it excluded the self-employed and that was the exact reason why we did not support the second bill. It did not make sense to us that a highly paid employee on perhaps a million dollars a year could receive paid parental leave but a self-employed person on a relatively modest income would receive the exact sum of zilch. That did not sit comfortably with us and we are delighted that this bill finally rectifies that situation. 
The previous speaker from National Paula Bennett addressed her concerns over the lack of lump-sum payments particularly for rural women. It is true that National members raised the issue in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I have some difficulty in accepting that it is a major issue because at the end of the day if a person is to receive $5000 or thereabouts as Paula Bennett illustrated— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Well that’s what the figure is. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is that the correct figure? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s 14 by $378 roughly. 
PETER BROWN 
: Sorry I cannot hear the member from here but it is a sum of money that those parents need from the first instance. I believe there are financial institutions that would allow the individual to borrow against the weekly payment. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why not just pay it as a lump sum? 
PETER BROWN 
: The Government has chosen not to do that but the issue is not the big deal that Paula Bennett was trying to imply it is and I thought I would draw the House’s attention to that. 
There are some concerns about the bill though. One concern that niggles New Zealand First is that an employed person who receives paid parental leave has no obligation to return to work in the original firm or company. We think that is wrong in principle. As I have said earlier in the House the Retailers Association alerted us to a situation where a woman who received paid parental leave then worked for a competing employer during the year her employer had to keep the job open for her. That seemed to us to be somewhat unfair and we hoped that situation would be corrected or modified. 
Another area of the bill that I think concerned all members of the select committee was the initial plan to allow a person who is in part employed and in part self-employed to receive paid parental leave for only one of those roles either as an employed person or as a self-employed person. We thought that was unfair. Although that clause was still in the bill when we reported it back we extracted a promise from Minister Dyson that it would be corrected. She was as good as her word in this matter and she presented a Supplementary Order Paper that corrected the situation. So now people who are employed and self-employed—who run their own businesses for example—can receive a combined entitlement from their two vocations up to a maximum amount. A person who has two jobs can receive a combined entitlement and now a person who is self-employed and employed can receive a combined entitlement too and we are very pleased about that. 
I do not think there is much more to say. I would like to see the bill make as rapid progress as it possibly can because it is 4 years overdue. In my heart I think we have actually robbed—that may be a harsh term—self-employed people of that entitlement for 4 years. We have certainly denied them a reasonable entitlement for 4 years. I would like to think we can pass the bill unanimously. I do not think the “Dancing King” and the “Army Queen” will be here and if they do not vote I think we will get the bill passed unanimously. New Zealand First supports the bill and we want to see it enacted as soon as possible. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 In Helen Clark’s 1984 biography she joked that if she were elected the whole of our society would change overnight. Well today we live in a society where the importance of parents children and whanau is constantly being eroded by Government policies—policies that have deprived 230000 children simply because their parents cannot work that have ruthlessly cut the lifeline of PlunketLine which many mothers and babies rely on and that punish 63000 Maori families by denying them the benefits of the Working for Families package. Twenty years on the Prime Minister’s joke has worn thin. 
A month or so back Labour’s Maori caucus called a media briefing to promote the Working for Families package to the media. Unfortunately for that caucus though one of the journalists was so underwhelmed by the presentation that he was moved to say to us as he passed by that no one could explain how many Maori would benefit from the package. The fact that Labour felt the need to trot out its Maori MPs to sell a package that denies nearly 100000 Maori children the support they so desperately need is an indictment on Labour’s discriminatory policies and is a sad commentary on those Maori Labour MPs who willingly gave their support to that denial. 
Members should make no mistake—the Maori Party will support this bill because we want people who are self-employed to be able to receive paid parental leave we see parents as being critical players in a stable society and we have always believed in the importance of financial security for whanau. We also support this bill because it will benefit Maori women who make up an increasing proportion of Maori with jobs. However like John Tamihere I too wonder what adverse effects the fall-off in employment for Maori men may be having on whanau hapu iwi Maoridom and society itself. 
A recent Ministry of Economic Development report revealed that Maori women are still very under-represented amongst the self-employed. It also noted that the gains Maori women had achieved in the workforce were just as quickly being worn away through a lowering of their quality of life. In fact Maori women interviewed in the report admitted that they had spread themselves too thinly and were having to wear too many other hats. 
One of our biggest concerns is the promotion of employment initiatives without the role of the whanau having been properly recognised protected and enhanced. Whanau is what counts. We count the cost of parents being forced to work at low-income jobs and we count the cost to society of a generation being brought up without the support that we enjoyed as children. 
Economically the benefits of self-employment are a significant feature of Maori business success. In fact a report to Hui Taumata stated that businesses owned by self-employed Maori are valued at over $5.7 billion. That is an impressive statistic in anyone’s estimation. Those assets constitute 63 percent of all Maori-owned commercial assets and are largely invested in tertiary industries such as wholesale and retail trade property transport social services hospitality and tourism. We commend those Maori business people for their energy commitment and willingness to take risks. 
However despite that success other factors need to be considered particularly those relating to how to improve workers’ work-life balance. Is paid parental leave designed to support child health and child development or is it designed to keep women hooked into a paid workforce? What is being done to prevent poor health in mothers and their babies caused by mothers feeling the need to return to the workforce earlier and earlier? What progress has the Government made in eliminating poverty? 
The Maori Party is particularly aware that for many Maori a return to work is increasingly becoming an economic necessity in a society where profit has become more important than the needs of its members. If our society is to truly value the importance of parents we should look to provide support for parents in casual work and for those forced to hold more than one job as well as to provide paid parental leave for self-employed parents. Furthermore if we truly valued the importance of parents we would also give special consideration to the needs of Maori and Pasifika who are the people most affected by any changes to employment legislation. That is especially so given the fact that the Polynesian populations are growing more rapidly than others because of a higher fertility rate—go whanau go—and will make up an increasingly large component of the workforce including the self-employed. 
Another issue that has been brought to our attention is the legal status of matua whangai who are the caregivers of children—often their own mokopuna—whom they have chosen not to adopt. Those people have been excluded from recognition under this bill. Whangai are an integral part of Maori society. Indeed our party co-leader Tariana Turia has a whangai of her own as do I. Neither of us has bothered to adopt our mokopuna but we simply raise them in the time-honoured Maori fashion. Including whangai in legislation is a vexing issue for Maori and is one that Maori are still not completely resolved on. Suffice it to say that the Maori Party finds it difficult to accept that those who take care of children under any terms may be denied support because of their different cultural practices. 
In conclusion Maori have a saying: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata.” It means: “What is the most important thing in the world? It is people it is people it is people.” We in this House are those who would have a say in the governance of our nation. We must guard against allowing economic pressure to force us to devalue the significance of parents and whanau. We have an obligation to hold fast to the importance of those who gave us life who shaped and nurtured us who are the inspiration for what we are today and who gave us the values upon which we base our decisions. The Maori Party will support this bill but we urge all members of this House to give further thought to protecting and enhancing whanau for whanau are the heartbeat of the nation and parents are the heart. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that the National Party also gives its encouragement and support to this legislation. After listening to the speeches we have heard this afternoon I think that a common theme came through most of them. Paula Bennett started it off and it was continued on especially by the Green Party and the Maori Party. It is that there is a real sense within this Parliament and in our communities in general that we are probably not doing enough for families and for those who want to bring the next generation of New Zealanders forward in an environment that is successful and provides for everyone. The Budget in Australia however had a major implication in terms of Australia’s support of families. 
 Today we are discussing legislation on parental leave and it is bringing out those heart and soul concerns that most people in this Chamber have. The Labour Government has dressed up this legislation in terms of being fair equitable and progressive and of providing a level playing field but those terms should not really have been used—we should not have to be considering separate legislation for self-employed people. When we address these sorts of concerns they should be addressed in the sense that they cover all New Zealanders at the appropriate time. The appropriate time to do that was in 2002 and if members look back at that time they will see that most parties supported the idea that the legislation should cover self-employed people. 
I think that National United Future and New Zealand First all indicated at that time that there was a gaping hole in the employment legislation in that it did not apply to self-employed people. It has taken us 4 years to get to the stage where we have actually recognised self-employed people. That has been far too long. In that process a select committee has over the last few weeks met and discussed this bill. It has been a pleasure to work with all members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this legislation. They have worked together. As members of the select committee we thank all the submitters and all the organisations that they represented because there was a common thread coming through all the submissions. 
There is one issue though that I feel the select committee still has not addressed. That was a constituent’s issue with regard to his battle with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) for funding in respect of the very harrowing and unfortunate circumstances of his wife’s death subsequent to the birth of their child. The ACC rules and the implications for someone who is on parental leave during that period need to be addressed. During the Committee stage the Minister Ruth Dyson portrayed herself as someone who had solved this issue and had resolved the question of ACC’s commitments with regard to that case. Well that is not so. 
Although a Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward covered some of the situations addressed in the debate it did not cover the full circumstances of that case. Even the Minister admitted that to me in a letter dated 5 May. In response to my inquiries on behalf of that constituent the Minister stated: “While I understand the strain this situation puts on the family unfortunately it is not possible for either ACC or me to act outside the boundaries of the legislation. Thank you again for your letter. While I regret that this advice is not the response you were seeking it remains the only advice possible in the circumstances.” That was on 5 May. Yesterday the Minster stood up in this House and said that she had addressed that constituent’s situation yet 4 days earlier she had written to me stating she could not do anything more for him. That is the kind of inconsistency and lack of leadership that we see in this legislation. 
There is a failing in the link between the parental leave legislation and the accident compensation legislation yet there has been no attempt to amend the legislation other than the Supplementary Order Paper. That relates to some of the broader questions that people have brought up in this debate today. There are some issues that this legislation has not covered. One of the major issues—it is one that the Greens brought up during the second reading debate—is with regard to seasonal and temporary staff. Another major issue which the Maori Party brought up is in relation to Maori and Pacific Island adoptions. In both those cases we have not seen the legislation cover those areas. All we have had is some kind of vague commitment from the Government that it will look at them in the future. That is not sufficient. 
If there is a general plan—and the Government says it has one for families and for parental leave—then why not do it all at once? Why did we have to wait 4 years between each of the parts of the reform process? After the 2002 part of the reform process the Government said that it would have a review to instruct it of the situation. A review was not necessary—the parties in this Parliament could have told the Government that it had not covered self-employed people. As part of that review process we came out with such concepts as “self-employed parents face the same difficulties as employed parents in combining work with childcare”—that is startling stuff! Everybody knew that already. Then we heard that the benefits of paid parental leave are not able to be accessed by the self-employed. Well those kinds of statements were actually made by members in this House in 2002. All we got was a review and people were given a taste of what they were missing out on. Then they were strung out for the next 3 years while the Government got around to doing something about it. 
Over the last 4 years probably over 8000 self-employed people have missed out on parental leave payments. This is not a situation where the Government has a strategic plan that it is working on. This is the case of a Government that is passing ad hoc legislation covering certain areas and it will be found out through that programme. Gaping holes in this case have been identified by the select committee—which still have not been resolved by the Government—and they really influence and show that a wider choice is needed with regard to self-employed people women employee-employer relationships and family arrangements. 
There are some big-picture issues out there that have been discussed during this process: is a lump-sum payment an appropriate way of dealing with this issue? Should we be extending it beyond the issues that we have discussed in this legislation so far? Should we be asking further questions as Paula Bennett has about the role of work and the role of women in the future? Should we be asking questions about the role of families and the role of men in the future as well? Those concepts were not considered either by the Government or the select committee. No all we had at the select committee was a small piece of legislation to cover one tract of this issue and we left a big hole for other people to have to fill in the future. That does not show a Government that has a grand plan. 
The Government does not have a grand plan and it is not looking forward. It is just a Government that fills in when it has to and where it has to. So should we be supporting legislation like this? Yes we should and we are. But we want to see a greater role taken by all Governments in providing in this area and that is a challenge for this Government for this Parliament and for our country. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I want to congratulate the Minister Ruth Dyson for moving another step along the way towards giving parents out there an opportunity to take time off work and care for their children. Yes we did that for employed workers in the past; today we are doing it for self-employed workers. They will be out there saying what a great Labour Government they have and they will be listening to David Bennett who wants to have a baby bonus instead of this very sensible provision. 
The Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill was submitted on by all and sundry and everybody was in favour of it. Not a single submitter opposed it. Can we find a statement in the commentary on the bill from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that anybody was opposed to it and found fault with it? No only David Bennett and some of his colleagues are opposed—not all of his colleagues because some of his colleagues do not believe in that at all but they have been told to stay in the office and not to make a speech. Some of the National Party members said some people will go out and get a job just in order to get this benefit. The fact that one has to have a baby slipped their minds. It was a man—someone who has never given birth—who said that he thought this paid parental leave for the self-employed was such a good deal that people would become pregnant have a baby and look after that child for the rest of their life— 
Darren Hughes 
: Was that Bob Clarkson? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I do not want to mention names. I will just say that a well-known member of the National Party does not agree with David Bennett. 
I am really interested in David Bennett’s position on whangai adoption. I look forward to the debate on his member’s bill next week when he will say that this is a lazy Labour Government and that he will show everybody on the Government side of the House how to do business and that he will get a bill through the National Party caucus to allow all workers and self-employed people to receive paid parental leave in the case of a whangai adoption. I say to David Bennett that he should go for it and we will see whether his colleagues on the Opposition side of the House—particularly Dr Wayne Mapp who has a certain responsibility for these matters—agree with him. I would like to be a fly on the wall in the National caucus room when David Bennett—that trooper—gets his member’s bill drafted heads to the National caucus and says he wants to change the law because it is absolutely hopeless that people who adopt culturally cannot receive paid parental leave. 
I happen to agree with David Bennett on that as did the entire Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that is why we noted that point in the report. David Bennett has a law degree but he does not know that an amendment cannot be made to a bill if it is not within the scope of the bill. In other words one cannot have provision for whangai adoption in a bill that deals only with self-employed people because that would produce an anomaly whereby all the employed people would be unable to receive a payment. So quite rightly the officials said the matter was outside the scope of the bill. One should not need a law degree to understand that point. If a matter is outside the scope of a bill Parliament cannot amend the bill. 
Are members on the Opposition side of the House given training about what to do when they become an MP and about how the law-making process actually works? Obviously not. The member should go back to the National Party school for brand new MPs and find out about the scope of a bill and whether an amendment can be made to it—even if someone wants to do so—if the amendment is outside the scope of the bill. Did David Bennett seek the leave of the House to make a change to the bill? No I did not hear him do that. Did we see an amendment on the Table to change the bill? No. This is just a whole lot of hot air and nobody believes it. 
However what people do believe is that this Government is serious about the ongoing improvement of the law. So if members listened to Minister Dyson’s speech they would have heard her say that a full evaluation was going into the whole question of the parental leave scheme. If that were done in the way that David Bennett wants it to be done employers would be ignored as would Federated Farmers and the Council of Trade Unions; one would just go ahead and change the scheme without a proper review or evaluation process. This Government is not as stupid as that; it would not do that. If we are to evaluate the entire scheme we will ask how it is working for everybody. We will engage with businesses Federated Farmers the National Council of Women the Council of Trade Unions etc. and then we will come back with further improvements. When we do come back I bet National will vote against them. 
This is a great bill. This is an excellent day for the Government and an excellent day for self-employed people. I am very happy to see this legislation finally passed. 
Bill read a third time. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 You may rule me to be out of order but the Hon Mark Gosche made some enlightening comments in that speech. I seek the leave of the House for David Bennett’s bill when he produces it to come straight out of the ballot and go through the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows I will rule that out and I do so right now. 
Historic Places Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. Our heritage has an important role to play in our present and future lives. It helps us to understand who we are in terms of our passage from the events of the past to the society of today. It contributes to our identity as a distinctive and diverse nation in a global environment. The Government is committed to ensuring that the places treasures and stories of our past are preserved and that future generations have access to our unique heritage. 
Although the protection of New Zealand’s heritage is largely the responsibility of communities and local authorities there is also a need for strong leadership at the national level. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has a long and successful track record in promoting the identification protection and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand. The Government values the role of the Historic Places Trust and the role it has played within the existing legislation and notes that demands on the trust’s services have been increasing massively over recent years. 
The trust formerly a statutory body and a non-Crown entity has been established as an autonomous Crown entity through the Crown Entities Act which was passed in 2004. The new structure that is proposed in this legislation ensures that robust accountability procedures and obligations to act prudently in financial management are maintained—for example through the requirement to prepare and report against a statement of intent. The Historic Places Amendment Bill amends the Historic Places Act 1993. It is designed to strengthen the trust’s governance arrangements and consolidate its position as the national body with responsibility for historic heritage issues. The bill does not alter the purpose role or regulatory responsibilities of the trust. Rather than reinventing the wheel the Government has focused on strengthening what is already in place. 
The trust and relevant Government departments were consulted on all proposals incorporated into the bill. In addition consultation on a position paper that was issued in May 2003 was undertaken with local authorities nearly 50 iwi authorities rununga Maori organisations relevant heritage organisations and a range of national bodies that have an interest in historic heritage issues. As a result of that consultation on the position paper 33 submissions were received. It was encouraging that all policy proposals were supported by a significant majority of those submissions. The bill was first read in September 2004 and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. The committee received eight written submissions from interested groups and individuals and heard three of those submissions orally. 
I turn to specific measures that are addressed in the bill. One of the bill’s primary purposes is to reduce the number of trust board members from 11 to nine and to increase the number of Crown appointees from three to six. The provision for three board members to be elected by the trust’s voluntary members is retained. I am aware that the committee’s minority report opposes the increase in Crown appointments. The Government is satisfied however that those measures are appropriate given the Government’s considerable interests in the trust and the importance of the trust’s regulatory responsibilities. Reducing the number of board members will enhance the efficiency of decision making and align the board with statutory organisations of a similar size. Increasing the proportion of Crown appointees will enable appointments to be informed by a better overview of the board’s needs while retaining the valuable input of the board’s elected members. It is expected that the overall effect of the change will be to achieve a greater range of skills and experience in the make-up of the board and to ensure that it is well positioned to fulfil its core functions. 
I note that increasing the proportion of Crown appointees does not in any way compromise the trust’s free and non-political operation. Consequential amendments to the Historic Places Act in the Crown Entities Act state that the Minister may not direct the trust in respect of heritage matters thereby ensuring that the trust will continue to perform its functions independently. 
The bill also addresses the process for compilation of the trust’s register of historical and cultural heritage. The Historic Places Act as it stands requires the trust to notify proposals to register historic and wahi tapu places but does not require notification of proposals to register historic and wahi tapu areas; nor is the trust required to invite submissions on proposals for any part of the register. It is the trust’s practice to publicly notify and invite submissions on all registration proposals. The idea that this practice should be laid down in legislation rather than be reliant on the trust’s policy was one of the recommendations of an independent review of the trust’s processes which was commissioned by the trust and carried out by former Environment Court judge Professor Peter Skelton. Hence the bill includes the requirement for the trust to publicly notify and invite submissions on all registration proposals thus ensuring that those affected by any registration continue to have their views taken into consideration. 
The bill also includes a range of amendments to clarify or adjust certain sections of the Act. These amendments aim to align the Act with other legislation rectify inconsistencies improve the effectiveness of some sections and clarify aspects of the trust’s archaeological authority processes. The bill for example makes it explicit that the term “historic place” can include all historic structures in a group of associated historic buildings. 
After consideration of all submissions the committee has recommended a small number of amendments to the bill as it was introduced to the House last September and the Government concurs with those recommendations. The main amendment relates to section 31(3)(b) in clause 11 and section 32(3)(b) in clause 12. The committee has recommended that written notice of proposals for registration of historic areas and wahi tapu areas need be given only to people whose names and places of residence or business are available to the trust or to the local council. That is in response to a concern expressed by the trust that obtaining the names and addresses of all owners and persons with a registered interest may be impossible especially given that any affected Maori land could have thousands of owners. The other change relates to clause 16. The committee has recommended that the time allowed for the trust to undertake a review of registration be reduced from 2 years to 1 year providing for greater efficiency as well as certainty for property owners. 
A number of issues arose during the process of considering the bill that did not result in recommendations for change but are worthy of note. The first of those relates to the requirements for Maori expertise on the trust board. The bill requires that at least three board members be appointed with regard to their knowledge of Te Ao Maori or a Maori worldview and tikanga Maori Maori protocol and culture. That replaces the provision in the Historic Places Act 1993 that three members of the board must be of Maori ethnicity and is consistent with similar provisions in other recent legislation. The trust presented oral and written submissions expressing its preference that the existing provision that requires at least three people of Maori ethnicity to be on the board be maintained. The trust considers that provision important to ensure credibility and understanding of issues relating to New Zealand’s Maori heritage. The committee did not recommend an amendment however on the principle that appointments should be made on the basis of skills knowledge and experience rather than ethnicity. The Government supports the committee’s view and is confident that the skills and knowledge specified ensure that the trust can effectively perform its role with regard to Maori heritage. 
The trust also pointed out that as a result of its new status as a Crown entity there will no longer be specific provision for a permanent deputy chairperson on the board. Currently the principal Act provides for the trust board to elect its own deputy chair but that provision was repealed by the Crown Entities Act. The position of deputy chair has always been an important one as only three positions are able to exercise some of the statutory delegations in the principal Act. This issue has now been addressed not through a requirement for the responsible Minister to appoint a permanent deputy chair but through consequential amendments to the principal Act and the Crown Entities Act. Those enable the relevant statutory delegations to be exercised by any one of the ministerially appointed members of the trust board. 
The final issue is one raised in the committee’s minority report and relates to the definition of wahi tapu which the report suggests is too broad to be meaningful. There is however no proposal in the bill to amend the definition of wahi tapu as the Government considers the definition in the principal Act to be adequate and the trust has shown it can work effectively within that definition. 
I acknowledge the time and well-considered comments of all those who made submissions. I am also appreciative of the hard work of the members of the Government Administration Committee in considering submissions and fine-tuning the wording of the bill. I also pay my respects to staff of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage who have worked long and hard on this bill along with the staff and members of the trust. The Government believes that this bill with the amendments I have noted will provide a firm foundation for the trust’s continuing operation and I commend the process of this bill through the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to this bill. National opposes this bill on a number of grounds which I will outline to the House in a few moments. 
I say for a start that I do not think many members in the House would object to having a solid framework to protect our historic places. The work that the Historic Places Trust does around New Zealand is acknowledged and I think most people are in support of it. I imagine the Minister Judith Tizard over there is asking why National opposes this bill. It is simple. We have heard debates in this House in the last few days about National’s potential involvement with some American bagman or funding. The Minister is asking what that has to do with historic places. I will tell the Minister. There has never been an involvement with American bagmen or suchlike in terms of National policy but if there had been how bad would that be? The next question asks whether it is better to have a close association with America or with Moscow. I suggest that when we look at the terms in this bill we can find out its origins—and they were not out of the United States. They were straight out of— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Helsinki. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is potentially right but I would suggest that the member go further up the scale than that—right to the heart of socialism. 
What do we find in this bill? For a start we find that the Government will reduce the number of members on the Historic Places Trust board from 11 to nine. That is a fact of the bill. Further when we look at the detail of that we see that there will be an increase in the number of Crown-appointed members from three to six. Well what do we describe that as if not socialism? What is that if it is not State control? The State is saying it knows best. The State is saying the board clearly is not competent and it will appoint people to the board and will instruct the outfit on how it should run its business. The tentacles from the ninth floor that have been well documented by various magazines have now reached out into the Historic Places Trust and will manage it. I say to the House that the National Party will always oppose that kind of State intervention. 
But let us go beyond that and look at the likely effects of that State intervention. When we talk about a historic place we are being very subjective. Some people place much higher emphasis on certain types of historic structures and places than others. I will give members an example. If members were to travel in the electorate I represent Taranaki - King Country they would find a whole lot of derelict dairy factories. I will give a little bit of a history lesson now. Chew Chong a Chinaman in Taranaki was the founder of the New Zealand dairy industry. As a result a whole lot of proprietary and cooperative companies sprang up and they built factories generally on the side of a river somewhere. Those factories were very much the hub of the community. As time went on those factories were replaced. In the first instance they were usually wooden structures. Some of them burnt down and some of them became inadequate and they were replaced with substantial concrete structures based on British design that were designed to last for 200 or 300 years. So they were substantial structures. 
Predominantly the workforce in those factories was Maori—not entirely but predominantly they were of Maori descent. Around the factories sprang up little villages. Generally there was a marae nearby. Maori did then what Maori do now: they endorsed their culture. I endorse the renaissance in Maori culture today. I think it is a great thing for New Zealand; it shows diversity. 
But here is a question for members: if a major development were to go on in Taranaki today and it needed to go smack-bang through the middle of such a factory would the factory be deemed historic given that it has been derelict for 30 or 40 years? In some cases no more than the concrete walls have survived as the roof has long gone. If the Government wanted to put through a roading project or something like that the factory would be demolished without even the slightest consideration. But if in the process of doing that someone were to dig up a former hangi pit and find some paua shells and a few hangi stones the project would be stopped overnight. I ask the House what the basis is for that kind of irrational thinking. Why is a much higher significance placed on one kind of artefact or historic circumstance brought about by virtue of the geographical environment people are living in although another kind is deemed to be valueless? 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Before we rose for dinner I was reminding the House of how hard and at times controversial it is to establish what people have in their minds when they think of a historic place. I used the example of the many old dairy factories in Taranaki. Of course the dairy industry is New Zealand’s biggest export industry. There are many derelict dairy factories around Taranaki. A lot of them are being demolished by landowners at the moment. The point I made in trying to demonstrate to the House why the National Party is opposing this bill is that over the years those dairy factories were staffed predominantly by Maori. Typically little villages sprung up around the factories and they adopted a lot of Maori culture. No doubt some Maori artefacts are buried around and near those factories. 
One of the reasons why the National Party is uncomfortable with this bill is that if a major development—for example a roading project—was to take place and it was to go smack-bang through the middle of one of those dairy factories not too much would be said. The factory building would be bowled over even though it might have been constructed of solid concrete with walls up to 2 feet thick in places. It might have been designed by English engineers to last 400 years. The building may be very significant in terms of the history of the province but it would be bowled over and not too much thought given to it. But if during the course of bowling it over and putting in a road the contractors were to discover for example a hangi pit lined with hangi stones and full of paua shells or similar things then would the project be allowed to continue? That is the question. 
That brings me to the point that the National Party made in its minority report in relation to the definition of wahi tapu and issues relating to Maori history and artefacts. I put it to the House tonight that the definition is unclear. 
There are many examples I could use to show that such a development would be stopped. Despite the fact that a substantial building has something to do with the history and fabric of the district it would be absolutely bowled over. Potentially the project would be stopped because of some buried artefact that was deemed to be culturally sensitive or a remnant of a bygone era. However it is important to bear in mind that most of the building’s construction and development would have been in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century and therefore the building itself would be historic and significant. 
The National Party opposes the bill on that basis—those two primary concerns. It opposes the proposal relating to the board membership. As I said earlier the changes to the board give the ninth floor tentacles the ability to stretch out into even the Historic Places Trust. In other words it is socialism gone mad. By taking out the elected members of the trust board and putting in Government plants—people who have got the tick from the ninth floor who clearly will know what a historic place is and who clearly will have a lot of respect for old dairy factories in Taranaki—the reality is that the Government will be deciding what decisions are made and when and what is and is not a historic place. National objects to that. Further I say to members of Parliament here tonight—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a gentleman in the gallery throwing stuff and yelling out. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He is being dealt with at the moment Mr Tisch. I am sorry that happened. He was clearly very unhappy about something. 
A disturbance took place in the gallery and a member of the public was removed. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am sure it was nothing to do with what I said. 
The second point that the National Opposition opposes is the definition of wahi tapu—and things Maori in that regard—and the ramifications of that definition. 
So I say to members in the House tonight that they should go back and look at those issues. The Minister Judith Tizard has the chance to have another look to bring in a finer definition and to leave the trust board of directorate as it stands at the moment rather than impose a no doubt well-considered ninth floor view of the world on the trust. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support the Historic Places Amendment Bill as it did in the first reading. Generally we are supportive of the bill and its focus on improving governance tightening accountability and clarifying definitions. But we have a couple of problems with it and I foreshadow that we will be proposing a couple of amendments in the Committee of the whole House tomorrow. 
I will say just a few words about the Historic Places Trust. Basically New Zealand’s historic places are still largely unprotected. There is huge variation in the way regional and territorial authorities carry out their functions under the Resource Management Act in relation to heritage sites. Large areas of our heritage have been bowled already and only just now are we are coming to understand and appreciate our heritage. European countries and others jealously protect their heritage and historic places. In New Zealand we are very cavalier. Huge amounts of our heritage have been demolished already and our cities and the whole landscape are the poorer for it. 
Unfortunately the trust is something of a toothless dragon. It does not have the teeth or the strength to really protect our heritage. In my experience it mostly compromises and capitulates when confronted by an authority such as a local body or Transit. In fact I think Transit has an understanding with the trust that if it wants the site of a historic place to become a road the trust will not stand in its way. The most historic area of Wellington Te Aro which is a wonderful heritage area has basically been removed in order to build a motorway. Basically the trust just capitulated and allowed 46 historic homes to be knocked down or shifted. So it is unfortunate that the trust does not have more teeth and is not more of an advocate for the preservation of New Zealand’s heritage. We wish that the bill conferred more power on the trust. Regrettably it does not do so; it is focused almost entirely on changing the trust’s governance arrangements. 
One of our amendments relates to the Maori membership of the board of the trust. The bill proposes that three members of the board no longer have to be Maori; they just have to have knowledge of Maori and of tikanga Maori. The trust and the Maori Heritage Council opposed that proposal; so do the Greens for two reasons. It almost redefines the definition of Maori so that in future there will not have to be Maori members on this or that organisation; all there will have to be is someone who claims to have knowledge of Maori or of tikanga Maori. That is an unfortunate precedent which is what the trust stated in its submission on the bill. It stated that whakapapa is the foundation of Maori identity as tangata whenua and it is the essential relationship between Maori and their historical and cultural heritage. So six of the nine places on the board remain open to non-Maori. We think a Maori should be defined as someone who is Maori. Therefore we will put forward an amendment to that provision. Let us not just use the bill to redefine the entire definition of who is Maori and who is not. 
We have another amendment to the bill. Under the bill the trust Board would be given discretion about whether it would impose an interim protection when publicly notifying of a review of a change of the category—say from a category II to a category I status. Basically we are concerned that giving the board discretion could effectively amount to a loophole that could mean it would not have to impose interim protections or injunctions. So we will propose an amendment that effectively provides that the board would have to issue a protection order unless it puts up very good reasons why it would not want to do so. They are minor amendments but they are important and we hope we will get support in the Committee for them. 
It is a tragedy that so much of our heritage and so many of our historic buildings have already been demolished. I know that most Wellingtonians were horrified last year when they woke up and found that a magnificent historic building on Lambton Quay was virtually being demolished under their eyes. They were horrified that the trust had not protected that building. Why is the trust not much more of an advocate? Why is it not protecting magnificent historic places and heritage buildings? It is something that mystifies many people. They also cannot understand why there should be such variations. 
In a town like Wanganui for example the council has been fantastic in protecting Wanganui’s historic buildings. As a result one of the great features of towns like Wanganui and Timaru is that they have fantastic heritage buildings. The city councils have advocated for those buildings and protected them. Now they are treasures and they are the reason why people go to Wanganui and Timaru and indeed to places like Dunedin. But other cities like Wellington and Auckland do not— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Oamaru! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Thank you. What would Oamaru be without those magnificent heritage buildings? 
It is a shame that although there are councils that jealously protect their magnificent buildings others allow them to be bulldozed and demolished—like Wellington which has allowed the oldest most historic precinct in our city to be demolished for a motorway. The Green members think that is tragic. Nevertheless we will support the bill and its changes to governance and accountability so that the trust becomes a Crown entity. We wish that the bill gave more teeth to what is a rather toothless entity but regrettably it has a rather narrow set of amendments. However we hope we will have the support of members for the amendments we will propose in Committee tomorrow. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of our spokesperson Dr Pita Sharples who is at another function at the moment. When the Historic Places Bill came before this House in 1954 Duncan Rae MP for Eden told Parliament that: “No country can afford to neglect its history.” Such a concept touches every Maori heart. The call: “Kia u kia mau ki to Maoritanga” encourages Maori to be firm in holding on to the richness of our culture—our spiritual beliefs customs literature myths legends and many other aspects that give meaning to our life. 
Within that world view Maori appreciate the enduring role of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in promoting the care of our historic places. For over 50 years the trust has protected and preserved heritage landscapes sites and buildings including cultural sites of significance to Maori. 
Concerning those early days we were interested to read of the contributions of Eruera Tihema Tirikatene a member for Southern Maori who served in this House from 1932 through to 1967. We have been here before. Mr Tirikatene talked about the importance of marking and maintaining places of historic value to the Maori people and drew on the example of the Wairau massacre which he referred to as “… not a massacre at all … but rather an unfortunate misunderstanding.” He challenged the trust to bring history up to date in revitalising the debate to address the history known to Ngati Toa and in describing the tragic death of Rongo Rangihaeata’s wife and Te Rauparaha’s relative. He concluded: “No doubt it will be the Trust’s function to record all such places and their history so that they will not be lost to future generations.” 
Such an incentive provides us with a strong foundation for our future. In order to shape a strong future Maori have sought certainty in the development of legal and policy mechanisms to protect Maori cultural heritage including matauranga Maori. That is central to who we are and this bill should have been one would think a key piece of legislation for Maori members of Government to have an input into. The Maori Party looked forward to considering this bill as an important means of preserving Maori heritage projects. 
However we have been disappointed with what we have found. There are three key areas of concern. The first is the appointment of board members. As with the Green Party the Maori Party is also greatly concerned about the newly redefined requirements for Maori board members to serve on the board of the Historic Places Trust. New section 42(3) substituted by clause 19 requires the Minister to appoint at least three board members with “… knowledge of te ao Maori … and tikanga Maori …” thus replacing the knowledge and ethnicity requirements of the principal Act as the prerequisite for board membership. Knowledge by itself does not necessarily bring understanding. Neither for that matter does ethnicity by itself. It is the combination of both whakapapa and knowledge that provides the wisdom required. As Keri Hulme said in her Booker Prize - winning classic of literary heritage  
The Bone People 
: “They are nothing more than people by themselves … But all together they had become the heart muscles and mind of something perilous and new something strong and growing great. Together all together they were instruments of change.” Instruments of change do not come through people who simply satisfy an academic requirement without knowing the cultural meaning of heritage. This concerns phenomenology; it concerns the lived experience. 
It is for that reason we will be supporting the Green Party amendment that recommends the specific insertion of “be Maori …”. in new section 42(3) substituted by clause 19. Indeed that amendment is in line with submissions from both the Historic Places Trust and the Maori Heritage Council. It is another tragic indictment on this Parliament that the select committee heard a range of submissions against that provision but did not act on those objections. The Maori Party suggests that an even more effective means of achieving representation would have been to call for nominees mandated by hapu and iwi—that is if the Government were genuine about effective Maori representation. 
The second key failing in the bill is around the notification requirements. The bill proposes that in order to register a historic or wahi tapu area the trust is required to ascertain the names and addresses of people or owners with a registered interest. When we consider the reality of Maori land ownership we know there are often hundreds even thousands of owners who have ownership in minute fractions. If such land were to be included in a proposal for registration it might be impossible for both the Historic Places Trust and the relevant council to deliver to such unworkable expectations. However the Maori Party objects in the strongest of terms to any suggestion as posed by the select committee that notice should be given only to such owners and persons whose names and places of residence are known to the trust or council. That makes an absolute mockery of the democratic process if eligibility for notification relies solely on being known. If selection processes restrict that knowledge to only those who are known to the trust or council the nation cannot be assured that the sacred responsibility of protecting wahi tapu will actually be followed. On the basis of that reason alone there is no way in which the Maori Party can support a bill that stands to exclude and marginalise so many of our people. 
A third key objection the Maori Party has to this bill is in relation to its inability to provide appropriate protection for wahi tapu. In approaching the bill we asked whether the amendments would actively create positive protection mechanisms for Maori land or for water-based cultural landscape and heritage. As this House will be aware numerous reports and reviews have set out major concerns for adequate protection mechanisms for Maori cultural heritage or landscape: namely the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report of 1995 on Maori heritage the Department of Conservation Historic Heritage Management Review of 1996 and the more recent Heritage Landscapes Think Tank of 2003. 
Of course iwi and hapu are not confident that the Historic Places Trust can provide positive protection. They have instead resorted to their own internally or externally funded initiatives on tribal lands. Iwi and hapu have wanted to ensure that cultural and natural landscapes are maintained for future generations. As guardians and custodians of whenua tangata and taonga we feel a duty of responsibility and obligation to preserve our historic heritage for our future descendants. 
In essence the bill has no teeth. It is of the utmost importance that Maori customary and cultural heritage values be protected and preserved for those who will follow us. I think back to the decision from the Environment Court in 2004 that a 4-lane highway be built over an ancient burial ground adjacent to Takamore urupa not that far from here. Did that mean that the direct descendants of Te Whiti o Rongomai Te Puni Kokopu of Te Atiawa and Ngati Mutunga o Waikanae were about to have their sacred grounds desecrated? Did the Environment Court really believe that those people whose descendants lay in Takamore urupa would allow a highway to be built over their wahi tapu carved waka and buried whare? The Historic Places Trust stepped in to support the Takamore trustees and lodged its own appeal but it all turned to nought. All appeals were dismissed and the kuia and kaumatua were told to go home. 
Our belief is that we must strengthen the protective powers of the Historic Places Trust and the Maori Heritage Council not diminish them but the bill does nothing to advance that. Maori are already taking responsibility for their land and water-based cultural heritage as responsible and obligated guardians for areas within tribal land and particularly for wahi tapu. The Maori Party recognises the significance of those practices in safeguarding taonga of heritage value and we commend the long-term vision of the people in establishing a pathway forward. E kore e hekeheke he kakano rangatira; the noble heritage will not perish. The Maori Party is not able to support this bill but we will continue to support all brave efforts to make historic heritage protection a matter of genuine importance. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call because New Zealand First did not have a member on the Government Administration Committee. Looking through the composition of the select committee I see that it was really quite an unusual one particularly for the last Parliament and for this one as well in the sense that it is made up of only five members—three of whom are from Labour and two of whom are from National. This is almost a first-past-the-post select committee. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There were three each. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Not according to the report back which has Dianne Yates as chairperson Shane Ardern as deputy chairperson and Steve Chadwick the Hon David Cunliffe and Lindsay Tisch. That makes five members. If there were three each I ask the member how he gets the sixth. I am reading the report back which is what we are debating. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You stupid stupid man. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No hang on a second that is— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but I think a quite unparliamentary comment was made by Tau Henare and he should withdraw. I hope Brian Donnelly will get the respect he deserves from members in this House. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: My colleague used the term “silly man”. I do not know that that is unparliamentary. It is a debating point at the end of the day and I do not think it was unruly. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Whatever was said was directed at Brian Donnelly. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: If I was called a silly man which of course comes from the Old English “shallow” at least I know what three and three makes; it is six and not five. I actually knew that when I was in my first year at school. Obviously after all the years that Tau Henare was at school he still does not understand that three and three does not make five. 
I was trying to make the point that we have a select committee here that really operated under the old first-past-the-post system. I do not necessarily agree that the National minority view was totally and passionately believed in by the members themselves. I want to make a couple of points about the view they have taken. The first is that they are concerned that the number of members of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust is coming down from 11 to nine. That seems a bit stupid because they keep saying that we should be reducing bureaucracy all the time but now they want to maintain high levels and it does not fit. The inconsistency of National policy continues to flow across this House. 
The second point is that at the present time six of the board members are elected by the trust. What the bill is saying is that those members should be put in place by the elected representatives of the people who have a direct concern or interest in this themselves. New Zealand First says that the balance has to be there. We believe that it is those people—the Government—who have been elected by the people of New Zealand and who are spending taxpayers’ money to ensure that these activities are going through who have the primary responsibility in ensuring their objectives are achieved through the selection of people to go on that board. New Zealand First does not have a great concern. There will still be three people who will be selected by representatives of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and we think that is good. 
I listened to the speech made by Shane Ardern just before tea. He made a very interesting point because I know exactly the area—Rahotu Pungarehu Okato etc—that he was talking about. He was saying that one can get rid of the dairy companies and take down the old buildings but if there is a paua pit down below unfortunately that has nothing to do with this particular bill. [ 
Interruption 
] That is in the principal Act not this bill. The member was on the select committee and he knows it has nothing to do with this. 
I make another point that the National minority view also states that the bill fails to provide a satisfactory solution to the contentious issue of wahi tapu. It does not clean up the definition. I looked through this bill and I failed to see any definition of wahi tapu in it. There is no definition in there at all. In other words what National members are saying is that they are opposing this bill because of a definition in other legislation. Well clean up the other bill. I ask those members to put up a member’s bill and clean up the other bill but do not oppose this. Their behaviour is typically first-past-the post behaviour in that they are opposing for the sake of opposing. They do not sit there and think what is in the best interests of New Zealand or the taxpayers of New Zealand. 
I want to make one other point—and I think it is an important one. It is a very important point to New Zealand First and it is where we disagree with the Maori Party and the Green Party. Quite rightly this bill requires the appointment of three people who have a knowledge and understanding of nga tikanga Maori. Section 42(3) in clause 19 states: “At least 3 of the persons appointed under subsection 1(b) must in the opinion of the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs be qualified for appointment having regard to their knowledge of te ao Maori (Maori world view) and tikanga Maori (Maori protocol and culture).” New Zealand First believes that that is the right approach not that there should be three people who are Maori or who can demonstrate Maori ethnicity. It is in fact the knowledge that people have that should be brought to bear on the decision making of that particular body. 
It is absolutely true that there will be very few occasions when those people who are appointed under that clause will not be Maori. That would be very unlikely. I taught in Te Araroa on the East Coast. [ 
Interruption 
] Tau Henare knows Te Araroa; he has a property there. There is a school called Te Waha-o-Rerekohu. We had a teacher in Maori and he was the carving expert of that area. Yet he did not have a drop of Maori blood in him but he did have an expertise and knowledge that was greater than others in that area at that time. I am not saying that he had the level of expertise to go on this board—I do not believe that would be right—but I believe that the approach the bill is taking to those issues is the right one. It is the one advocated by New Zealand First and therefore we endorse it. This is not a huge piece of legislation but it is one that New Zealand First will be voting for because we think it makes some sensible changes to the current arrangements. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak against the Historic Places Amendment Bill. This bill is yet another plank on the stairway of Labour’s limp legacy. Labour says it will be remembered for things—Labour’s limp legacy of gross over-regulation. When I come into the House week by week I am alarmed to see the ever-mounting movement towards over-regulation. One sees it in select committee work one hears it in debates such as this one and somewhat insidiously one hears about it in Orders in Council. 
There are not many avenues in life left where this Government has left any life. It saps the life out of everything it touches by stealth such as the on-again off-again approach to private property access by the public on farms by tortuous manipulation of the real facts such as with Plunket or in the case of this bill by over-regulation and through supplanting the present governance system. 
The intention is to reduce the present number of board members from 11 down to nine. We heard Government members say there are no problems with that; it is reducing bureaucracy and that surely that is in keeping with National Party policy. But listeners know as well as I do that things are not always as they seem under this Government. I am truly sorry to say that I had hoped for better— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So do we! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I am sure you do. In company with the many people I speak to in the community some who perhaps previously supported Labour we have to look at everything that Labour says to check for the hidden bits. The Government asks what is the problem in reducing board membership from 11 to nine. The problem is that of the nine six will be appointed by the Minister. That flies in the face of community democracy. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who are they appointed by now? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Read the bill. They are ministerial appointments. We will see the board stuffed with Labour Party ideological sycophants a cluster of clerks cronies who come in all shapes and sizes nowadays all crooning the party song. They will exploit the trust for party political ends rather than serving the historical purposes of the trust. It is not even Labour philosophy I would suggest. It is more about the institutions of Parliament being altered to better reflect the image of the Prime Minister’s personal programme. 
That there is a programme is not in doubt. The Government is moving flat tack to batten down and lock up every free-thinking community representative body as quickly as it can. What is wrong with having community elected representatives? The answer is that they will not necessarily follow the party line and increasingly that is the requirement of the present Labour-Progressive - part-time New Zealand First - part-time United Future coalition Government. I say “present” because I do not think it has much of a future. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Really! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I really do not. The talk is we are already seeing people sneakily “leakily” showing bits of the Budget—fairly major bits—and stealing what little thunder the Budget might have had. The resultant document will be a pop rather than a bang. Why did that happen? Did someone wish to escalate himself or herself through being first with the news? Did someone wish to accelerate the demise of the current Minister of Finance? Who knows what the intentions are and what is lingering in the lobbies. But it is sad that the only plum that can be pulled out of the pie is that the Government is debt-free at a time when “New Zealand Incorporated” has never been in greater debt. It is a little bit like Little Jack Horner pulling out a plum and saying: “Oh what a good boy am I!” But I doubt whether there will be accolades on either side of the House. 
The Historic Places Amendment Bill shows scant regard for the protection of property rights. Property rights of ownership must be superior to any other claim over the property but I am apprehensive about that being the case if we have a stacked deck. Labour presently is showing scant regard for property owners’ rights so I find it a big stretch of the imagination to expect a Labour-appointed board to show regard for private property rights. That is in the bill. 
I have great regard for the comments made by other colleagues who have been insightful in their consideration of the definition of wahi tapu. Let us remember that when Europeans first came here life would have been pretty rugged for the Maori people. I believe that the average male life expectancy was 22 years. The wahi tapu will of necessity have been a small discrete area of sacredness as suggested by experts at Waikato University.Maori people would not have had the capacity to embrace large areas of land any more than the early Europeans could particularly in regions of difficult topography. 
Coming to Parliament as I do from the West Coast and Tasman regions I am conscious of the feelings of people in those regions towards their heritage. That too is an added concern to me in relation to the representation on the board. For where does the interaction come from with local communities? That is a question that perhaps members opposite would care to answer. But I do not think they will. Coasters in particular have concern that the emphasis put on Coast heritage matters by those outside the Coast do not adequately represent the aspirations and views of the local people towards their heritage. Heritage is a very important factor down there. So much of the early heritage is at risk and I am not sure that the amendments really serve the purpose that is required. 
Darren Hughes 
: I like your tie the best. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you for your kind comments on my dress sense. I have never pretended to be particularly sartorial but if I dress in the best tradition of some of the previous leaders of the country it is an emulation that is worthwhile. 
Hon Member 
: When he is the leader of the country? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No but many have been who dressed particularly well. I like my waistcoat because it hides the interconnection above the belt and below the belt. 
The same concern over representation has been expressed by my Maori Party parliamentary colleague Mr Hone Harawira over Maori representation on the board. I have a feeling of support for his view. 
 To summarise we have real concern over the stealthy move towards controlling the board by ministerial appointment the weak definition of wahi tapu the lack of Maori representation and the continuing limp legacy of Labour towards endless over-regulation. Finally it occurred to me that there are more aspects of sanctity of things sacred than just property. We are not talking just about Maori issues. Indeed on level 3 in Parliament House today I passed a portrait of Sir Winston Churchill. He was a truly great leader. His memory is sacred to me. I have stood where he stood and where he wrote. What he wrote I have read. I have listened to what he said and I have known men whom he led. I have heard someone in this House claiming to be a namesake and to imply familiarity in emulation of the real Churchill—certainly through having the same spelling of his first name. I find that that can offend my memory of a great historic leader. For the same person to claim familiarity with a great leader while clutching a file of other people’s correspondence— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I must insist. That member is making it up as he goes along. If he has one shred of evidence to back up what he is saying he should please present it or stop lying. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I know the last word the member used but I think the member is making reference to historical matters. That is his view of it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He was saying that I have claimed some affinity with my namesake— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not think he did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —and holding a bunch of papers. I am saying to him— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know what the member is saying but he did not say that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes he did. If you look at the  
Hansard 
 you will see he made that claim and I know I have never done that ever in this House or outside it. The member is not going to get away with making up that sort of stuff as the National Party is wont to do now. He has just made up a story come down to the Chamber and implanted it into people’s minds. It even made TV tonight—the 6 o’clock news—but they know it is not true. They got away with making out it is and he is saying this right now. Frankly he is not going to get away with it. If he keeps it up there will be disorder in this House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He has not got away with it because you have had your say. We will leave it at that point. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is a convention—in fact it is in the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
—that members are not allowed to call somebody a liar in this House. I ask you to ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to withdraw and apologise. My colleague has taken great offence to it. I ask you to do what is expected of a Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: In the context of what was going on I did not propose to take any action. But the member at whom it was aimed is entitled to take objection. If he does I will get the member to withdraw. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I take objection Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the member takes objection he surely does so on the basis he has some integrity that is being challenged. Now perhaps he could put it on the line by tabling the evidence he has or be a man and apologise to me. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No it is a debating matter. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: To conclude for the same person to claim familiarity with a great leader while clutching a file of other people’s correspondence to try to boost his own reputation at the expense of someone else’s is something that to me Winston Churchill would find repugnant. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 He just did it again and therefore I have seen a way out that may be a compromise. Given that the research unit obviously wrote that speech and got a number of the words out of sync with the way he spoke in his speech I seek leave for an extension of time so that the member can finish his speech with the different ending that the research unit obviously wrote for him because he repeated the sin twice. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot seek leave for another member. He may seek leave himself and the House may well grant it but that is up to Mr Auchinvole. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to say to the previous speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes that is another genius from the National Party who will be here for 5 seconds before she goes. I say to the previous speaker that he made a comment at the end of his speech about a claim that I had made. If he is any sort of a gentleman he will produce evidence to this House tonight to back up what he said or he will get up and apologise. I tell the MP from the West Coast not to listen to Mr Henare but to listen to the member who is asking him to back up what he said or be known around the West Coast as someone who does not behave like a West Coaster. 
The previous speaker made a claim that he knows he cannot back up and the reason is that the National Party drafted his speech for him and sent him here innocently naively and wantonly to repeat a lie—something that is not true and National knows is not true. It is just like Gerry Brownlee’s comment today about Mr Foote having got funds from America. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s that got to do with this speech? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He raised the issue. He made the point twice. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am allowing the member at least 2 minutes in rebuttal; then he will come to the bill. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Here is the real point. The member came to the Chamber with a National research unit speech. He was challenged on it and he still could not finish the speech after points of order without repeating the allegation which was false. I will ask him one more time. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I seek leave to table my speech notes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave to table his speech notes. He has sought leave at the wrong time but he is entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I do not want people to find out that he was the person who wrote that speech. He was asked during the time he was delivering it who wrote that rubbish. He did not say he had done so but now he is saying that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Can we now come to the bill. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This has gone beyond making a point. [ 
Interruption 
] I know the member has to speak but he is implying that my colleague who has spoken was referring to him. I have been listening to this debate at length. There is no justification for what the member is saying and I ask that he be pulled into line and asked to talk about the bill that is before the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sure he will talk about the bill. That is sufficient in rebuttal. But it is not right to say that the previous speaker was not referring to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He was referring to him. That is my view of it and  
Hansard 
 will show that too. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the course of the point of order raised by the chief National whip he was interjected on very loudly by Mr Henare. I wonder whether you heard that because you did not appear to reprimand him for interjecting on his own whip. There is an understanding that members will hear points of order in silence. I cannot see why Mr Henare does not believe there should be one law for all in that regard. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is absolutely right and perhaps I was a bit lenient. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What has been evidenced— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: When did you get a copy of the bill? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It has been around a long time whilst that member was out of Parliament for the last few years— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And look what happened. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —whilst that member was not in Parliament. The listeners to tonight’s radio broadcast of Parliament will have detected that National Party members are very good at dishing it out but boy do they have a thin skin when they have to take it—and take it they will. This is an unfair contest actually; they should all be here. While I am at it where is the “Dead Man Walking”? 
Anyway I come back to the point I wanted to mention in particular. Clause 19 of the bill inserts new section 42 “Membership of Board” into the principal Act. Subclause (3) provides: “At least 3 of the persons appointed under subsection (1)(b) must in the opinion of the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs be qualified for appointment having regard to their knowledge of te ao Maori (Maori worldview)”— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Te Ao Maori. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That was no expert in Maori language who just shouted out over there. People can just ask any Maori in this Parliament whether or not he is an expert. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: More expert than you are bro. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well that is true but in a very limited way. Subclause (3) goes on to state: “and tikanga Maori (Maori protocol and culture).” 
What is important is that that is the way to make appointments: on the basis of qualifications capacity and ability rather than just by saying we will make an ethnic choice and hope for the best. New Zealand First has always subscribed to doing that—which is one of the reasons why having argued for a long long time for appointments to be based on ability and talent regardless of race we were disappointed to have a political party come along and purloin our policies. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes! Do members see? As I said at the time it is one thing to walk out of a saloon and steal a man’s horse but it is something else to stay on its back while he is heading out of town. 
The National Party is voting against clause 19. National is not voting for it; it is voting against it. Although that party can purloin policy it does not have any understanding of commitment to or comprehension of what is being said here. That is why one day those members support the Maori Party and the next day they do not. National’s deputy leader has said he wants the Maori seats to remain and the leader says that he does not want that. 
Paula Bennett 
: What year are you in? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: National members say they are in favour of the Maori Land Court one day and it goes the next day. Then those members walk out on a powhiri. Along come the three women—so-called—steeped in Maori culture of course. One of them Ms Bennett is sitting over there. They say they do not care what Maori protocol is and that it has to be changed to their protocol because they are National Party MPs—or in other words they are goddesses. 
Eric Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have cautioned the member to come to the bill now and he is again attacking members in a way that has no relevance at all to the debate that should be in progress. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am trying to make an analogy— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know what you were trying to do. Could you come back to the bill please. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well how was I going? [ 
Interruption 
] Do members see the issue? If they look at subclause (3) of clause 19 and have it explained to them by people who do know what they are talking about—namely Mr Donnelly and myself—then they will see that that is the way to choose people for their positioning rather than on the basis of ethnicity and the hope that somehow because a person is Maori he or she will be right and good for Maori culture. On many occasions in the past that has not been what has happened. 
Just by way of illustration I say we have to understand Maori culture in order to comprehend what Mr Donnelly and I are saying and what New Zealand First is saying. Members cannot go swanning along to a powhiri sit themselves down the front and say they are goddesses of the National Party—they are MPs—and regardless of what Maori have been doing for a thousand years because those members are so important they want Maori to change their protocol. When we look at subclause (3) we have to understand the full ambience and nuances of Maori culture. I could ask those of us who are Scottish whether they have ever seen a Scottish clan led by a woman. Aha we do not see that do we? It is OK for the National Party to behave like that but when it comes to Maori those members are all over the place—and I knew that when Tau arrived in this House he would be no help at all in that respect. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 It is good to see the leader of New Zealand First here in the House after 7.30 p.m.—absolutely! I tell you what I love democracy! I love democracy and the way the people in New Zealand First could let him be leader. That is OK. Democracy says that anybody can be leader—and he is a glaring example of the fact that anybody could be leader of a ragtag bunch of spent silly old men. That is what they are. But more to the point when the leader of New Zealand First talks about culture and about taha Maori and Te Ao Maori I would have expected that he would at least be able to pronounce his own native tongue properly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh they do not like it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is why I seek leave to table our caucus minutes for the relevant caucus day when Mr Tau Henare sought to mount a coup and could not get a seconder. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although I love the comedy act coming from the other side of the House the problem I have with it—[ 
Interruption 
]—and there is another shining example of what I am about to say—is that for 6 months that man over there who purports to be the leader of New Zealand First and the Minister of Foreign Affairs has continually abused the Standing Orders by seeking a point of order when it is not actually a point of order. Somewhere—[ 
Interruption 
] And again we have interjections on a point of order. It is the same thing that Mr Ron Mark was talking about this afternoon Mr Deputy Speaker. What are we to do? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are to continue with discussion on this bill. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I sought leave— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would the member hold on please. There have been some exchanges and I have to say that Mr Peters did not start it. I am not going to say who started it. Those exchanges are welcome in this Chamber and it is good to put some life into it. But do not get too personal and do not get too touchy about it. That is my advice. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well now we know— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Despite what the Hon Tau Henare has just put to you—and I understand he has been away from the House for a very long time so he may not be familiar with the Standing Orders any longer—the point of order put to you was to seek leave. That is a perfectly legitimate point of order. Mr Henare as a former aspiring leader of New Zealand First knows that it is. His point of order therefore becomes a non - point of order and it behoves you as Deputy Speaker to put the leave. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Which is exactly what I have done. I asked members and the member speaking to get on with the debate and to come back to the bill. I have been quite lenient up to now and I have enjoyed it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: What is your point of order? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: My point of order is that you have the audacity to say to me to get back to the bill after what we have heard. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When I say “go back” you know what I mean. Do not use that word in this Chamber directed at me. Withdraw it and apologise. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I will go back to the bill. What we heard from that member over there who conveniently came down to this House after 7.30—it is now half-past 8—speaking on this bill and he did not even have the courtesy to pick up a copy of the bill until 2 minutes before the end of his speech. He knows nothing about it. I thought he might be a good lawyer but I am sorry—even in 2 minutes he did not understand it. The Hon Brian Donnelly said that wahi tapu was mentioned nowhere in this bill. Is that what the member said? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes he did! We were all here and he said so—and he can check the  
Hansard 
. He said that nowhere in the bill was wahi tapu mentioned. But hang on—I love doing these quizzes—I have found at least three mentions of it and they are not even in the commentary. [ 
Interruption 
] I must have hit a raw nerve. The whole caucus of New Zealand First has taken time off from their extracurricular activities to come down to the House—[ 
Interruption 
] At least one of them is on duty. I wonder what the other four are doing down here after 7.30 p.m. 
Hon Member 
: Falling asleep. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right. The Minister over there is falling asleep. He does it every time. He comes to the House and falls asleep. Anyway I will get back to the bill. The last half-hour of debate was really good until the Rt Hon Winston Peters made a fool of himself. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Donnelly says that there were only five people on the Government Administration Committee but hello that was in the last Parliament. I know about early-stage dementia. That is what this is—loss of memory. In the last Parliament five people were on the committee but now this is a new Parliament. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table page 5 of the report back from the select committee which states the committee membership and clearly shows that there were five members on the select committee that reported this bill back to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order to seek to table something but members should do it at the end of a member’s speech. Please do not break up the member when he is making so much noise. Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Let us get down to the tintacks of wahi tapu. I have spent more time than I really should have on that Minister over there—the one who said he paid for all the wine-box stuff but did not. The amount of $1.5 million was paid by the Government to the member’s lawyer Brian Henry. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker under the Standing Order about relevance. I do not believe that this has any relevance to the report back of this legislation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Can we go back to the bill please. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. The amount of $1.5 million went to Brian Henry. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member must go back to the bill otherwise his speech could be terminated. I did not say it would be but it could be. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I got out what I wanted to say and everybody heard it. The whole of the country is wahi tapu. The whole of the country could be classed as wahi tapu. That is why there is no clear definition of wahi tapu in this bill nor in any other bill. This bill is called the Historic Places Amendment Bill even though on three or four occasions it mentions wahi tapu—not only in the commentary but also in a number of clauses. That is why the National Party opposes this legislation. It is not the only reason we oppose this bill; we also oppose it because it makes reference to the affected parties. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes the member Ron Mark used to be the whip—he used to have some sort of authority in New Zealand First. That will not last very long. The bill refers to: “any incorporated society or body corporate engaged in or having as one of its objects the protection of historical and cultural heritage:”. That means that anybody in New Zealand can have a go at a so-called wahi tapu or so-called historic place. That cannot be right when the only people are “relevant parties”. The beginning of the bill refers to “relevant parties” but later on it states that any group in this country is an affected party as long as it is either a body corporate or a trust that is set up specifically for historic purposes. Anybody in this country— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: But you want to keep the membership that has been voted on by the Historic Places Trust. You’re confusing your own argument. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh dear. The member said that he used to teach in Te Araroa. Let me tell this House that every one of those 162 people who live in Te Araroa are absolutely happy that he is not there any more. They are absolutely happy that he is a member of Parliament. But I shall get back to the bill. National has another issue. I do not know whether to say that it borders on totalitarianism but the Government is now seeking to appoint nearly everybody—in fact the vast majority of members—on to the trust. [ 
Interruption 
] I would rather the Historic Places Trust did it than the bozos up on the ninth floor. Labour will not consider and will not consult with the wider community. It will be “jobs for the boys”—or in this case “jobs for the girls”—that gets people on to that Historic Places Trust. 
Shane Jones 
: Accountability. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is the word! That is the member who has a job outside the House. That comes from a member who has a job outside the House but pretends to be an MP by day. We are talking about jobs for Shane Jones’ mates. We are talking about jobs for Darren Hughes’ mates. We are talking about—[ 
Interruption 
] No he has. There was a person in the Chamber just before who is after a job. Unfortunately there will be no jobs in it for anybody else because those people do not have mates. Rima Edwards will be on the trust Shane Jones’ auntie will be on it and Darren Hughes’ auntie will be on it because all those members can do is put their mates on it not the people with the intelligence—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh come on. Have another one. There has been no consultation. 
Hon Members 
: Tahi rua toru wha haere ra! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No members should have said that to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The imbecile from the north should have said that to the person who really has an appalling grasp of this bill. That is why National opposes this bill. 
Amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time. 
Protected Objects Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
 on behalf of the 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: I move  
That the Protected Objects Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. New Zealand’s unique cultural heritage creates the context in which we live. It is a context of accumulated experience a context of knowledge and a context of New Zealand’s national identity. Cultural heritage objects are an important part of our heritage but their movable nature makes them vulnerable to illicit trade. A number of legal and practical difficulties inhibit cross-border recovery. This is a worldwide issue that requires not only strong domestic legislation but also international cooperation. 
The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is the result of a long process of review of the Antiquities Act 1975. Through the bill the Antiquities Act will become the Protected Objects Act 1975. The bill seeks to address shortcomings in the Act and improve its operation in order to provide a strengthened framework for the protection of cultural heritage objects while maintaining the balance with the rights of private property owners that were established under the Act. 
One of the most important benefits that the bill will deliver is increased international protection for New Zealand’s cultural heritage objects that are stolen or illegally exported from New Zealand. Regrettably international trafficking in cultural heritage objects continues to present a challenge to law enforcement. The only effective means of addressing this is through international cooperation. I am delighted that this bill will enable New Zealand to accede to the two most international conventions in this area: the 1970 Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. The Unesco convention provides a broad framework for cooperation in this field while the UNIDROIT convention was developed to provide for more concrete remedies. Taken together these treaties address many of the legal problems that otherwise bedevil attempts to recover cultural heritage objects. 
In outline these new provisions deal with the following situations. First they apply when objects have been illegally exported from reciprocating States—essentially member States to the Unesco and UNIDROIT conventions. In this case the State concerned may claim recovery in the High Court. The second situation is when objects have been stolen from cultural institutions in Unesco States. The recent looting of the Baghdad Museum demonstrates the importance of these provisions. In such cases each State must take on the task of securing recovery at the request of another State party. In New Zealand this will be done under the provisions of section 10D inserted by clause 13 through a power of seizure by the Customs Service. Of course New Zealand is not a major international art market or transit State. We expect that occasions when it is necessary to utilise these new provisions will be relatively few but they allow New Zealand to meet its international obligations and are an essential quid pro quo for achieving a much more effective means of protecting our own priceless cultural heritage from illegal trafficking. 
Another focus is on improving the process for establishing the ownership of found Maori artefacts which are now referred to in the bill as “taonga tuturu”. The bill provides a more streamlined administrative process for establishing the ownership of found taonga tuturu. Importantly the bill also removes the need for applicants to enter costly legal proceedings in order to establish their ownership. To this end it changes the rules of the Maori Land Court to allow the registrar of the court to make ownership orders where ownership is not disputed. It is anticipated that these measures will significantly increase the incidences of ownership being established over taonga tuturu consistent with the purpose of the Act. 
There has been concern for some time that penalties for the illegal export of cultural objects are too low to be effective. The bill therefore increases penalties for offences under the Act. For example for exporting an object illegally an individual can be imprisoned for up to 5 years or fined up to $100000. 
The bill seeks to enhance clarity and consistency in decision making about the export of protected objects. It establishes as schedule 4 inserted by schedule 1 of the bill nine categories of protected New Zealand objects that offer precise definitions of the types of objects that are subject to export regulation. The bill also updates criteria used to assess the significance of objects in these categories and provides for the formal engagement of expert examiners to advise the chief executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage on decisions regarding export permission. 
Fifteen submissions on the bill were received including four oral submissions. After consideration of all submissions the Government Administration Committee recommended a small number of amendments and the Government concurs with these recommendations. I will outline the more substantive of them. One recommendation relates to various references in the bill to the age at which certain categories of New Zealand objects become eligible for protection under the Act. A number of submissions proposed reducing this age from 60 to 30 years as is the case under Australia’s Protection of Moveable Cultural Heritage Act. On considering the international situation the committee found that the Australian threshold was exceptional and that such a provision would likely infringe too greatly on the legitimate trade in cultural objects such as relatively contemporary artworks. The committee therefore recommended a reduction of the threshold to 50 years bringing New Zealand into line with more common international practice. 
In response to a number of submissions the committee recommended an amendment in clause 9 that will give expert examiners the protection from legal liability that might result from recommendations made in good faith. A further recommendation relates to the regulation-making powers of the bill. Two powers from clause 28 have been deleted and one further clarified as recommended by the Regulations Review Committee. 
An issue arose during the select committee process that I believe is important to note though it did not result in recommendations for change. It relates to the provision in the Antiquities Act that newly found taonga tuturu are prima facie property of the Crown. It is acknowledged that the phrase “property of the Crown” may not be viewed positively by Maori. The provision is however merely a legal mechanism to ensure that taonga are handled appropriately until custody or ownership can be awarded. The bill makes no change to the process for establishing appropriate ownership of taonga tuturu but as noted earlier it does simplify it. 
The Government believes that this bill will provide a firm foundation for the protection and management of New Zealand’s movable cultural heritage. New Zealand will benefit from a more transparent environment for legitimate international trade in cultural objects and a reduction in illegal exports as deterrents come into effect. I acknowledge the positive tone and well-considered comments of those who made submissions. I am also appreciative of the hard work of the members of the Government Administration Committee. I believe that the amendments as proposed are useful improvements to the bill. The Government intends to propose two Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee of the whole House that contain minor technical changes only. I look forward to advancing a bill that provides some very workable and sensible solutions. I commend the progress of this bill to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. As one of the members of the Government Administration Committee during some of the submission process—not the entire process; I was there briefly during the process of this bill’s consideration—I will state that the intention of National is to see this bill pass through the House and receive the Royal assent. There are a number of reasons: first it brings New Zealand into line with the internationally recognised Unesco set of standards; second it gives more powers to agencies operating under the Antiquities Act to enforce the law; and third it also identifies some of what we would describe as our treasured and protected objects. 
 One of the submitters to the select committee intrigued me by bringing up a situation that took place in Taranaki—I can see the former chair of the select committee Dianne Yates nodding in acknowledgment. Prior to the New Zealand Wars some sacred and special artefacts had been buried by a Maori iwi in order to protect them from an imminent invasion by another tribe from the north. After that invasion nobody who was left standing from that particular iwi remembered where the artefacts had been buried. Therefore the artefacts were lost. A farmer ploughed up the artefacts from the swampy area in which they were buried 150-odd years later after the swamp had been drained and sunk and the artefacts had come close to the surface. The farmer who discovered the objects was able to sell them without consulting anybody on the international market—via the Internet if my memory serves me correctly. Of course New Zealand would have had a very strong interest in retaining those artefacts in New Zealand. This bill will amend the Antiquities Act 1975 to strengthen the ability of the relevant authorities to intervene and stop that kind of thing from happening. 
Submissions on some more bizarre things were brought to the select committee such as that of the traction engine society. The society identified some very early imports of particular kinds of machines that are now unique in the world. Only three or four of those machines are left they are all here in New Zealand and of course they have a very high monetary value. Collectors around the world are in search of those things and obviously they could be sold off. Somebody needs to decide whether selling those machines is of any significance and whether we mind them being sold without the process being too heavy-handed. There is an element of doubt about whether the process will be too heavy-handed—we will have to see how it goes. 
Of course I was brought into the debate when somebody suggested that Myrtle the tractor that went up the steps of Parliament could one day be one of those artefacts. Myrtle is a classic example of an iconic piece of agricultural machinery that came to Wellington did a little stunt on the steps of Parliament and was condemned by all and sundry on the Government benches as being an act of vandalism and some kind of vicious assault on the historic buildings of Parliament. Incidentally when Myrtle came to Wellington it was worth about $200 but when it went home it was worth $20000. Potentially Myrtle could be traded on the international market which could mean that some of Parliament’s history would be lost to New Zealand forever. So amending the Antiquities Act may protect Myrtle from some vicious overseas buyer who might snap up the opportunity to have an old Ferguson tractor. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What year was Myrtle? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I know where the member is heading. The age of an artefact became an issue because of the question of what is and what is not an artefact. For the information of the member who is inquiring I tell him that Myrtle fits within the category of artefact in the bill. I never introduced that idea; it came in as a result of the advice that was brought to the select committee. 
The bill also increases the amount that people can be fined for an offence under the Act to $100000—which is a fairly hefty penalty but a very thorough test would have to be met before that fine would be applied—or such people may receive an imprisonment period of up to 5 years. So if those penalties do not act as a deterrent then I am not sure what will. For that reason I hope we will no longer see the kind of trade that we have seen. 
Going back to the origins of the bill to find out why it was suddenly brought to Parliament I remind members of the very emotional period we went through with the return of the shrunken heads. Most New Zealanders had either a negative or a positive view on that matter but generally the reception was positive. While that process was taking place the question was asked as to whether we were adequately protected in terms of what was in New Zealand at that time that would be deemed some 100 or 150 years after the event to be significant artefacts for New Zealand. As a result of the concerns raised during that process the Maori Land Court was given powers to approve or not approve of various Maori artefacts being sold overseas which was a good step forward. So the select committee in general was able to come to a consensus on that issue although there were concerns on one side that the measures were a little weak and on the other side that they might be too strong which is typical of the sort of stuff that goes on in a select committee. 
Earlier in the debate it was mentioned that the Government Administration Committee with five members—two from National and three from Labour—was a non-representative select committee of Parliament. I say to members who have those concerns that the opportunity for them to be subbed on to that committee and have their say is always there. If those members choose not to take that option then it is a bit unfair to say we were acting in a first-past-the-post type of committee because in this instance that was definitely not the case. In fact members from other parties expressed a view in certain areas and those views were well represented in the findings of the committee. So I suggest that those who think the process was not done in that way should go back and do some research into what took place in that committee. The reality is that it was a very representative parliamentary select committee. 
The other point that has come out of the discussion tonight from a range of different angles was whether there is an overemphasis in respect of things that may be described as Maori wahi tapu or whatever one might try to embrace in that wider discussion. I do not think that is the case with this legislation because in the Protected Objects Amendment Bill we are talking about physical objects and things that can be traded internationally. So that brings quite a clear definition as to what we might be talking about. Obviously the final decision of those who make that choice will always be debated and there will always be room for some discussion but the clarity of the bill is absolute in terms of what may or may not be traded. 
In essence the bill will receive widespread support from Parliament. The legislation is overdue especially when we think of what has already been lost in terms of New Zealand’s artefacts and early culture to what is now a very global market in which one can trade buy and sell stuff electronically around the world within seconds. It is welcome legislation. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 As the former chair of the Government Administration Committee I am very pleased to speak on the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and I thank the present chair of that select committee Shane Ardern. I remind the House that in the last Parliament the Government Administration Committee consisted of five members. The committee deals with a wide range of very very interesting subjects. This bill in particular is about New Zealand’s national identity. It is about things we own in this country things that are part of our culture and things we value. 
I will read the introduction to the bill: “The bill will amend the Antiquities Act 1975 to provide a more precise definition of protected New Zealand objects subject to export regulation”— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Don Brash! 
DIANNE YATES 
: I do not think he is a protected New Zealand object—and he does not want to be in New Zealand. 
The introduction continues: “and to prohibit the permanent export of protected New Zealand objects that are of such significance that their export would diminish New Zealand’s cultural heritage.” [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think exporting Don Brash would diminish New Zealand’s cultural heritage; I do not think he qualifies under this Act at all. “The bill also enables New Zealand’s participation”—this is very interesting—“in the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions”—which are appended to the bill—“that prohibit the import of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects and provide for the forfeiture and return of such illegally exported objects.” 
This is a very very important bill. We have talked about New Zealand objects that are in other countries and of course this House has already received a petition which we support from the Greek people in respect of the Elgin Marbles. That is the kind of thing that the bill is about but it deals with New Zealand objects. 
I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for working so well together on a number of issues that are important to New Zealand—art culture and our national identity. It is very important that many of the aspects of the upcoming Budget are about New Zealand’s national identity and what it means to be a New Zealander. I am very proud that the Protected Objects Amendment Bill has been brought in by the Labour-led Government. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on this very important bill. It struck me that the Government Administration Committee is a particularly effective committee because on this very important bill it took only an hour and a bit to hear the submissions and it took another hour and a bit to reach a unanimous conclusion. So obviously all sides of the House are in favour of this bill. 
I am very pleased to support this bill but I would like more discussion during the Committee stage on some of the issues I raise here. Possibly because I am a member to whom this bill is new I thought about it and wondered how some of the provisions would actually be implemented. A very good reason to support this bill is that we learnt that in August 2004 Interpol estimated illicit trade in art and artefacts worldwide each year to be worth somewhere between US$4 billion and US$10 billion. So it is important that all countries try to cooperate to stop this illegal trade. 
I do wonder how much the passage of this legislation itself will actually contribute to a reduction. The mere fact that people see illicit trade as very valuable to engage in means it becomes a global business and it seems to me that New Zealand and other countries that have signed this convention must show some real commitment for its enforcement. The New Zealand Parliament as I have mentioned in the past is pretty good at passing well-intentioned laws to stop all sorts of things but the enforcement itself is usually the problematic part. My concern is that we obviously have those shall I say professionals who engage deliberately in trying to trade illegally in these well sought after artefacts so I suggest we must gear up to enforce this law. 
But having said that just now my good colleague Shane Ardern raised the subject of a farmer who discovered artefacts on his own land. How would the enforcement of this Act take into account innocent individuals who find that some artefacts have come into their possession? It seems to me that the fact the farmer put that artefact up for auction on the Internet means he was obviously convinced he could do so—he did not try to hide or run away—and was not even aware that he had a responsibility to report his find. I do not know which enforcement agency he should have contacted or whether he should have contacted a museum for example. I would like to discuss such issues further. 
Perhaps whoever takes the next call can enlighten us as to any education campaign that is to accompany this legislation so we can educate the public about the increased penalties and the value of keeping New Zealand treasure here for our people to enjoy. A public campaign should be mounted. I just wonder whether the Government has a plan on hand for an education campaign to inform the public and particularly to protect individuals who might come into possession of an artefact or who may be offered an artefact for sale. 
The other issue I would like some discussion on during the Committee stage concerns how extensive the list of expert examiners is how one verifies that the artefacts in question are of a quality and standard we would want to protect and how to ensure we do not necessarily stifle individuals who may have very valid reasons for wanting to export or sell artefacts that belong to them. There have been some difficult questions raised recently in relation to Anzac Day. We have had I would say quite a painful discussion about war medals—whether the family descendants should be able to sell them and whether because such medals are so important in terms of New Zealand history the country should have more of a claim to a family’s possession. How does this legislation manage to balance on the one hand the value to our country as a whole and on the other hand the individual’s entitlement to do what they deem fit with a piece of property in their possession? 
It seems to me that ultimately it comes down to public awareness of the importance of maintaining our treasure in our country. It is also about people nurturing a public spirit approach as to when a treasure is best kept in a museum or a public place for all to enjoy rather than an individual wanting it for his or her own private collection. I think it will take time—through our schooling and through individuals showing their generosity—to make sure that treasures can be kept for the public to enjoy. 
I want to divert a little bit and mention some personal experiences. When I travelled in London and in the Netherlands a few years back I looked at some of the fantastic masterpieces from China—Chinese paintings—that were kept in overseas museums. Some of them may not be available at all in museums in China. So I must say I have a lot of sympathy for some of the provisions in the bill whereby museums would cooperate with each other when they find there are valuables that belong to the New Zealand public. I also agree with the provisions whereby the Government and various overseas countries can cooperate and organise a way to return such things to each country so that its public can enjoy those values that rightly belong to the people of each individual country. 
It was a pleasure to take part in this debate. I hope the points I have raised will be further enlightened in the Committee stage. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Before I start on my korero tonight I would like to note a couple of things. First I was seriously embarrassed by the speech made by Mahara Okeroa the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and by his downplaying of the concept of Maori artefacts being protected objects. The way he presented that speech spoke much about Labour’s dishonouring of the concept of things Maori and the fact that Mahara could allow himself to be used to make that speech suggests that some very bad things are going on for Maori within the Labour Party. Sitting here and listening to him talk about protected objects like they were something from Mars I was ashamed. This is Aotearoa and protected objects come primarily from the saving of taonga which in this country are primarily Maori. For him to use the word “Maori” about as many times as the Minister of Finance used it in his Budget last year suggests a contempt for things Maori. That is simply unacceptable to the Maori Party. 
The second point I would like to make is that if Mr Ardern is correct in saying that the committee that oversaw this bill the Government Administration Committee is made up of three Labour members and two National members then it is no wonder that protected objects like the powhiri are seriously under threat. We need only consider the comments made by the Prime Minister in terms of how she thinks the Government will dictate how powhiri are to be conducted and the manner in which Judith Collins and colleagues disrespected the powhiri when it was offered to them the other day to see that we are in trouble. Everybody in this House is in trouble if we think we can talk about protected objects in an abstract manner when what we are seriously supposed to be talking about is the protection of taonga that are intrinsic to this nation—to both Pakeha and Maori. 
Having got that off my chest if I were to guess at a waiata that every member of this House might know it would probably be the one called “E Hara i te Mea”: 
E hara i te mea 
No naianei te aroha 
No nga tupuna 
Tuku iho 
Tuku iho. 
It is not true that love is a recent discovery. Love is something that comes from our ancestors and is handed down through the passage of time. In this way nga taonga tuku iho no nga tupuna—the treasures handed down to us by our ancestors—are universally understood by all New Zealanders as being objects of value. Within the context of this bill those taonga tuturu relate to Maori culture history or society and were used by Maori manufactured or modified by Maori or brought to Aotearoa by Maori. We are pleased to note the recommendation from the select committee that the age threshold for protected objects and taonga tuturu should be amended from 60 to 50 years which now means that all four members of the Maori Party are well protected!  
The concept of respect for Maori culture history or society as preserved under nga taonga tuturu is extremely relevant in the context of the sustained attacks on one of our key means of protecting and retaining our cultural heritage. The shameful assault on powhiri from both sides of this House gives us little faith that Parliament has come to terms with understanding objects protocols and values of cultural significance to either Maori or non-Maori. How can a so-called Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage—the Prime Minister at that—issue a directive: “The Government protocol is that women can sit in the front row … We like the kaupapa where there’s a Government facility involved to reflect the values of the Government and of New Zealand in general.”? The strange thing is that none of the Maori members from the Labour caucus objected yet I know them well enough to know that they would not stand for the kind of treatment of their powhiri that has been spoken of here by their Prime Minister. 
The powhiri purge has apparently been taken up by Ruth Dyson the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) by the previous Minister of Education Trevor Mallard and notoriously by the Department of Corrections which has the misguided belief that renaming a powhiri as a whakatau means it can now own the cultural and intellectual property rights of the process. What will the next step be—that the Prime Minister will instruct the judiciary that from now on lawyers are to desist from standing when the judge enters the courtroom in order that the “values of … New Zealand in general” will be reflected? Will the radar also hover over the tikanga in this debating chamber and will the authority of the Speaker come into question as not reflecting the values of New Zealand? We cannot have it both ways. The Maori Party applauds the sensible advice of Professor Ranginui Walker that tangata whenua organising any powhiri should decide seating positions not the Government. And we have to ask reluctantly again where Labour Maori MPs have been during this prolonged and savage battering of our culture. I say “our culture” because I recognise that for all our differences we are all Maori.  
I raise these issues tonight because they address the concepts that are central to the Protected Objects Amendment Bill—the protection of taonga the rangatiratanga of mana whenua the vexed issue of ownership and the appropriate role of the Crown. The need for negotiating ownership of taonga with iwi authorities and the Crown is critical. The bill amends the administrative processes for determining ownership of taonga tuturu by stipulating that the chief executive must notify any parties that might have an interest. We support the submitter who argued that clause 15 should be amended so that newly found taonga tuturu will not be prima facie the property of the Crown but should instead be held prima facie to be the property of Maori. The Maori Party also endorses the view put forward by the submitter—and acknowledged by the select committee—that the phrase “property of the Crown” may not be viewed positively for Maori and indeed warrants further analysis and debate. 
Although we can commend the intent of this change we see an urgent need to establish clear protocols with mana whenua for those who claim ownership of taonga tuturu—protocols of use access and loaning. Nowhere is this more vividly evident than here in Wellington with the finding last December of three punga whare which were unearthed during an archaeological assessment of a Taranaki Street site beside the pub Molly Malones that is being turned into apartments. This was the first archaeological evidence of a Maori pa in the area. The whare are the first evidence of Te Aro Pa and are therefore of huge significance to the Wellington Tenths Trust to Ngati Ira and indeed to all tangata whenua. At the site pieces of shell fire-cracked rocks rubbish pits tobacco pipes and other taonga were also found. How relevant will this bill be to ensuring our taonga tuturu are protected? Situations like that are exactly why we need protocols for use and to prevent abuse for access and for protection. Who takes priority? Although we support the improvements made through the bill to enhance the administrative processes of ownership of taonga tuturu recovered during archaeological digs or found by chance we would like to see it strengthened to establish strong relationships with mana whenua.  
That brings me to another key issue of debate in terms of the protocols required to determine representation of Maori groups—and indeed of all communities of interest—as set out under section 30 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I heard today about a tahuhu currently being held in Cambridge being displayed as a tekoteko. Discussion and consultation with the mana whenua of that tahuhu would inform the appropriate authorities of the need to hang the taonga from the ceiling as indeed a tahuhu should be displayed rather than standing it upright. Such relationships are critical in repatriating Maori cultural material back home to Aotearoa.  
In considering the issue of protocols I seek to return to the protocols for cultural and intellectual property rights of iwi developed by the late Dr Hirini Melbourne based on the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He reminds the House that iwi have the right to self-determination and to be recognised as the exclusive owners of their cultural and intellectual property. The protocols recognise that indigenous peoples are capable of managing their traditional knowledge but are willing to offer it to all humanity provided that their fundamental rights to define and control such knowledge are protected by the international community. There is an insistence that the first beneficiaries of indigenous knowledge must be the direct indigenous descendants of such knowledge. Finally he notes that all forms of discrimination and exploitation of indigenous people and indigenous knowledge and cultural and intellectual property rights must cease. 
I have not quite finished but that will do for now. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the second reading of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. As has been pointed out New Zealand First did not have a member on the Government Administration Committee and that is a shame because the committee obviously deals with some very interesting legislation. We are very pleased to see that this bill has returned to the House because as a country we must ensure that our New Zealand objects are protected. Basically they are fundamental to our cultural heritage. 
 All our artefacts and art objects everything that we value and everything that makes us unique as New Zealanders must be protected. We do not want to see historical objects exported overseas as it usually takes a huge amount of time to ever have them returned to our New Zealand shores. I think we have seen this over the last few years in relation to the return of Maori human remains and the shrunken heads that were talked about earlier. 
We do understand that sometimes objects will be temporarily sent overseas to be included in exhibitions and galleries for a short amount of time but the very best aspect of this is that the objects are returned to New Zealand after a specified time. We definitely like that. We do not want to see any of our culture lost to New Zealanders or to New Zealand. New Zealand First was very pleased to see the setting up of a register of protected New Zealand objects that people have been refused permission to export and that is exactly as it should be. We must compliment the Government Administration Committee on promoting that aspect. We do not want nor can we afford to lose any objects of cultural importance particularly those that we sometimes hear about that have been exported illegally overseas never to be available to the New Zealand public again. It is essential to maintain our treasures here in New Zealand. 
I note that under section 15 of the Antiquities Act the Museum of New Zealand is already required to maintain a register of artefacts and that is exactly as it should be. We note that the time threshold for protected objects has been reduced from 60 years to 50 years. New Zealand First would have preferred the age threshold to remain at 60 years although we note that both Canada and the UK have a 50-year threshold for protected objects so we will be following that area with a lot of interest. 
We want to see a reduction in illegal exports and we are hoping that this bill will provide some workable solution to the problem. We note from the commentary on the bill that the bill enables New Zealand’s participation in the Unesco and International Institute for the Unification of Private Law conventions which prohibit the import of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects and provide for the forfeiture and return of those objects. It is really important that New Zealand is able to participate in this type of convention. 
So New Zealand First is happy to see the bill back in the House. We hope it will provide a workable solution and ensure that protected objects remain in New Zealand. We will follow the bill’s progress through the House with interest. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As the MP for Taranaki - King Country said the National Opposition supports the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. As Mrs Stewart also said this is a very interesting bill which deals with some very important matters in the cultural life of New Zealand. The particular thing that interests me and the area I want to address in my second reading speech is the part of the bill that enables New Zealand’s participation in the Unesco and International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) conventions. As the commentary on the bill states they prohibit the import of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects and provide for the forfeiture and return of such illegally exported objects. 
I cannot understand why it has taken so long to introduce this legislation because the problem has been with us for many years as I will describe in a few minutes by reference to a matter that my friend the MP for Taranaki - King Country also referred to. But I do note that the second schedule sets out the Unesco convention which came into force on 24 April 1972. The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects was signed in Rome on 24 June 1995. So although it has taken the New Zealand Parliament quite some time to give effect to or to enter into those conventions and bring them into domestic law I am very pleased to see clause 13 of the bill which I think will be very important. 
What is the problem all about? Mr Ardern referred to a story about an incident in Taranaki many years ago. Indeed it was a matter that gave rise to litigation brought by the Attorney-General for New Zealand in the High Court in England and it went all the way to the House of Lords. Let me say something about the facts of that particular situation. Years ago in New Zealand a great chief—and I understand from the Minister the Hon Mahara Okeroa it was a chief of Te Atiawa—had a treasure house. In that treasure house were stored things such as dried fish special foods and valuables. At the entrance to the house there was a great door. It had five panels carved with exquisite skill depicting human figures with serpentine bodies and white pointed heads. 
As Mr Ardern said for various reasons that door was lost in the swamps around Waitara for many years. Then in 1972 a member of the hapu of Ngati Rahiri which I understand is that Minister’s hapu came across that door while cutting a track through the swamp. The next year there came to New Zealand a person by the name of Entwistle and he managed to persuade the member of Ngati Rahiri to sell him the door for $6000. He thereupon took it back to England and sold it to a fellow called Ortiz for US$65000. Then Mr Ortiz got into financial difficulties and put it up for auction at Sotheby’s in 1978. But when the Attorney-General for New Zealand commenced the proceeding the object was said to be worth Stg£300000 and it was taken off the market. 
The issue that arose—[ 
Interruption 
] These difficult issues are really best left for grown-ups so if the member for Waimakariri could try to contain himself it would be very helpful. Most of his contributions in this House are asinine and buffoonish and he does the House no credit. I am trying to deal with an important cultural issue. If the member cannot control himself he should leave the House because he diminishes the House and makes a fool of himself. To come back to the bill I say the real issue was whether the New Zealand Historic Articles Act could be enforced in England. Regrettably in both the Court of Appeal and House of Lords the law lords and lord justices said the legislation could not be enforced because that would have had the effect of enforcing in an extraterritorial way a piece of New Zealand legislation which would be contrary to international law. 
That case was decided in 1978 and I quote from what Lord Denning said in his conclusion: “The retrieval of such works of art must be achieved by diplomatic means. Best of all there should be an international convention on the matter where individual countries can agree and pass the necessary legislation. It is a matter of such importance that I hope steps can be taken to this end.” Indeed the House of Lords said exactly the same thing in closing. It recognised that it could not enforce in England a New Zealand piece of legislation but expressed the hope that something could be done about that because it was an important issue. 
New Zealand has been facing that kind of problem for a number of years. It is a similar problem to that faced by other countries when protected goods of a historical nature are brought into New Zealand but really belong in the country of origin. That is why these clauses are so important. They provide on the basis of reciprocity for a foreign reciprocating State to commence a proceeding in New Zealand for the return of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects to the proper jurisdiction. It is exactly the procedure that Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal case to which I have referred recommended was so necessary in order to get some movement at the diplomatic level. 
It is important to note that we are talking about reciprocity. New Zealand will have to be a reciprocating State. For example Australia or the United Kingdom will have to sign up to the international conventions as well. If they do not there will be no relief under the legislation. The first point to note is that a reciprocating State may claim in a court of competent jurisdiction that an object be returned and the court must order it to be returned if it has been unlawfully exported and if the claimant State can show that removal of the object significantly impairs certain of the interests set out in new section 10C(2) of the principal Act inserted by clause 13 of the bill. And indeed compensation and costs can be awarded at the same time. 
I welcome these provisions and the belated accession to the two conventions to which I have referred. They raise very important matters which I acknowledge are beyond the understanding or comprehension of the member for Waimakariri. None the less those of us who do understand these matters recognise that in terms of protecting cultural property the bill goes a very long way. By signing up to the two conventions we will be able to work within the international community to ensure that this kind of serious abuse does not occur in the future and indeed will be minimised. 
That is the part of the bill I wanted to talk about tonight. It is important legislation. It does a great deal to protect New Zealand’s cultural property and to protect the cultural property of other States. I welcome this second reading and I look forward to the Committee stage and to the enactment of the legislation. 
Bill read a second time. 
Coroners Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 General provisions 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This is important legislation by any standard. I stand on behalf of the National Party to make comments in respect of Part 1. In terms of the typical structure adopted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office this part contains a number of general provisions of an overview nature. 
For me the starting point is certainly the purpose of the Act which is to help to prevent deaths and it is stated to promote justice through the investigation and identification of the causes and circumstances of sudden or unexplained deaths. As was made clear at the second reading the office of the coroner has a substantial and significant history. In fact the office of the coroner was established in 1194 with a primary responsibility related to protecting the fiscal position of the Crown. Those are issues that perhaps need not detain us here. 
In this part we see not only the purpose of the Act but also the identified role of the coroners which is set out in clause 4. The role is not singularly isolated in the way that the purpose of the Act might suggest because the coroner has a range of roles. These can in part be serially described as: receiving a report of a death from the New Zealand Police; making a judgment by way of decision as to whether to direct a post-mortem and if one is directed determining whether to authorise certain people other than the pathologist to attend; issues relating to the release of the body; decisions as to whether to open an inquiry and if an inquiry is to be conducted the conduct of the inquiry; and finally issues relating to report and recommendation. 
It is interesting to see what is happening in other countries—in particular what is happening in the United Kingdom. In that jurisdiction we are seeing almost parallel provisions to what we see in this legislation—a tightening up in terms of the professionalism required of coroners which is affirmation I think that legal qualifications which are so much admired these days in the community are an intrinsic and important part of the process. 
That is not to say that this legislation is not to be criticised. It represents the best efforts of the Government propped up by a strong Justice and Electoral Committee which has made a number of changes. Indeed there are more changes; sadly as is so often the case we see here at the last moment a raft of changes because the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker who is with us tonight has detected a number of errors that his officials have made. I often think it is a pity that the Minister does not carefully review legislation at the outset and pick up the errors that his officials have made. Instead he apparently prefers to leave it to the end when with eagle eye he can cast his eye across the bill to determine what he perceives to be appropriate gaps to fill. Certainly it is the case in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 32 that there are some gaps to fill. 
In later opportunities that may be available to talk about the detail of the bill there are specific aspects that I will seek to target. I indicate in advance that some of the significant issues relating to this legislation quite clearly deal with the circumstance whereby body parts are taken and held for the purposes of investigation. There is a subtlety in the legislation between bodily samples and body parts. I will not deal with that in any greater detail other than to say that quite clearly when a corpse has been interred or cremated it is a sadness for the family some weeks later to receive vials of material in the post that contain particular specimens of the deceased. As is so often the case when the period of grieving is over the family must confront the task of knowing what to do with those vials of extraneous material be they body samples or body parts. That is an issue that the select committee sought to address and did. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is really to provide a framework for coroners as they inquire into sudden or unexplained deaths so they can establish as much as possible the cause or circumstances of those deaths. It is hoped that those investigations in the future can avoid unnecessary deaths. So the purpose of this bill is to try to stop deaths in the future by the knowledge we get from the ones that have happened. The new bill is also to professionalise the coronial system so it can be more consistent effective and sensitive to families and cultural needs because it is particularly important that the public have confidence in this system. 
Coroners must perform their work without delay. When listening to the submissions we heard many people talking about the distress caused by the delay of the coroners’ reports. We feel that the coronial service needs to be able to deliver promptly. One of the main reasons for moving from a part-time coronial service to a full-time professional service is to make sure that the time that it takes is consistent and regular and that people can rely upon getting the results about their loved one’s death as soon as possible. 
Under the bill there is arrangement for 20 full-time coroners with a legal background. There is also arrangement for a chief coroner who will take the role of leadership and coordination of those full-time coroners. It is important that they are full-time because as it is now they tend to have experience of only a few cases. Many work in rural areas and perhaps a case comes up—weekly monthly—but they have not the experience of the couple of full-time coroners who work in Auckland City. It is hoped with greater experience and greater expertise that coroners will be able to perform a more consistent service. That was also something that came out of the submissions—that although in most cases the coroners were respected and they worked hard at their job it was very hard to get a consistency right across the country. It believed that with a chief coroner who will work with the coroners and will issue practice notes that will get consistent processes and protocols that will help that consistency across the country. It is also believed that with the chief coroner and full-time coroners there will be more time for education of the public and that will lead to a more effective and efficient service. 
Overall I think the bill has worked well. I was very interested to note that even the current coroners were happy with the main tenor of the bill and were supporting the fact of full-time coroners even though some of them may lose their jobs. We will talk about that because the actual constitutional understanding of their being disestablished was of concern to us on the National side. 
One of the things we also came across was the use of justices of the peace. There has been a long tradition of justices of the peace working as temporary coroners and they are often called upon on weekends and late nights to stand in for the coroner and I think they enjoyed doing that work and they certainly provided a good service to our society. But I think as time has gone on and as cases have become more complex and there is a heavier workload the need for full-time coroners who are professional and have set protocols and processes is very timely indeed. 
The other thing of most concern was in terms of how the media reported on suicides self-inflicted deaths. That is an issue that has been under debate quite widely both in the papers and on the wires and I do not think we can really come out with an answer that we all feel comfortable with. Everybody understands the distress a family faces at a time of unexpected death particularly if it is a case of suicide. Several submitters talked to us about how they felt when their family was involved with a suicide case and how they felt with the public and how the public would react to them and their families. Research has gone into suicide in terms of whether it should be mentioned in the media. Of course one of the areas that concerns us is youth suicide. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As my colleagues have said the National Opposition supports the bill. I will focus on a number of aspects of Part 1 which deals with the preliminary provisions. I will not dwell on the purpose of the Act or the coroner’s role but I do want to say something about clause 4A which was inserted by the Justice and Electoral Committee after hearing a number of submissions from people. 
Clause 4A provides that coroners must perform their duties without delay as far as it is consistent with justice and practicable to do so. The members of the committee in suggesting that the clause be inserted in the bill were heavily influenced by submissions from various members of the public who had had to wait on some occasions for a number of years before the result of a coronial inquiry was released. 
 Dr Worth has referred to the problems and the stress faced when people die and are buried or cremated and then families find that their bodily parts or vials of substance are referred to them some months later. That is one aspect of the stress. Another aspect is having to deal with coronial inquiries that go on interminably and are never dealt with finally because it takes so long for part-time coroners to deal with particular coronial inquiries. So clause 4A is an extremely important clause and it will go a long way towards ensuring that all coroners are aware of their obligations to deal with things as far as justice permits in as speedy a manner as possible. 
In order to give effect to that clause and to the general Act clause 5 introduces a new concept in New Zealand law—that of the office of chief coroner. Rather than having 50 or 60 part-time coroners doing their own thing around the country—two in Auckland on a full-time basis and the rest spread throughout the country and contributing to various degrees—there will be a chief coroner who will be responsible for overseeing the administration of the coronial system in New Zealand and in particular for providing leadership and guidance to other coroners to ensure that investigations are done properly and that they are done quickly. The chief coroner will also be empowered as clause 5 states to issue practice notes that will provide detailed guidance to coroners on the way they can discharge their functions. The other key point about the chief coroner is that he or she will be responsible for allocating resources so that coronial inquests can be conducted in the right part of the country at the right time rather than people having to travel hundreds of miles to an inquest. 
So those are the two key innovations in this part of the bill. They are good innovations because the office of chief coroner will become I am sure a very important one in the State and it will ensure that coronial inquiries are conducted properly that coronial investigations maintain a uniform standard throughout the country and importantly that they are conducted quickly. As I said one of the worst problems faced by people who have had to deal with the coronial system has been that of delay but by setting up the regime of chief coroner and with some of the other aspects of the bill—which I will come to during the debate on later parts—I am sure it will be a good system; one that will be welcomed by the public of New Zealand and one that will work very well. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I think this is one of those occasions when the New Zealand Parliament the House of Representatives will perform to one of its better standards. Very often the public see dispute and disagreement in this Parliament but this is one of many occasions when we generally agree on what is to be done. This is very good legislation. 
I think the first thing we have all agreed on is that the current coronial system is less than satisfactory. I am not casting any particular aspersions on anyone or on any particular aspect of it; it is simply not as good as it could be. We have considered what needs to be done and I think there is general agreement that we need to professionalise our coronial service. We need to have leadership in our coronial service and we need to set out in the beginning of the legislation the things that are important to us. Over and over again the same themes keep coming back to me. 
The first one as mentioned by Nicky Wagner and Chris Finlayson is timeliness. People have constantly made comments about the timeliness or the delays. Mr Finalyson made note of a report that was years overdue. I have had similar circumstances drawn to my attention too and there has been quite an amount of frustration. The legislation was drafted and sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Under clause 5A(b) one of the functions of the chief coroner is “to help ensure coroners’ investigations are conducted in an orderly and expeditious way by overseeing them”. That was a clear requirement of the chief coroner but the select committee has decided it wants to make sure people understand exactly what the requirement is and we have a classic example of belt and braces. In some ways clause 4A is superfluous. But I agree with it being there because it ensures that this Parliament is making a clear statement that these matters are to be dealt with expeditiously—let there be no doubt about that. That is what Parliament says and we have put it there very clearly on the record. 
The second part I want to highlight goes back into clause 3 “Purpose of this Act” and in particular clause 3(2)(b)(i). I draw this to the attention of Parliament and of those who read back over this debate to see what in this legislation was so very important for this Parliament because for me it is one of the most important elements of the bill. It recognises the cultural and spiritual needs of the family and of others who were in a close relationship to a person who has died. We want to make it very clear to the coronial service that this is one of the most important elements in that service. Coroners are to be appreciative of and to understand the cultural and spiritual needs of a family. 
I have spoken to coroners in Auckland and I am impressed with the service that they have provided because they are full-time professional coroners and the service has been well developed. That to me seems to be the minimum standard we should expect in the future. In the Auckland area coroners have understood clearly the spiritual and cultural needs of the families and they take those responsibilities very seriously as all of us from this Parliament would expect them to do. 
I think this is good legislation. It is another good example of where Parliament—most of the time—works very well in progressing good legislation for the betterment and improvement of New Zealand. I look forward to the debate continuing on this legislation. I think it will be very constructive and worthwhile. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be speaking in the Committee stage of the Coroners Bill and I think that many of my colleagues who spoke before me tonight summed up many of the issues very well. But one thing we need to do in the course of this debate is pay tribute to the men and women who have served as coroners in New Zealand for many years. I know that this bill seeks to put some structure around what we might call the coronial profession but I think it is fair to say that the country has been very well served by the people who have carried out the coronial function in a very professional manner for decades and decades. 
If we look at the people who have been doing this task we see that they are people from the police force and the legal profession and of course medical practitioners. It behoves us well to recognise their contribution. Many of those people have had other professional obligations. They have served their community well in a number of other capacities. I know that one of the coroners in Auckland has been a consultant obstetrician for many years. He is also a qualified lawyer and a Rhodes scholar. When that quality of person has been serving us in this capacity we know that New Zealanders have been well served. 
But times change and it is important to acknowledge that and now more considerations have to be accounted for around the coronial process. It is really quite appropriate that this legislation comes forward now and the appointment of a chief coroner is something that is probably long overdue. New Zealanders need to know that when they are confronted by extremely sensitive circumstances at what for most people would be a disastrous stage of their life—when a loved one or close relative is the subject of a coronial inquest—wherever they go in the country there will be a consistency of process. That is what this legislation will provide. There will now be I believe 20 full-time coroners who will be supervised by one chief coroner which means there will be rigorous processes around coronial inquests and that a consistency of service will be offered that takes into account and reflects the needs and expectations of modern New Zealand society. We are a diverse country made up of many different peoples and we do not all have the same beliefs and processes. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.