Volume 639 Week 45 - Thursday 24 May 2007 
Volume 639 Week 45 - Thursday 24 May 2007 
[Volume:639;Page:9669] 
Thursday 24 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Russia—State Duma of Federal Assembly 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the State Duma of the Russian Federation Federal Assembly led by Mr Victor Kolesnikov is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Obituaries 
Hon Dean Jack Eyre 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 19 May 2007 of the Hon Dean Jack Eyre who represented the electorate of North Shore from 1949 to 1966. He was Minister of Industries and Commerce and Minister of Customs from 1954 to 1956 Minister of Social Security from 1956 to 1957 Minister of Housing in 1957 Minister of Police from 1956 to 1957 and Minister of Defence in 1957 and from 1960 to 1966. He also held a number of other portfolios. He was subsequently New Zealand’s High Commissioner in Canada. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 12 June priority will be given to the remaining stages of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill the Arbitration Amendment Bill and the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House tell us whether there is likely to be another Statutes Amendment Bill this year or will the Government continue its practice of taking statute amendments and turning them into whole bills in order to fill up the Order Paper and make it look a little more substantial? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I imagine there will be another Statutes Amendment Bill at some point in the foreseeable future. I can assure the member that there will be plenty of work in the next sitting to consume his enormous energy. 
Motions 
Parthenon (Elgin) Marbles—Return to Greece 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That this House joins its voice to that of other countries throughout the world and urges the British Government to support the return of the Parthenon (Elgin) marbles to Greece stressing the need for the collections of marbles in different locations to be reunited so that the world can see them in their original context in relation to the Temple of Parthenon as an act of respect to one of the most significant monuments of western heritage. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Taito Phillip Field—Prime Minister's Comments 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement on the actions of Taito Phillip Field while a Minister “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: In light of the announcement from the police this morning the Prime Minister has no comment to make other than to say that Mr Field like every other New Zealander has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that this Prime Minister and this Labour Government cannot tell the difference between trying to be helpful to someone and actions that warrant the investigation of the police for corruption? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have advised the member that it is wise not to make further comment and that Mr Field has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why she restricted the terms of the Ingram inquiry to such an extent that even Mr Ingram said he could not fully consider the actions of Taito Phillip Field; and did she do this because she never wanted him to get to the bottom of the issue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister on a number of occasions in the past has invited people with the information to present that to the police. They have done so. The police have undertaken their inquiries and have made announcements this morning. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she still stand by her response to a member of this House after more information was provided when she said—following the release of the Ingram report—“If the member had taken the time to read the report as thoroughly as I have he would have found out everything he wanted and needed to know about the matter.”; and will she now apologise to the House in light of the fact that the police are clearly not satisfied that everything that was needed to be known was known? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The police have undertaken their inquiries and are engaged in the appropriate action as they consider it at this time. I would advise the member that the rule of law still obtains in this country. The Prime Minister does not intend to comment further on this case now that charges are being considered and are being taken to the court. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why can the Prime Minister not comment on her own past actions—for instance when she said that these allegations surrounding Taito Phillip Field did not warrant further investigation because it would cost too much? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would advise again the member to understand the doctrine of comity between Parliament and the courts and he would be well advised not to try to try Mr Field within this arena. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister saying that because the police are going to apply to lay charges against Taito Phillip Field this House has no right to ask her about her highly questionable actions in protecting this member of Parliament from proper investigation for what is now 18 months? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I am saying to the member is that Mr Field now has the right to be treated like any other New Zealander and not to have in effect this House trying to influence any subsequent legal action that may take place. The police are applying to the courts of course because under the law that has to occur in respect of a member of Parliament in the nature of these charges. They are just to protect members of Parliament against a Government seeking to lay such charges without a proper basis. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that she should be treated like any other Prime Minister and be held accountable in this House for her behaviour such as when she said: “The reason for not wanting a further inquiry is that the member has had his punishment … The member has suffered humiliation as a result of the report.” and then subsequently she herself referred the matter to the police? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I point out again that the Prime Minister invited people with further information to take it to the police. The police have considered that information. However Mr Field of course is no longer a member of the Labour caucus; whereas when Dr Nick Smith was convicted of contempt he was kept on the front bench of the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Prime Minister not refer the information she had as far back as prior to the 2005 election directly to the police; or is it the case that she cannot tell the difference between possibly corrupt activity and “helping someone”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member yet again is trying to encroach upon the role of the courts and the legal system in this respect. The Government is not going to join him in that contempt for the rule of law. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Prime Minister ask the advice of her deputy the Minister of Finance at any stage on setting up the Ingram inquiry or on dealing with the results of that inquiry; if so what was the advice she received from him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To the best of my recollection conversations occurred with the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister endorsed the actions taken by the Prime Minister at the time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does that mean that the Deputy Prime Minister shares the Prime Minister’s problem of not being able to tell the difference between a member of Parliament helping his or her constituents and potentially corrupt activity that now warrants the police going off to the High Court to ask for permission to lay charges? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it means that the Deputy Prime Minister is in a particularly acute position as the Attorney-General and will uphold the rule of law despite attempts by Mr English to bully him or anybody else into not doing so. 
Heather Roy 
: Is not the real reason the Prime Minister is not standing by her statement today that Taito Phillip Field fell out of her favour and that a pattern is emerging in the use of police discretion when prosecuting MPs as evidenced by the police not prosecuting the Prime Minister for art fraud or dangerous driving through South Canterbury assault on a minor by Minister Benson-Pope assault by Minister Hodgson breach of the Companies Act by Minister Parker and electoral fraud by the Labour Party as opposed to the charging of Shane Ardern for driving a tractor Nick Smith for standing up for a constituent Donna Awatere Huata for fraud and Taito Phillip Field for bribery and what is her part in this pattern? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Nearly all of those claims are outrageous and wrong apart from Dr Nick Smith being convicted of contempt of court which the Government had nothing to do with. But let me take just one of those examples. The driver in South Canterbury was charged with an offence convicted and subsequently cleared of that offence. Despite the fact that he was tried and found guilty in this House by members opposite he was actually found innocent in the end. 
Broadbank Network—Financing 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Communications 
: What reports has he received on financing improvements to New Zealand’s broadband network? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 Yes I saw reported yesterday in the Dunedin newspaper  
The Star 
 Katherine Rich proposing Government investment in broadband infrastructure in Dunedin—siding with her leader John Key against Bill English and Maurice Williamson who oppose the other leader’s initiative. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports on investment in broadband infrastructure? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes in the same report in  
The Star 
 Katherine Rich again backed John Key saying that National would commit taxpayers’ funds before key decisions with industry have taken place thus contradicting Mr English who says: “We wouldn’t favour investing as anything other than a last ditch thing.” and who “doubts the ability of local or central government to manage broadband investment.” I understand there are more such delicious contradictions in the pipeline and I undertake to keep the House fully informed in the next session. 
Budget 2007—Treasury Estimate of Fiscal Impulse 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with Treasury’s estimate of the fiscal impulse in 2008 of his latest Budget as set out in the additional information to the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2007? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes and I also agree with the Treasury estimate that fiscal policy continues to lean against domestic demand. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister keep saying that the Budget is leaning against domestic demand when the calculation of fiscal impulse shows quite clearly that his Budget will increase domestic demand and that will force interest rates up higher for longer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because it is moving off a base of a very large operating and cash surplus which the Opposition has continually attacked for the last 3 years and because as the ANZ suggests once again a good balance was struck between running a prudent fiscal policy and not fanning an excessive domestic economy. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on business reaction to fiscal measures in the Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. At the heart of the Budget were initiatives to encourage saving and investing. I have seen a report that shows that 68 percent of business managers proprietors and the self-employed agree with the KiwiSaver employer contributions—and Mr Brownlee nods his head in agreement—and 77 percent support the company tax rate that National voted against. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Budget documents show that despite his spin Treasury calculates that the Budget will increase demand and therefore put pressure on interest rates; that his spending is significantly higher than he forecast just 6 months ago; and that homeowners facing higher mortgage rates higher overdraft rates and higher rates on hire purchase believe that he is part of the problem? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I can confirm that spending and revenue are both running ahead of the mid-year forecast and that the balance is perfectly in line with the mid-year forecast. That mid-year forecast is already taken account of in terms of current monetary policy and market interest rates. The markets these days tend to move in anticipation rather than in reaction. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that encouraging savings has less of a stimulating effect on the economy than say tax cuts while providing the greatest benefits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is clear that over time KiwiSaver will take some demand out of the economy. Indeed Mr English in his own speech in the Budget debate criticised it for reducing consumption. One domestic demand that has clearly been resisted is that by Mr Key for a $2.5 billion a year tax cut fed straight back into demand which must have led to higher interest rates according to the very logic that Mr English is now pursuing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that the Minister can defend his policies only on the basis of accusing National of running a high interest rate and high exchange rate policy when he is the Minister of Finance and he has overseen the highest interest rates and the highest exchange rate we have seen for years and when Treasury commentary in the Budget says we should expect interest rates to be higher for longer than previously forecast? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because I have also presided over the highest long sustained growth rates for years and the lowest unemployment level for years and that has a great deal to do with domestic demand. But Mr English’s leader made it clear in the House yesterday that his view was that the Government should borrow more money to leverage off New Zealand superannuation and to spend that money by way of tax cuts which is highly inflationary. We know that Mr English disagrees with that; that is why he is asking these questions today. 
Hon Bill English 
: Should the Minister not be telling the House that in his own Budget he plans to borrow $4 billion and will he tell us what he borrowed it for—the sweeteners on KiwiSaver the company tax cuts or the increased inflationary domestic spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This year’s Budget shows a level of operating surplus over the next 4 years that is consistent with keeping gross debt to GDP constant. Mr Key made it absolutely crystal clear yesterday that he regarded the growing surpluses in the superannuation fund as a reason why one could borrow more and change what he calls the gearing of the New Zealand Government to fund tax cuts. Mr English needs to ask Mr Key the questions not me. 
District Health Boards—Removal of Elected Members 
4.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What provisions if any allow elected district health board members to be removed from their positions by the Government? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health)  
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: There are provisions in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. Clause 8(1) of schedule 3 states that the Minister may remove an elected member of a board for any of the reasons outlined in legislation and by following due process. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the Whanganui District Health Board has called an emergency meeting for tomorrow to reportedly censure and seek the removal of Clive Solomon an elected board member who has repeatedly alerted the public to the declining quality of care at Wanganui Hospital and with all its problems does the Minister think this is the most pressing issue facing this district health board? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No I am not personally aware of that fact although I understand that the Minister was rung by the chair of the district health board as a matter of courtesy. But I can remind the member that the Health and Disability Commissioner is inquiring into the services of the Whanganui District Health Board and the Ministry of Health has commissioned a clinical review as well. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Are elected district health board members permitted to raise publicly concerns about patient safety at their hospitals or are they expected to cover it up? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not think anyone in public life has any obligation to cover anything up nor would many of us want to do so. But the workings of the district health board in Wanganui are properly matters for the board and as the member has indicated to the House the board is meeting on that matter tomorrow. I do not know what else he would like the board to do. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister not think it is bizarre that the Whanganui District Health Board never had an emergency meeting when one of its surgeons botched the sterilisations of numerous young women never had an emergency meeting when cancer patients went unchecked but when an elected board member criticises the previous chairman of the board—a close friend of Labour Party Cabinet Ministers—the Government’s dogs are off the leash? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As a member of the Government’s Cabinet I have no idea who this person is. I have never met or heard of the person. But if the district health board is having a meeting on that matter then that seems appropriate to me. I doubt very much whether the member asking the question knows anything about what meetings were held by board members or anyone else over this matter. He is speculating about it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What is the point of having whistleblower legislation when if someone does the right thing—speaks out for the community—that person is hunted out and taken down by the Government’s henchmen? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The National Party has obviously been in Opposition so long that it has lost any perception at all about the rule of law. We just had the deputy leader of the National Party wanting to hang draw and quarter someone before any evidence is heard. Now we have Mr Ryall telling us that somebody who has not had the evidence heard is some kind of a saint. Well he may well be but there are due processes to go through. The Minister of Health will be in a position of acting quasi-judicially on this matter and therefore he or she would never make judgments like Mr Ryall. That is why I hope Mr Ryall is never in a position to make any sort of judgment at all because his judgment is completely flawed. 
Youth Crime—Government Pledge 
5.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement on 11 August 2005 that the Labour Government had “pledged to focus on youth crime.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Ron Mark 
: Is he satisfied that since 2002 the number of cases heard in the Youth Court has increased by a massive 70 percent and the number of offenders has increased by almost one-third and what does he think these increases say about the pledge to focus on youth crime? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member will be pleased to know that over the last 5 years youth apprehensions have in fact decreased by 5.1 percent and that when adjusted for the increase in population size the number is actually overall the lowest recorded since 1995. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you heard that question clearly and the Minister spoke of apprehensions. My question specifically was about Youth Court appearances increasing by 70 percent—figures that I got from his own department. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Speaking to the point of order can I say the member is quite correct but his principal question related to the overall youth-offending issue which is what the Prime Minister had referred to. I gave him the fuller information which I assumed he would be pleased to receive. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has addressed the question so no unless it is a new point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I know he addressed the principal question when I asked the principal question. My supplementary question was very specific I suggest to you Madam Speaker. Therefore he should have focused on the Youth Court which my supplementary question asked about. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Can the Minister give an example of a practical intervention that is making a difference in responding to youth crime? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Many projects are funded through Government agencies often in conjunction with non-governmental organisations and community-based agencies. A good example is Tamaki Pathways a Glen Innes - based youth project dealing with at-risk youth. It provides an alternative action path for young offenders and is aimed at reducing the risk of offending and a range of other problematic behaviour. The project has been evaluated—I think that is a very important factor—and it has been showing very good impacts on offending behaviour and other social outcomes. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does the Minister agree with Judge Becroft’s statements that youth crime is caused by disengagement from family and education and by dependence on drugs and alcohol; and how do the failure of the Reducing Youth Offending Programme the closure of alcohol and drug clinics and the lack of a truancy register while 45000 kids wag school each week stop youth offending? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I certainly agree with Judge Becroft that those factors are considerable contributors—and I assume he did say the remarks that the member has attributed to him. Certainly early intervention schemes such as the ENROL scheme the Te Hurihanga programme which is about to get under way in Hamilton the 32 youth-offending teams which have been working since 2003 and the good example of the Horowhenua Life to the Max programme are all good examples of the sort of activity that this Government has resourced to support young people and to bring down rates of youth offending. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree with the social policy unit of the Salvation Army which although agreeing that young people should be held accountable for their offending suggests that better resourcing for youth justice should be focused on ensuring that family group conferences are undertaken in a timely way providing treatment programmes for drug and alcohol problems and conducting psychological psychiatric and educational assessments rather than harsher sentencing; if he does agree what Government priorities are being set in those directions? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the general thrust of that assertion is entirely correct. If the member would like to put a specific question to the appropriate Minister I am sure she would get considerable detail on the wide range of initiatives undertaken through the Ministry of Social Development Child Youth and Family and a number of other Government agencies that are advancing the very matters she is talking about. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister agree that the fact that 40 percent of those appearing in the Youth Court last year were repeat offenders and the fact that an astounding 39 youths were last year making their ninth or more appearance compared with only one in 2002 are clear evidence that the youth justice system is failing to deal effectively with serious recidivist youth offenders? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly I have to say I cannot agree that the youth justice system is failing to deal with young people. As I have indicated to the member the actual overall offending rate is tracking down. But I do agree with the member that there is a critical issue around repeat offending. That is why the focus is on early intervention. Indeed some of the areas that the previous questioner raised are critically important and that is why they do represent a major focus of this Government’s investments. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister treat with the same degree of scepticism that New Zealand First does the advice from the plethora of youth-offending apologists and denialists that youth crime and recidivism rates are not increasing when this information fresh out of his own office clearly shows that they are? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although I do not doubt for a moment that the information the member held up came from my office if he said he did I do not know which information he is referring to. As I have said to the member the overall statistical fact is that youth-offending rates are trending downwards. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table answers to written questions lodged with the Minister of Justice. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Television New Zealand—Charter Obligations to Maori 
6.  
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he believe Television New Zealand is adequately fulfilling its charter obligation to ensure the presence of a significant Maori voice? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Television New Zealand (TVNZ) has two obligations under its charter. One is to feature Maori programmes and one to ensure Maori participation in programmes and planning. Maori programme is represented by programmes like  
Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson 
  
Marae 
  
Te Karere 
  
Mai Time 
 and  
Waka Huia 
 as well as coverage of specific events like Dame Te Ata’s tangi. 
Hon Bill English 
: Give us the whole list. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh there speaks Southland. These efforts will be rewarded by awards for Maori programmes high ratings of Maori programmes and strong popularity of TVNZ channels amongst Maori viewers. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does  
Game of Two Halves 
 count as ensuring the presence of a significant Maori voice on television and if he believes that it does is not that really patronising Maori who appear on the programme because it implies they are there to fulfil a charter requirement when the reality is that their race is completely irrelevant to their presence on the screen? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I said that there are two charter elements. One is Maori programmes and one is to ensure Maori participation in programmes and planning. It is significant that yesterday when one National Party spokesperson was asked to articulate her views the only example she came up with was indeed  
Game of Two Halves 
. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister believe that rather than just focusing on the quantity of programmes that present a Maori perspective TVNZ should also focus on the quality and appropriateness of those programmes to ensure a Maori perspective; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I agree with that. It is interesting that 19 of the top 20 programmes on television are in fact shown by TVNZ. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: How can TVNZ claim that programmes like  
Police Ten-7 
 and  
Lockdown— 
programmes that portray negative stereotypes of Maori as underachievers and criminals—fulfil its charter obligation to promote Maori language and culture? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that Mr Ellis was responding in relation to the Maori participation element not the Maori programme. I think he accepts that the example he chose was an infelicitous one. I am sure that if it was suggested that TVNZ was deliberately removing Maori criminals from  
Police Ten-7 
 the National Party would be up in arms about that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Was he surprised by Mr Ellis’ statement yesterday when he sought to justify the ludicrous placement of  
Te Karere 
 at a time when Maori are not watching it by the statement: “At the end of the day we are a commercial broadcaster.” and does he agree that this suggests the chief executive has become so obsessed with returning a profit that he has forgotten that TVNZ is actually a public service broadcaster with substantial taxpayer funding and obligations to ensure a significant Maori voice? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: TVNZ obviously operates its own decisions with regard to the placement of programming. I think we can probably all find programmes that we wish were not shown at the times they are shown either because we wish we did not have to watch them or because we wish we could actually see them when we are able to. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question and he has not even attempted to answer it. I asked whether he was surprised by Mr Ellis’ comment that TVNZ was basically simply a commercial broadcaster. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened to the member’s question. It was a very long question that involved several thoughts. As the member knows with all supplementary questions the Minister is required to respond to only one of them and the Minister did on that occasion. I suggest to all members that they keep their questions quite specific and quite short. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Was it a deliberate decision by TVNZ to include Maori individuals in shows like  
Dancing with the Stars 
  
Game of Two Halves 
  
Location LocationLocation 
 and so on to fulfil charter obligations; if so how can such a distasteful policy be condoned by the Minister and could this be why the Prime Minister reportedly said today: “I cannot see that one would count the programmes he mentioned as contributing to Maori perspectives on television. I think Rick Ellis would be best to rethink that one.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I emphasise again there are two different obligations. One is in terms of Maori programming which is quite specific. 
Hon Member 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am answering the question. One is in terms of Maori participation. That of course gets us into a classic “killed if you do and killed if you don’t” kind of argument. If one has Maori represented then presumably the argument from some is that that is some kind of apartheid. If one does not have Maori represented then the argument is that the programme is unrepresentative. I do not regard having particular Maori on  
Dancing with the Stars  
as fulfilling charter obligations. I am not convinced that  
Dancing with the Stars 
 fulfils charter obligations any more than having Rodney Hide on  
Dancing with the Stars  
is representing a minority of people who cannot dance. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister concur with the view of TVNZ’s chief executive that effectively Maori content on local programming means having someone with a brown face on it or does he agree with the Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples who said that just having someone on a programme saying “Kia ora bro” does not make it a Maori programme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would probably agree more with Dr Sharples on that but I would point out that Mr Ellis was answering in the context of participation not Maori programmes. It is unfair to translate his answer across into the Maori programming element where TVNZ does a reasonably significant amount of Maori programmes. But clearly tokenism of the sort that the member is referring to does not meet any kinds of obligations. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister agree that there is a major contradiction if he says he does not believe that  
Dancing with the Stars  
fulfils charter obligations when the chief executive of TVNZ repeatedly says it does? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am entitled to my views and he is entitled to his. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given all the speculation as to what does constitute a charter programme and whether  
Dancing with the Stars 
 and  
Police Ten-7 
 are charter programming does he not think it is high time if he expects New Zealanders to continue to fund charter programmes that we actually came up with a definition and clear criteria as to what constitutes a charter programme and what does not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not for a very simple reason. I believe that some broad definition is appropriate but once we try to become highly specific then the Government is trying to direct TVNZ about specific programming and there is a name for States that run that kind of system. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister agree with Rick Ellis when he said on Radio New Zealand National earlier today that this debate flows from a general lack of specificity around charter measurements; and why has the Minister spent the last 5 years championing a charter for TVNZ that is basically meaningless because it is completely non-specific and contains no solid criteria against which its implementation can be measured? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The measurements are being reviewed this year. [ 
Interruption 
] In fact if the member had read Mr Ellis’ interview he would know that because Mr Ellis himself said that in I think about the sentence before the one that he was quoting. It is always good to do one’s own work rather than rely on one’s research unit when asking questions. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Why is it that we can never get Minister Maharey to front up when things get a bit sticky in broadcasting and has not this whole sorry episode really brought matters to a head in broadcasting and proved that the Minister’s charter is a joke because under the charter TVNZ can basically get away with anything; and is not broadcasting policy just another area where this Minister has failed to deliver just like the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and just like 20 free hours? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister is delivering on 20 free hours but more important 19 of the top 20 programmes on television are on TVNZ. 
Amnesty International—Action Plan for Human Rights 
7.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the Government’s response to the latest Amnesty International report which criticised the New Zealand Government over the treatment of Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui the police trials of Taser stun guns and its failure to progress the Action Plan for Human Rights? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government welcomes open debate about human rights issues. The matters raised in the report need to be viewed in the broad perspective of New Zealand’s strong record in promoting and protecting human rights and the high level of human rights enjoyed throughout our country. I note that the report’s brief comment on New Zealand expressly recognises our positive actions on one of the key campaigns of Amnesty International in 2006 to stop violence against women. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister be advising the Minister of Immigration that given the international criticism of the 4-year-plus delay in the review of Ahmed Zaoui’s status the Minister should at least allow Mr Zaoui’s family members—UN-recognised refugees in their own right—to join him here until the review is completed; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If the member wishes to put a question to the Minister of Immigration he should do so. That is a matter completely outside of my ministerial responsibility. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is appropriate given the Minister of Justice is concerned with human rights and given the international attention to Mr Zaoui that as a Minister he can give advice to the Minister of Immigration. This is what my question asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes but the Minister has to have ministerial responsibility. The question must be relaid. I am sure that will happen but not now in question time. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister be advising on human rights grounds that the Minister of Police halt the Taser trial given the criticism of it in the Amnesty International report and the many deaths that have occurred overseas as a result of Taser use as identified by Amnesty International? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Again that is a trial that is primarily the responsibility of another Minister but I am certainly advised that extensive safeguards have been put in place to ensure that Tasers do not represent a breach of human rights of New Zealanders. That programme as the House knows—we have been informed before—will be thoroughly evaluated. 
Darien Fenton 
: What did the reference to New Zealand in the Amnesty International report say in regard to violence against women? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I indicated in my initial response the report noted the very important elements of our joint task force programme of action to stop violence against women. As I said that was a 2006 international focus for Amnesty International. It included the nationwide campaign to change attitudes to violence changes in the justice sector to meet the needs of victims offenders and their families and a review of deaths resulting from family violence to help strengthen prevention systems. 
Keith Locke 
: What is the Government’s time line to progress and implement the Action Plan for Human Rights which was commissioned in 2002 and formally received in 2005; what is the hold-up a result of? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As the member knows that is a wide-ranging document. As the acting Chief Human Rights Commissioner himself said today there has already been useful work in policy on a number of issues. He cited section 59 of the Crimes Act the New Zealand settlement strategy and the UN disability convention as work we have already done that is directly related to that. 
Simon Power 
: What does the Minister think? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: What I think is that if the member has a question he should get on his hind legs and ask it. But I tell Mr Power that the Human Rights Commission is getting an additional $7.5 million. What I think is that this Government repealed the draconian legislation in industrial relations for the good and well-being of New Zealand workers. I tell Mr Power that that is action on human rights for working New Zealanders. 
Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill—Consultation with Minister of Maori Affairs 
8.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Was the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia consulted on the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill prior to its introduction to the House? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Yes as were all my other Cabinet colleagues as part of the normal Cabinet process. 
Hon David Carter 
: What did the Minister mean when he wrote to the Hon Parekura Horomia on 28 November 2006 saying: “I would like information on this proposal to stay within the Government.” and why did he not consider Shane Jones and all Labour Maori caucus members to be part of the Government? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It would be very helpful if the member were open with the House and finished the sentence he quoted which states: “I would like information on this proposal to stay within the Government”—which is where the member finished the quote; he should have continued—“until Cabinet has made its decisions.” That is the normal Cabinet process. But of course the member did not want to say that because it would have hurt his case. Never let the facts get in the way of one’s own prejudice! 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister share the views of the Labour Party Maori caucus that the proposed amendment will impact on the value of Maori fisheries assets obtained under the Sealord fisheries settlement; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: We are in a situation where we are discussing all of these issues—and I welcome that—both at the select committee which is taking a constructive approach and with other members of Parliament. The reality is that we are facing a crisis of sustainability in some of our fisheries and the Maori caucus members acknowledge that quite strongly. I support them in that and I welcome that support. They have legitimate concerns about the effect of any Act of Parliament or any change in law on commercial fisheries and I accept that. I do not believe that it is necessarily a valid concern but we have to talk it through and we are going to do that and I welcome the discussion. 
Hon David Carter 
: So did the Minister consult Shane Jones and all of the Labour Maori caucus before introducing the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill to Parliament? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: All bills that go through the Cabinet process go to caucuses. The Progressive caucus met and considered the bill and was in full agreement with its leader on that matter. I am sure that the Labour caucus also met and that its members expressed their views. 
Hon David Carter 
: So why did the Minister sign out a Cabinet paper specifically noting that this particular legislation did not have to go before Government caucuses? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I believe that the Cabinet minute the member is talking about is a Cabinet minute that went to the economic development Cabinet committee. When Cabinet considered the matter the minute was altered to note that Government caucuses would be consulted and that other parties in the House would be consulted—and other parties in the House were consulted. I remind the member of course that when the bill finally came to Parliament the member’s own party voted for it. 
Hon David Carter 
: I seek leave to table consultation on Cabinet and Cabinet committee submissions signed by Jim Anderton and specifically— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Carter 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Mr Anderton to Parekura Horomia dated 28 November 2006. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Defence Force—Personnel Deployed Overseas 
9.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What reports has he received on the effectiveness and professionalism of New Zealand Defence Force personnel deployed overseas? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have recently received two reports. One was received via the Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon and it was from the former commander of the combined joint forces in Afghanistan General Carl Eichenberry. He stated: “New Zealand forces in that theatre were professionally of the highest order and one of the best group contingents to deal with. The New Zealand Special Air Service were as good as any similar force …” he had known. The second report was from a letter from the British Chief of Defence Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup. He was noting the end of our joint deployment in Bosnia and remarked: “New Zealand military personnel have a formidable reputation and in Bosnia they have only added to it. Their humane professional yet low-key demeanour has made them a respected asset to the various multi-national forces that have operated within Bosnia.” I think those are reports that not only the New Zealand Defence Force but every member of this House can rightly be proud of. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister share with the House other formal acknowledgments that he has received from Governments of exemplary performance by New Zealand Defence Force personnel? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yesterday I had the privilege to present to the 1st New Zealand Special Air Service group a US Presidential unit citation which read: “For extraordinary heroism and outstanding performance of duty.” This as a United States defence attaché stated yesterday is an award seldom given in the United States and even more rarely given to non - American service personnel. It reflects the exemplary behaviour and conduct of the New Zealand Special Air Service in the dangerous and difficult environment they faced in Afghanistan in December 2001. The New Zealand Special Air Service is a group that I have the utmost confidence will when given a task to perform carry it out with courage and skill and deliver what has been asked of it. Again it is a very special unit that all New Zealanders have the right to be proud of. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister confirm to the House the high level of regard the New Zealand Defence Force is held in by the Government of Afghanistan the Governor of the Bamian province and significantly the senior officers of the international security force in Afghanistan as a result of the work that has been done by not only the New Zealand Special Air Service but also the men and women who have served in the provincial reconstruction team—regard that is exemplified I think by the comments made to Mr Goff and me by the commander of the 82nd Airborne battalion whilst we were in Afghanistan on Anzac Day? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can confirm what the member has said. I had the opportunity in Afghanistan to talk to the President the Vice-President the Minister of Defence and two other Ministers. All of them came back with the same comment which was how much they appreciated that New Zealand Defence Force personnel had come so far to assist in the stability and development of their country. In fact President Karzai said that it gave his people great confidence that New Zealanders had come from so far away to help them achieve peace and stability. I also had comments from the 4-star general in charge of the International Security Assistance Force and the United Nations Secretary-General’s special representative. Both of those individuals described our provincial reconstruction team in Bamian as a model team and a model for other countries to follow. Again I think that what we have achieved in that country has been absolutely superb. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Through you Madam Speaker I would like to put on the record New Zealand First’s disgust at the heckling by the National Party members like Sandra Goudie during what we considered to be a very good report back by the Minister of the work done by our men and women in the New Zealand Defence Force. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is just to acknowledge to the House that we picked up from that questioning that Mr Mark is clearly a very important person in the defence arrangements of the Government and we would not oppose leave should he choose to put his travel slides on the Table for us to view at a later time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is also not a point of order. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I seek the leave of the House to table two letters one from the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the second from the Chief of Defence Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup which I referred to in answering the primary question. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to make sure that even though you dismissed Mr Brownlee’s point of order his comments will be recorded in  
Hansard 
. I think it is very important that service people see them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I am very happy to have the entire exchange put into  
Hansard 
—and naturally it will be so the member is not getting anything he would not have got anyway. But I think it is absolutely disgraceful that a member of Parliament stands up— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: —and tries to grandstand about how very important he is— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I am on my feet. [ 
Interruption 
] Would the member please leave the Chamber. I am sorry but I was on my feet for quite some time and the member just kept on ignoring me and talking. It was not a point of order. Of course the comments will go in  
Hansard 
. They are the normal rules. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There was no point of order in the first place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Exactly and that is the point I was making when you kept on talking over the top of me. 
Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber. 
Child Youth and Family—Confidence 
10.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she have confidence in Child Youth and Family; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes I do because unlike that member I support the difficult hard work that the department and its social workers do. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the people of New Zealand have confidence when her department’s poor performance is the very reason Mataroa Barton a convicted teenage sex offender who yesterday pleaded guilty to evading his supervisors at a Child Youth and Family home at least eight times has been given a second chance in the community only minutes away from one of his victims? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually the District Court on the recommendation of the Department of Corrections recommended that that young man be detained in a secure facility and I am confident that the District Court understanding all the circumstances—rather than selective provisions as that member chooses—is confident that the community is safe. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is the very hard-working Child Youth and Family doing to ensure the permanent placement of children and young people in the department’s care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am pleased to inform the House that despite the best efforts of the member who asked the primary question to undermine the good work undertaken by Child Youth and Family— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the Minister just address the question. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —it does have a robust permanency policy in place and that is indicated by the fact that there has been a continuing trend downwards in the number of children particularly those under 3 years of age who remain in the care of the department. 
Chris Tremain 
: Does the Minister think it is fair that a young woman and her daughter should have to consider vacating their home because they are frightened that Mataroa Barton has been placed by Child Youth and Family back into their community within walking distance of their home; and does the Minister not think that the rights of victims should come before those of criminals? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I want to make two points in relation to that question. The first is that the District Court made the decision not Child Youth and Family. The second point is that if that member of Parliament were serious about the security of his constituent he may have thought twice about publishing her address on a publicly available website. That member put her address in the public domain. In my view that is a serious threat and he should have reconsidered that action. 
Chris Tremain 
: What assurances can the Minister give this Napier mother and daughter and the wider Napier community that they are 100 percent safe from Mataroa Barton and that he will not escape his supervisors given that he did escape at least eight times when he was under Child Youth and Family care in the community recently? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am confident that the process the District Court undertook gave it confidence that both the community and that young man would be safe. I invite the member to consider what the District Court process was and to stop implying that Child Youth and Family made this decision. It is nonsense. 
Standards and Conformance Infrastructure Review—Response 
11.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What was the response to the standards and conformance infrastructure review and what changes will be made as a result? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The review confirmed that the standards and conformance infrastructure plays a pivotal role in facilitating innovation as well as contributing to the Labour-led Government’s economic transformation and sustainability goals. The proposals include a reduction in the size of the membership of the Standards Council and Telarc so that they can focus on the governance of Standards New Zealand and International Accreditation New Zealand respectively. The Standards Council will establish sector advisory boards to develop strategic plans that set the standardisation priorities across their sectors—a very good review. 
Maryan Street 
: How will the announcement ensure that New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure drives innovation and assists international trade? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Overseeing the whole standards and conformance infrastructure will be a regulatory forum that will include regulators policy makers standards and conformance bodies and invited industry representatives. The forum will ensure that a strategic approach is adopted and that standards drive high-quality regulatory regimes in accordance with international best practice. This is good for New Zealand and I look forward to the National Party’s question. 
Benefits—Single Core Benefit 
12.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he agree with the claims of his predecessor the Hon Steve Maharey when he described the single core benefit as a world first and the most significant reform of New Zealand’s welfare system since 1938; if so why? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I note that the Minister has a longish answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The member has slightly misquoted my predecessor as she is wont to do. My colleague Mr Maharey said that the changes which included both enhanced employment services and a move to the single core benefit were a world first and would be the most significant reforms of the New Zealand welfare system since 1938. And yes I do agree. The changes we are working through are quite fundamental and are progressing very well. Phase one which concentrates on enhanced employment services began with a new service approach which has just been rolled out to all service centres whereby employment support services have been extended to all clients on a voluntary basis related to what they can do not to what they cannot and on client needs not on the name of any benefits they may be entitled to. The Social Security Amendment Bill which is currently before Parliament and which the National Party opposes completes phase one by ensuring that clients who need employment support get the support they need. The bill will also align some rules and criteria for access to benefits in preparation for the next phase. As the member has been informed on a number of occasions decisions about phase two which comes after phase one will be the simplification of actual benefit structures and will be made in 2008. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I suggest that perhaps you should scrutinise the answers that might be given. Our member asked a very precise question about the single core benefit. You gave permission to the Minister to give a longer answer. Most of the answer was not about the single core benefit and I feel that he has exploited your goodwill. It would be good if you indicated to the House that any answer that is long has to answer the question not some question that he wished was asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I listened very carefully and the Minister was giving a very full explanation of the various phases of the single core benefit as I heard it. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is the Minister this week describing the single core benefit as “just renaming benefit categories” when his predecessor Steve Maharey said in February 2005 that the Government was now ready for the next step and that it was replacing the raft of benefits rules and entitlements with a single core benefit for all working-age clients? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Once again sadly the member completely misrepresents the statements I have made. I said in fact if she would like to consult  
Hansard 
 and the documents I have released that these changes are not simply about renaming benefits. 
Judith Collins 
: If as the Minister told Parliament on Tuesday Cabinet still needs to decide on the single core benefit why did Steve Maharey unveil it as policy on 24 February 2005 and why did the Labour Party campaign to “introduce a core benefit for working-age beneficiaries”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Any objective assessment of what Mr Maharey said on 22 February and the subsequent mystification coming from that member will leave people in no doubt about what the actual situation is. I would say though that I am mystified after repeated answers in this House at the inability—or incapacity—of that member to understand these explanations. I know she and the select committee have been extensively briefed about these matters by the Ministry of Social Development. It may be that she missed out on that briefing because I know she has a poor attendance record at the select committee— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That’s not relevant. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
:—but I am happy to offer that member a further briefing on this matter. 
Judith Collins 
: Apart from all the personal insults and fibs I ask— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member just ask the question. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister now telling the House that when in January 2005—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Dr Cullen that we would have to prise him away from it first—Helen Clark described a single universal benefit in this way: “It’s very close to coming to a head.” did she really mean it; and why does he not just admit that Labour has given up and abandoned the single core benefit that we told Labour would not work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: What I am telling the House is that that Opposition can be assured that this Government will keep driving the changes that have led to a reduction of unemployment from 161000 when those idiots were in power to around 25000 now. 
Judith Collins 
: Who is telling the truth—is it Helen Clark who announced at her post-Cabinet press conference on 14 February 2005 that Cabinet had approved plans for a new single core benefit or is it the Minister who told Parliament this week that Cabinet still needs to make that decision? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I repeat for at least the fifth time in the House this week that the first phase of implementation of these changes is already in place and when Mrs Collins has the unfortunate circumstances of needing to go to Work and Income for support she will find those services available to her. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the  
Dominion  
article from 17 July 2000 headed “Universal benefits on cards for 2002”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the  
Dominion  
article headed “Government plans universal benefit by 2002” dated 18 July 2000. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the article headed “Single benefit by 2002” dated 31 July 2000. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the article from 3 August 2000 headed “Benefits of cast iron guarantees”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the article from 31 January 2005 headed “PM set to unveil universal benefit”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the article headed “Single benefit plans backed” from 15 October 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the article headed “Single benefit gets nod” from 15 February 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the article from 6 October 2005 headed “PM fleshes out single benefit plan”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the article headed “Single benefit announced” from 22 February 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table page 178 of the Labour Party’s 2005 election manifesto. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Budget Debate 
Debate resumed from 23 May on the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 During the debate last evening a National Party member challenged my statements in relation to benefit reductions on the East Coast and in Opotiki. I seek the leave of the House to table the Work and Income statistics from those areas for last month compared with those for 1999. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I start my speech by commending my fellow colleague Judith Collins for raising the issue of the single core benefit which again is nowhere to be seen in the Budget. Labour members have been speaking about that benefit for well over a decade but there is as much chance of sighting Elvis in the Porirua mall as there is of seeing the single core benefit under this Government. 
What a debacle the public relations exercise for this Budget has been. What was the headline in the paper on the day of the Budget when the Government expected to be basking in the self-congratulation of its own announcements? The headline was about Gordon Copeland leaving United Future and it wiped Helen Clark’s face off the front page of every single paper in the country. Was that not just delicious? And today at a time when the country is still supposed to be thinking about the Budget and talking about the so-called good news from this Government the Budget and the discussion of it was again wiped off every New Zealand paper and wiped off every TV channel as the country discusses the issue of Taito Phillip Field. 
The Taito Phillip Field issue is very interesting. The Prime Minister told us that there was nothing to worry about—in her usual “nothing to see or hear move along quickly the Ingram report was thorough” way. What we have seen is quite the opposite of that. The Prime Minister actually said that the Ingram report was thorough enough for her and that the investigation was thorough enough for her. Well I would have to say that the police obviously do not think so because they are going to seek leave from the High Court to be able to press charges. I think the Prime Minister should come to the House and explain her position because she is the person who told New Zealanders that there was nothing to worry about that the investigations had been done to her satisfaction and that the public and the Opposition should just forget about the Taito Phillip Field affair. Well obviously some other information has moved the police to seek to press charges. I think that affair is just another case of that Government trying to cover things up and get the public to forget about the issues that are important. 
We have not seen a case like this that I can think of in the history of the New Zealand Parliament. Cases of bribery and corruption may be par for the course in other Parliaments around the world but I have not seen or heard of a case like this one—particularly a case of this nature. MPs who are asked to work on behalf of constituents are supposed to do so with a level of honesty and dignity. Well the Prime Minister needs to explain her position because the way that she set up the Ingram report meant it was designed to fail—to not get the answers to the questions and to not get to the bottom of the affair. But thankfully the police did not give up. 
 I would like to turn my attention to the education sector and frankly to the lack of what was in the Budget. There was not much for education in the Budget and in a cynical attempt to manage political groups and those within the education sector all the lollies are planned for the 2008 Budget. There was no significant shift in the operations grant for schools and no significant shift in a lot of areas in which there have been huge growing expectations. It is classic for Minister Maharey I have to say— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: “Slippery Steve”. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: —“Slippery Steve” to wait until an issue is sufficiently difficult before he calls for a review— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: The “life of blameless excellence”!. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: —the “life of blameless excellence” as my learned friend Mr McCully points out. The review will take a year. Then there has to be a year to evaluate the review then he will wait until an election year—what a surprise—before he actually delivers any funding. He has told those within the sector there will be no movement in the operations grant until 2008. 
But the most slippery example which I think is what we are getting used to from this Minister was the swift movement he did in changing the Government’s position on its policy regarding teacher-pupil ratios in junior classes. At the 2005 election the Prime Minister and the then Minister of Education Trevor Mallard said that by 2008 junior classes would have no more than 15 students per class. We now see in the Budget the watering down of that policy—a slippery slithering of the position—to a point where the ratio will now be 1:18 sometime in 2008; and the objective of 1:15 is so far off in the distance that it is not measurable. I am concerned that things obviously looked terribly simple around the Labour Party election table but just as we saw with the policy of 20 free hours’ early childhood education what sounds simple around the Labour Party election table becomes quite different when one looks at the complexities of trying to implement the policy. 
I think the Minister has been quite negligent because even as late as last year it was quite clear from Treasury documents that the Minister and the Government had not done anything to cost the policy on ratios in junior classes. They had not costed out the staff implications they had not costed out the property implications and certainly they had not put aside the dollars. That is why the policy is not achievable. There certainly will not be a 1:15 ratio in junior classes by the end of 2008 unless the Minister is planning on a tidal wave of teachers joining the education sector between term 2 and term 4. 
I would like also to discuss the slippery slithering position on 20 free hours because that is also another policy that looked very simple around the Labour Party election table as members were thinking about the top 10 ways they could win the election by bribing people. At the election Ministers and the Prime Minister said all 3 and 4-year-olds come 1 July 2007 would get 20 free hours within the early childhood sector. There were no qualifiers; it was to be for all 3 and 4-year-olds. But as we all know the reality is quite different. The position moved from being “all 3 and 4-year-olds” to “up to 92000 students” to “approximately 92000 students” to “Well I hope 92000 students”. But we know that the reality will be quite different from that. The Government will be lucky if it can provide half of that number of places because many centres have not signed up to provided the hours. There is a reason why centres have not signed up: they do not like the control that the Government is trying to impose on them. 
On looking at the rates and at the way that the Government has gone about the implementation of the 20 free hours policy we can also see it is quite clear that the work has not been done on that. The Minister stands in the House and pretends that a policy is successful if a great number of forms—259000—are printed and distributed around the country. He thinks that is a measure of the success of the policy. If life were as simple as that then politics would be a very easy business. Why he is excited about 259000 forms I do not know because allegedly there are only 92000 places. I tell the House that those parents will be damned angry when they have obtained their form filled it out and marched along to their centre only to be told the centre is not taking up the 20 free hours. They will be angry; there will be increased anger about this policy after 1 July. 
I think another swiftie was pulled in respect of the funding of the 20 free hours. The Minister tried to pretend that increasing the amounts provided to compensate for inflation was his big concession to the sector. Well I do not think the sector will be particularly enamoured of that and certainly will not be swayed by it. 
Finally I want to make a few points about KiwiSaver. I think it is a wonderful irony that the Labour Party which says it stands for the workers is now putting in place a savings programme that will not benefit low-income people because they simply will not opt in. Those on $11.25 an hour will not have the space to save. Not only will they have to forfeit a pay increase and not get a tax cut—not even the 67c a week that Minister Cullen promised in a previous Budget—but they will be subsidising higher-income Kiwis who are saving. I think the Minister should go out and explain to 18-year-olds why they should be excited about not getting a pay increase or a tax cut now because they will get something in 45 years’ time. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: If they’re lucky. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That is if they are lucky as my colleague points out. Labour is naive in thinking that is— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Good for them. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: David Cunliffe might have been one of the few 18-year-olds who was planning his superannuation at the time but most of them are not excited at the prospect of lollies in 45 years’ time. 
There was an opportunity for great vision for education in this Budget. There is nothing in this Budget that will effect positive change in the sector. There is nothing to increase the literacy and numeracy of our kids. There is nothing that will make a difference to the one in five kids who are currently failing in our schools. Certainly there is nothing that will improve things in the early childhood sector. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 That was very poor performance from a member who is generally capable of much better than that. It is a bit rich for that member to start saying that a person on the minimum wage of $11.25 an hour cannot afford to save. I would remind Katherine Rich that the minimum wage was $6 an hour when her Government left office—$6 an hour—because the previous National Government year after year refused to give the lowest-income people in this country the chance to earn a decent wage. Those members did not change it when they were in Government over 9 years; this Government has put up the minimum wage every year it has been in office. And she said that those people will not appreciate having the chance to have a superannuation scheme which is what KiwiSaver is. 
It is all right for Katherine Rich who like every member of this House is entitled to a matching employer contribution in a superannuation scheme here. Most of the lower-income people do not have that opportunity and this legislation this Budget gives those low-income people the chance to save. For every $20 they save each week they will get $40 in tax credits. That is great. The member said that people do not appreciate it but the polls showed that 77 percent of New Zealanders supported or strongly supported that particular measure the KiwiSaver. In fact a mere 7 percent—and that included every member of the National caucus—opposed it. 
This will be good for families because it enables them to get help to get into their first home. It will provide $10000 for a couple to help towards their deposit to get into their first home. It will give people including those on low incomes help to do that. Putting aside $20 a week is not impossible; it is harder for low-income people than it is for people in this House but it is not so hard when we compare it with the price of a packet of cigarettes or a couple of beers at the pub. People can do that and that will give them the chance to have a retirement that gives them more than the basic amount they would get under New Zealand superannuation. 
It was bit rich too that Katherine Rich talked about how bad the provision was for early childhood education. National would scrap the several hundreds of millions of dollars that this Government is putting into helping people get free and good-quality preschool education for their children. National has done nothing ever for preschool education. Every initiative that has been taken to invest in the area of education which is arguably the most important area of Government spending has been done under a Labour Government and we are proud of that. 
I will comment briefly on the throwaway line Katherine Rich said about Mr Field. There are some fundamental things in our democracy and in the rule of law in this country. One is that there is a separation between the Government and the judiciary. The second is that there is a presumption of innocence and that guilt or innocence is decided in a court—not by members of the National Party. But what really makes me sick is the hypocrisy of National members who on the day that Phillip Field left the Labour Party ceased asking questions holding him to account for what he might have done and only today have they resumed asking questions about that matter. That is double standards and it does not reflect well on the National members sitting opposite. 
I want to go back to KiwiSaver because I think that it is really important not only for families as I have pointed out but also for the economy of our country. One thing we know about New Zealand is that we have had one of the worst records of personal saving in the OECD. It has taken a long time to get here. We now have a scheme that will dramatically increase the rate of personal savings. What does that mean for New Zealand? It means that instead of borrowing the personal savings of people who live overseas we will use our own savings to invest in our own economy and we will continue to control our own economy rather than passing control ownership and dividends to people living overseas. Australia has had a scheme of this nature for over 10 years now. It has put together a more than $1 trillion - deep pool of savings that has strengthened its economic performance. There is no reason why New Zealand will not similarly benefit from having this scheme. 
Actually we could have had this scheme 30 years ago. The Norman Kirk - led Labour Government brought in a scheme that would have seen New Zealand become a totally different place today in terms of our savings our investment and our economic performance. That scheme was taken away—illegally as it happened—by the former National Government in 1975. It is deeply ironic that it was Mr Muldoon’s National Government that did that then and it is Mr Key’s National Party that is threatening to do the same thing today if it is given the chance. 
I say that that lot will not be given the chance. Those tired old faces—Murray McCully and the rest of those members sitting along there—will not be given the chance because the National Party voted against this measure that 77 percent of New Zealanders support. The fact is that the National Party is a dinosaur. It has learnt nothing it has no policy and it has no vision. This Budget shows that not only has the Labour Government managed this country competently for nearly 8 years—and has managed it to create 347000 jobs; no wonder our registered unemployment has hit 25000 which is one of the best records in the Western World and indicates one of the best rates of growth over that term in office of any OECD country—but also we are the party that is still coming up with new ideas and new initiatives. We are thinking to the future and taking this country forward. 
Murray McCully does not have ideas like that. He has not had an idea in a decade. When the public of this country look at who can lead New Zealand forward they will choose somebody with the depth of leadership and the competency of Helen Clark over the shallowness and vacillations of a John Key. You know the National Party voted against the Budget and KiwiSaver savings—and the business tax cuts—but we cannot rely on those members to oppose it tomorrow. This is the party whose leader said just a few months ago that climate change was a hoax. Then the next day he turned around and said that climate change was the greatest problem facing New Zealand and asked why the Government was not doing more about it. 
Where is the depth of analysis? What can we believe about this National Party? One day those members would have had the troops in Iraq; the next day they were against doing that. One day they were against New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy; the next day they were for it. One day they were against our having 4 weeks’ holiday for workers; the next day they were for it. The fact is that the public is fast realising that they cannot believe anything the National Party says and they cannot believe it because the National Party does not actually believe anything. 
 Where is its programme of action? Where are its policies? Where is its vision for the future? Where is its competent front bench? It is full of hacks from the last failed National Government and its 9 bleak years in the 1990s. National promised that it would not take away superannuation—no ifs no buts no maybes. The first thing that Government did was to increase the surtax rather than remove it. If that is not dishonesty if that is not breaking one’s word what is? It is largely the same people sitting on those benches who failed this country so badly just those few years ago. 
The other part of this Budget that I think is particularly good is the business tax reform package. New Zealanders are quite smart. They know that if we want better living standards if we want the delivery of better social services we have to generate the wealth to pay for those things. This business tax cut package does just that. That is why again New Zealanders are overwhelmingly in favour—66 percent in favour—of these business tax cuts. Seventeen percent including every voting member of the National Party on that side is against them. We do not know whether they believe in tax cuts. John Key says he wants them he wants $7 billion worth of them and Bill English says they would be massively inflationary and he will not have a bar of it. There we are. We have the Leader of the Opposition the deputy leader of the National Party and the Opposition spokesperson on finance saying opposite things. 
They said opposite things about broadband. John Key says we have to spend a lot more on it. Bill English says: “Oh no not really.” Murray McCully when asked to explain the contradiction said: “Oh that’s because Bill is speaking in his capacity as finance spokesperson.” I say to Murray that that is very impressive. That will increase the credibility of the National Party all over the country! We cannot believe it. We have two men who sit alongside each other who hate each other’s guts. Why would not Bill English dislike John Key in that way? John Key turned up at his house the night before the caucus vote and said: “I’m with you Bill.” He went out the next day—and Murray knows this—and voted against Bill English in a way that lost him the leadership. How can we have two people who dislike each other trying to present a united face to the country? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 As members will have discerned we have just heard from easily the happiest front-bencher in the Labour Government. Indeed he is clearly the happiest member of the Labour caucus. In fact there is one person in this House who I suspect is even happier than John Key when we open up a new public opinion poll these days and that is Phil Goff. Phil Goff looks at each of those public opinion polls with a double-digit lead for John Key and the National Party and he looks at the list of names of his colleagues. He can see which colleagues will be biting the dust come the next election. Mr Goff knows very well that these are the people who were inserted against his wishes by Helen Clark and others—the people who intend to vote for Steve Maharey when the revolution comes. There is nobody happier in the Labour Party today than Mr Goff who is waiting for the next election. He can see the fallout that is going to occur and he is secretly very pleased indeed. 
The Budget that was read in this House a week or so ago is subject in my mind to one acid test—and I invite any member on the other side of the House to consider this and to respond. I looked at the statistics released by the Government Statistician for this year to March and they tell us that 700 New Zealanders on average left this country for Australia each and every week in the last year. About 36000 New Zealanders in the space of a year are going to Australia—that is more than the number of people in a city the size of Gisborne are being wiped off the face of the New Zealand map in the space of a year. 
I asked Mr Cunliffe about this and he should take note. I see his colleague Mr Duynhoven has been fitted up with a noose around his neck by the Prime Minister. We know what is next. Mr Cunliffe will be the next to receive that treatment from the Prime Minister if he carries on like this. I suggest to that Minister that he should ask himself this question: will the Budget read in this House last week see fewer than an average of 500 New Zealanders a week leaving for Australia in the coming year as was the case last year or not? He knows and every member opposite knows that that outward flow to Australia will increase rather than decrease as a consequence of the Budget. That is the acid test. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek the leave of members opposite for me to answer the question just posed to me by the speaker who has just resumed his seat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The Minister can take his call. He can have the next 10 minutes and that will be plenty of time even for him to answer a question as complicated as that. 
I suggest that the effect of the Budget on the flow of people to Australia is the acid test. New Zealanders will vote with their feet as they voted with their feet last year and the year before in increasing numbers. That is the test and it is for one reason: each and every year we are seeing an increase in the gap between average income levels in New Zealand and Australia. 
I was privileged quite recently to go to the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum in Sydney to see a presentation by Dr David Skilling from the New Zealand Institute. That presentation broke down the states of Australia and looked at the per capita GDP figures for each of those states compared with the figure for New Zealand. That presentation contained some very chilling news. It showed that New Zealand in terms of per capita GDP is lagging behind even the worst-performing state in Australia—Tasmania—by some significant margin. As a consequence of the Budget read in this House last week we will see those numbers get even worse in the year ahead. 
I say to Mr Cunliffe to Mr Goff and to others that that is why the public have taken the phone off the hook. That is why the public are no longer interested in the claptrap we hear from those members at question time. The public are no longer interested in the empty words and the slogans we hear at Budget time. The New Zealand public know that unless there is a change of course this country is in serious difficulty indeed. 
I want to spend some time in this Budget debate looking at one of the items that was referred to in some detail in the Budget speech—foreign affairs. I preface my comments by saying that on this side of the House despite the fact that we are in Opposition we understand that foreign policy for any country is not owned by any individual political party by any Government or by any individual people. Foreign policy is in fact something that is owned by the people of a nation. That is why National members have taken some considerable care as an Opposition to speak where we can in one voice with the Government in matters relating to foreign affairs trade and defence. 
This is a small relatively isolated country. We are heavily dependent on the rest of the world for trade opportunities. It is important that New Zealand’s interests do not get shuffled around or ebb and flow as a consequence of movement in the electoral cycle. That is why our starting point in these matters is for us to be bipartisan wherever that is possible. It is important that that should be understood in the context of the remarks I now want to make. We have some differences with the Government in these matters. They are differences of degree and emphasis and I think it is important that they should be understood. 
Firstly it is not clear from the Budget line quite how much money is being voted in this respect but a figure of something like $35 million seems to be contained in the Budget to support the role of the United Nations and the bodies associated with that entity. I urge that in the year ahead New Zealand should take a more assertive role than has been the case in the past in the search for reform within the United Nations. I am one of those who believes that there have been some reasonably spectacular failures on the part of that entity in recent years. We could mention the oil for food programme and we could look at some of the tragic events in the former Yugoslavia. 
Indeed just recently in the last fortnight or so I see that the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development has seen rather stunningly the election to the chair of that body the country least equipped to deal with that responsibility—Zimbabwe. Just imagine: Zimbabwe with 4000 percent inflation; Zimbabwe which has managed to reduce the average life expectancy of its citizens back to something like 35 or 36 years. Zimbabwe is the country that is now being entrusted with the chairmanship of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. I say to members on the Government side of the House and to all members that that simply brings the United Nations into disrepute. 
There is a crying need for reform in the United Nations. The previous Secretary-General Kofi Annan made some relatively modest suggestions; even more modest changes were adopted by that organisation. I suggest that in the years ahead this country will need to take a more assertive role in that respect. 
I turn finally to the question of aid to the Pacific. I have no particular quarrel with the fact that we are seeing more aid go to that part of the world. I am one of those who supported the Waring report that suggested that New Zealand needed to spend more of its aid budget in its neighbourhood and that we should try to thin down the number of places we were sending aid to to below the 100 or so countries that receive aid at the moment. I am bound to say—[ 
Interruption 
]—Mr Cunliffe may like to explain to the House why it is that we will continue in the year ahead to fund gender equity programmes in the Greater Mekong region for example rather than spend that money in our own regions. Why are we continuing— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the member to yield so I can answer his question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for the member to answer the question. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: No. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: There is objection. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I again invite Mr Cunliffe to take a call. He has 10 minutes available to him and I look forward to hearing from him. I suggest to Mr Cunliffe that he and his colleagues should explain why it is that we will continue to fund poverty elimination programmes for rural indigenous people in Nicaragua for example when those moneys could demonstrably be used closer to home. 
This is a country with a very special relationship with the Pacific. Pacific nations now contribute significant numbers to our largest city—our largest city is in fact the largest Pasifika city in the world. It is a— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Auckland. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Indeed Mr Cunliffe has even managed to work out which city he represents in this House. 
I suggest to members that it is time that we looked more critically at where that aid budget is being spent. We should not be making just the soft decision to spend new money on new programmes in the Pacific but we should be looking at reprioritising some existing programmes so that some of the low-quality programmes which are yielding no particular results of any consequence in parts of the world that we have nothing in particular to do with can be trimmed down in favour of doing a more generous and more effective job in that part of the world where we truly have a significant responsibility—in the Pacific. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports Budget 2007 we support most aspects contained within it and most of all we support KiwiSaver. New Zealand First has long made savings an issue and we have voted in favour of any savings attempt that has come before the House whether we agreed with it totally or not. In most cases we agreed to the tune of probably 80 percent or 90 percent but would have liked to see further enhancements. It makes us very happy indeed to see those enhancements made to KiwiSaver—or “KiwiSaver II” as some people have called it—even before it is introduced. We commend the Government for that. 
We think it is essential that people right across the spectrum of New Zealand society have the ability to participate not only in a savings programme but in a savings programme that is backed—in this case by the State. I have no problems at all in speaking of it in that manner. As we heard Mr Goff say we in Parliament have such a scheme. It is quite interesting that the scheme is spoken about in the newspapers or anywhere else as a perk of our job. I regard it not necessarily as a perk but as an essential addition to the salary package that we enjoy. 
 It saddens me that the National Party is opposed to and has voted against the KiwiSaver scheme. It has done so for the skimpiest of reasons in my view by saying that people on lower incomes cannot afford KiwiSaver should not have it and would be better off under some sort of a tax break. To my knowledge the best advice says that such a tax break would be at the lower level to a maximum of somewhere between $5 and $10 a week. I do not think one has to be too smart to work out that if we take the Working for Families package in conjunction with KiwiSaver we see that the total package is a far far more attractive option than a one-off provision for tax savings which everybody knows would give far more on a percentage basis to the wealthy in society than this ever would. 
No scheme is perfect and no scheme of a voluntary nature can guarantee take-up. I applaud the Government for realising that the take-up of an unsubsidised scheme—I know we are not allowed to mention those words any more—or rather an unassisted scheme would not have had the take-up that was required. So the Government has stepped in—rightly in our view—and said it will enhance the KiwiSaver programme and it will front up. In our view there is no better market mechanism than the Government saying it believes KiwiSaver is the right thing to do to such a degree that it will stump up some dollars—it will put its money where its mouth is if we want to put it in that way. 
We believe that it is the right thing to do for another reason: to build up the available capital in this country to fund our businesses and other parts of our society. It is rather old hat to say that there is no shortage of capital. Capital can be gained from anywhere in the world; one just has to meet the market for the price of that capital and that capital can come to New Zealand to fund the businesses. That is all true. Capital is available to everybody and always has been. But the important thing is the cost of that capital and the cost to the country of that capital. I suggest that people should think of it in terms of their own households. Are they happy to live in a rented house and to go outside to borrow money from their neighbours for everything that they require to do in their homes? I think not. I think prudent money managers would make sure—to the extent that is humanly possible—that they operated with their own capital within the constraints of their daily life and that people from outside did not have undue influence on the decisions they made either today or in the future. 
In New Zealand First’s view we have gone a long way in this country from being in control of our own destiny in those areas. We have become too reliant on overseas countries. We have become too reliant on people who may or may not be willing in the future to help or be friendly to us. We think it is sensible that we look to provide as much of our own capital as we possibly can. 
The opposition to the Cullen fund that I often hear is that it is invested overseas or that it is not all available for our businesses in New Zealand or something like that. To me that is a rather naïve statement especially coming from people who are pretty literate in financial matters. It does not matter where one’s money is; it is still one’s money. It does not matter where borrowed money comes from; it is still borrowed money. If one’s money is let out at the highest rate of interest one can then look at borrowing other money at lower rates of interest. This is what other countries have done to us and now we want to do it to them; we think that makes sense. 
In speaking to a couple of other issues in the Budget I say again that it saddens me that National members—though I am sure they will change their opinions later on—voted against a tax rate reduction in the area of company tax. I am sure they did so for ideological reasons. I am sure they voted against it simply because they felt they should oppose the Budget—in fact they said so. The days of that sort of politics is long gone. That may be what National members used to do when Muldoon was in charge of the National Party and that may be what members used to do when there was a first-past-the-post voting system in New Zealand with just the two big parties in the House but I suggest that the people of New Zealand expect something far more responsible in this day and age of MMP. People will not feel comfortable with a party voting against tax cuts then going out into the public arena and urging people to believe it when it says it will give tax cuts to the population. It is again ironic to me that we have to go back to the days of “Kiwi Keith” Holyoake—some time in 1966 I am told—to see the last time National gave a tax cut. So that was sad. New Zealand First of course voted in favour of the company tax rate reduction and we are proud of that. 
Mr McCully mentioned the increase in the foreign affairs budget and the increase in aid to the South Pacific. I cannot make this speech without giving credit to my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters who has consistently said we should provide aid to those areas that we consider to be home to those areas that we consider to be our neighbours to those areas that we have some responsibility for and to those areas that we have some closeness to and that we regard as friends. He has done that. But the important thing is not just the aid but the recognition from America—another country we have become a tiny bit estranged from. 
 It is a matter of convincing America England and Australia that we are not only doing our bit in the South Pacific but we are doing it with some style and panache we are doing it in a friendly way and we are doing it with aid and with friendship. We are not doing it with threatening words we are not doing it with gunboats and we are not doing it in a colonial way as it was done in the past. It is being done between friends and for friends and I think that my leader should at least be congratulated on that. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings to you all. It is a real pleasure of mine to rise and contribute to this debate. In her statement to Parliament in February this year the Prime Minister said that New Zealand’s future is dependent on long-term sustainable strategies for our economy society environment culture and way of life. She went on to say that those strategies have to be driven by strong leadership and sound policies. Helen Clark is providing the strong leadership this country needs. Dr Michael Cullen’s eighth Budget is bold bright strategic and contains sound policies that will benefit all New Zealanders. New policies will build on this Labour-led Government’s proven track record of implementing sound policies that invest in our people rebuild infrastructure and grow our economy. 
Budget 2007 continues our good work. Budget 2007 is about saving and investing for our sustainable future. Today I want to address two aspects of last week’s announcements: the changes to tax rebate thresholds for charities; and KiwiSaver. Tax and charities: the Budget contains some very significant and highly positive news for charities and those who donate to charity. The tax rebate threshold on donations to charity is to be scrapped from 1 April 2008. This means all Kiwis who donate to charity will be able to claim back a full 33?c in the dollar on all income up to their annual net income level. The old threshold of $1890 will be scrapped. 
So for companies and Maori authorities the 5 percent deduction threshold will be removed. This means companies and Maori authorities that donate to charity will be able to lower their net income before tax by the amount they donate. This is great news for businesses Maori authorities individuals and the philanthropic sector. The United Future Party should be recognised for its work in this area and I congratulate the Hon Peter Dunne. Work that we started together soon after the 2005 election is now producing rewards for a sector that contributes enormously to the well-being of the diversity of our many families and communities and deserves to be further supported. 
A recent report released by Philanthropy New Zealand found that Kiwis are very generous donors compared with other countries and of course charitable giving is to be encouraged and rewarded. That is why these changes are designed to lay a foundation for a stronger culture of charitable giving in New Zealand. As Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector I am very very proud of this. But the really great news is for our charities and our communities. This is what makes me excited. It is making it easier and more attractive to donate to charity and will I am sure result in higher levels of donations by Kiwis. 
It is not just me who is excited. The response from the charitable and philanthropic sector has been overwhelmingly positive towards these changes. Dave Henderson from the Association of Non-Governmental Organisations of Aotearoa said that the changes will be significant in encouraging further a culture of generosity and giving in our country. Ric Odom from YMCA New Zealand said that the announcement will help not only to sustain a philanthropic spirit in this country but also to support sector organisations in the great work they do for all of our local communities. David Wilson from the Auckland University of Technology’s Institute of Public Policy said that the changes were a big step in the right direction. Lisa Cescon from World Vision said that the announcements show the Government’s appreciation and understanding of the good work of charitable organisations; and of course our hero Major Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army said that the Government is to be commended for the changes. 
Our Labour-led Government recognises that charities make an invaluable contribution to our social cultural environmental and economic well-being. Every day they are working in our communities often without pay humble and without a great deal of recognition. Heads down working together that is the Kiwi way. It is these values that make us proud to be New Zealanders. The changes will make it easier for charities to ask for donations and more attractive for our people to donate. 
In 2005 our Labour-led Government established the Charities Commission to build public trust and confidence in the charitable sector and to provide better information about this important part of our society. Together with the Budget 2007 changes on tax rebates these initiatives are part of our Government’s commitment in supporting charities and working in partnership with key stakeholders to build the capacity of the community and voluntary sector. 
KiwiSaver is another great announcement. It is a bold policy. It is a strategic policy. It is bright and it is sound. It does encourage greater savings to address our poor savings record as a nation. If we can all save more we can all build up assets that will make our futures more secure.This Government is taking responsible and bold steps to ensure the financial security of New Zealanders into the future. I know that many many Pacific Island people will benefit from KiwiSaver. It will help our working Pacific communities to build up savings for a first home and for retirement. Families young and old that have financial security are very important to Pacific people and indeed to all New Zealanders. Our Labour-led Government’s Working for Families policy is already delivering tax credits to our working families. 
KiwiSaver will also allow our Pacific families to build up savings and assets beyond the family home. During the harsh economic restructuring in the 1990s when National was in Government our Pacific people suffered the worst—personally socially emotionally psychologically and economically. Social capital was hugely eroded also because our people were focused on survival. Many of our people who lost their jobs under National are only now getting back into employment under this Labour-led Government and since we have been in power we have seen a huge change in our communities with more people than ever moving into work and doing better. 
There is a positive attitude out there. There is more participation in community life and we can see positive young successful role models coming from Kiwi-born Pacific people. Some of them are Alexander Fala a Rhodes scholar Karlo Mila; the winner of the Montana’s first book of poetry award; and Maria Tutaia who is in the Silver Ferns. 
Unemployment benefit numbers in my Mana electorate have fallen by 20 percent in the last year. That is wonderful because it is great news for those families in that community. There is further evidence of those statistics right around our country and across our regions. Compared with 1999 figures when Labour took office the total number of people receiving an unemployment benefit in Mana has dropped by 2353 or 55 percent. That is good because people feel better if they contribute more and if they can participate in the lives of communities. 
KiwiSaver is so very important to our Pacific people and to all Kiwis. It is important that Kiwis who join that scheme will receive $20 in their accounts from the Government and employers will also contribute. Charities and income tax - exempt organisations will also benefit from employer tax credits. Income tax exemptions do not matter because the KiwiSaver employer tax credits are offset against PAYE tax. 
For 2008 the KiwiSaver tax credit will fully cover the 1 percent employer contribution for employees earning up to $104000 gross. The KiwiSaver tax credit will give charities and non-Government organisations the confidence they need to continue their great work in our communities. New Zealand does remember the misery that was caused during the 1990s and it is important that we do not forget. The previous National speaker the Hon Murray McCully focused a lot on deficits and negativity. We all know that the facts speak for themselves—there is a wonderful positive sense of well-being out there. Winston Peters is to be applauded for the increase in aid. It is exciting to see that the Pacific will focus on a Pacific plan where one of the main goals will be economic development. Thank you. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 One of the things I want to talk about is the cruel hoax that is being put on this country by this Labour Government. But just before I do that I have to reflect on one thing. We have just heard a speech that was read and quite honestly I think it is a tragedy that we have allowed in our Standing Orders that members can come to this House and read speeches. It would have been far better actually if we had carried on—as some of us who have been here a while still tend to do—just speaking off the cuff and talking about the things that we know should be spoken about. I just make that point. 
I listened to that member from Labour talk about how this Budget will help a whole lot of New Zealanders—and particularly Pacific Island people she claimed. I listened to Doug Woolerton who also talked about how this Budget will benefit a whole lot of low-income and other people in this country. Well I want to talk about my family and to explain to this House and to this country actually how the Budget will affect them—we can actually talk about it in person. 
Leoni and I have five children. Two of them are well established. One is a dairy farmer. In fact he told me the other day that with the increase in the payout that is happening from Fonterra he is likely to get a windfall of at least $80000 extra this year. You know the funny thing is that he is likely— 
Nathan Guy 
: That’s nothing to do with the Government. 
JOHN CARTER 
 God no! Thank God it is nothing to do with the Government; otherwise it would not have happened. The only thing the Government will do is to rip some more taxes off him. But ironically he will be able to afford to invest in KiwiSaver if he decides to do so because he has that windfall. He already has three houses put aside as it happens—just by the by. My second boy is also established in his own home and is looking to start up his own business. He is well established and likely to be in a position where if he wishes or chooses to he could decide to invest in KiwiSaver—if he wants to do so. Those are two of the three boys. 
One of our daughters is at university. At this stage she is not an income earner so KiwiSaver is not a matter she has to focus on. 
Our other two children are typical I guess of the young people this Government claims it is going to help. They have each had their first child and are about to have their second—one is due in June and the other in January. My daughter Bridget her husband and their little girl are currently on a single income because my daughter is not teaching at the moment. She will go back to teaching and they will have two incomes. But to say to them a family who is trying to make progress that they should put 4 percent of their salary or income aside—that is a hugely difficult thing for them to do. They may well be able to put a little aside but it will be a huge struggle for them to do so. 
The other lad his partner and their little baby—with the second baby due in January—are a low-income family. They would be expected on their income to contribute probably about $30 a week into KiwiSaver. I would like someone from the Labour Government to tell me how our son on a low income will suddenly find an extra $30 a week to put aside in order to take advantage of the tax concession the Government claims it is going to give him his wife his child and his future child. I know he knows and Government members actually know that he and his family cannot do that. They do not have the extra money floating around. They are already budgeting in order to make sure they get by and they are very careful—they are very good at it actually—when doing their budget. Nevertheless they do not have surplus money to invest in order to get themselves ahead. 
It is ironic that this Government is saying to them that they must pay taxes so that people like Leoni and me who are well established and on a high income can invest. As it happens I have had an investment going for 20 years and very shortly the amount I have to pay into it will reduce so I will have some surplus money. I will not notice it; it has been going out for 20 years. Leoni’s student loan will be paid off in July so all of a sudden she will have extra income that she can invest in KiwiSaver. Both she and I will be able to take advantage of KiwiSaver. We will have the funds to put in and they will be quite significant. Also the amount of money that the taxpayer will contribute to it will be quite significant. But our children who cannot afford to get into KiwiSaver will be paying taxes to contribute to the fact that Leoni and I can take advantage of KiwiSaver. 
I ask the Labour Party members in this House to stand up and tell me where the fairness and equity is in that. There is none. Why should low-income people in New Zealand be asked to pay taxes and contribute so that people like myself—people who are on a high income—can save and be subsidised while doing so? That does not make any sense at all. 
Many of the people in Northland know that this is a cruel hoax by this Labour Government. As I have said before I cannot wait to get up on to the stage with Shane Jones in Northland during the next election campaign because by then a good number of those people will know that this fraud perpetrated on them by the Labour Government is real. They will start to understand that they cannot take advantage of KiwiSaver. They will begin to understand that it works for people around them who are well-to-do and who have already taken advantage of it but that it does not work for those who are in “Struggle Street”. 
I cannot wait to talk on the stage with Shane Jones and ask him to explain why it is fair that someone like him or like me—or a family like my family; Leoni and me—should be able to take advantage of it but a poor person on a low income cannot. Why should low-income people have to pay taxes that benefit me? 
Hon Annette King 
: But they do now. 
JOHN CARTER 
: They may well do but the point is that this Government is saying the KiwiSaver scheme is for everybody when it knows it is not. 
Darren Hughes 
: Give up your pension scheme. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The good thing is that that member who is interjecting at the moment will not even be here next time. I have to say that if ever there was a plus in terms of this Budget then that fact will be one of the pluses. At least in that way we will get some benefit out of it; we will have one fewer hopeless Labour member in this House. At least we will have one advantage: we will have a very very good member who represents that electorate after the next election—someone who actually understands; someone who knows. 
You know this Labour Government will be judged by its contribution to this nation during its term. One of the things people will know when they look back at the time of this Helen Clark - led Labour socialist Government is that this Government has not been effective. It has done a lot of social engineering; it has manipulated a lot of social aspects of this country. But the sad thing is that this Government—instead of giving people an advantage so that they can stand on their own feet get on with their lives and make opportunities for themselves—has with Michael Cullen’s eighth Budget had its hands so far inside people’s pockets that it has taken away their right to make decisions. Quite honestly that is despicable. The one thing a Government should do above all else is to look after its people and give them the people of this country the right to make decisions and take opportunities for themselves. It should not bully manipulate and put cruel hoaxes put on them such as the one the Government is doing by saying it is going to give them something through KiwiSaver when they will then find that maybe as many as half of them—certainly those on the lower end of incomes—will not be able to take advantage of it at all. I say to this House that this Government—given that as time goes by over the next 18 months people will become more and more aware of the impact of KiwiSaver and of those who can take advantage of it and those who cannot—will be judged. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 There is more than a little irony in the comments made by the member John Carter who has just resumed his seat. He is the member for Northland a wonderful part of New Zealand which deserves decent representation. I look forward to there being a new member for Northland in the future because there is more than a little irony in Mr Carter talking about a man on his huge salary getting help from the taxpayer to save. I tell members in the House and people who are listening that Mr Carter is one of those who received and continues to receive huge benefit from the MPs’ superannuation scheme at higher levels than other New Zealanders could ever dream to have. He voted to get rid of it for every other MP in 1991 while keeping it for himself. So I do find it just a little ironic that he raised that with the tears dripping down his face as he was saying it. Yeah right! 
 I congratulate Dr Cullen on his eighth Budget. All eight Budgets have been Budgets for the benefit of New Zealand. Many members opposite will never get the opportunity in their entire parliamentary career to present eight Budgets to this country. Dr Cullen will be here next year presenting his ninth Budget and I look forward to his 10th 11th and 12th Budgets in the future. 
Budget 2007 is a Budget for the future. It is not about short-term expediency; it is not about hanging one’s policy after licking one’s finger putting it up in the wind and seeing which way it is blowing which is what we have had from the National Party. Budget 2007 puts some real stakes in the ground on behalf of New Zealanders and their future well-being. How often have we seen that from a Government? We have only ever seen it from a Labour Government. I remind members that the last time we had a compulsory superannuation scheme for this country it had been brought in by the third Labour Government but it was dumped because of the short-term expediency of a National Government led by Robert Muldoon who got rid of the scheme. 
Then we have this day in day out comparison between Australia and New Zealand. Australia brought in compulsory superannuation under a Keating Labor Government and what does it have today? It has over a trillion dollars in a superannuation scheme which enables it to invest its superannuation scheme money into all sorts of projects and investments in our country but we do not have the same ability to do so there. 
So when we look at building a future we have been reliant on a Labour Government to do just that and that is what this Budget does. It puts those stakes in the ground. I believe that it builds on many of our other Budgets that we have seen in this House. I would like to remind members of some of the things it builds on; some of them have been very dear to my heart. 
First of all we see in this Budget—it started on 1 April but is funded in this Budget—the end of the phase-in of tax credits for Working for Families. That has brought a huge amount of benefit to low-income families right through to those families that earn more but have more children. What is the aim of that? It is to benefit families who are bringing up their children and wanting to do the best for them. The Government is saying: “Here is a tax credit to help make that more possible.” Surely that is what a good Government would want to do. 
This Budget also builds on the implementation of the primary health care strategy. I was privileged to be the Minister of Health in New Zealand for 6 years. One of the things dear to our heart as a Government and made possible with the support of our supply and confidence partners over the years has been the implementation of affordable primary health care for New Zealanders. We had set out a 4-year agenda to bring back to the people of New Zealand subsidised primary health care. We always believed that it was very strange that people had to pay top dollar to get to their doctor when they were trying to keep themselves well but they got a free hospital service. So although we want people to have free hospital services why would we not invest in keeping people out of hospital? I say to Mr Ryall who shows a terrible lack of understanding of anything to do with health that one of the reasons we can end up having fewer people requiring operations or first specialist assessment is that we have early intervention in primary health care. He should ask the parents who can get their children into the doctor at a very affordable cost or at no cost and prevent things happening to their children that could mean they end up being hospitalised at a later date. Over 4 years we have brought in affordable primary health care to reduce the fees for going to our primary health providers—not just doctors but also nurses and others who work within the primary health organisation concept. 
We have also reduced the cost of prescriptions for all New Zealanders and this Budget was the final part of that implementation. The last people for whom that is to be implemented are our healthiest—our 24-year-olds to 45-year-olds. They are now covered. So from our newborns right through to our elderly we now have subsidised primary health care once again available to New Zealanders. I ask members opposite as they may well have forgotten who took away subsidised primary health care from the people of New Zealand. It was a National Government in the 1990s. We had always had subsidised primary health care but in 1991 Ruth Richardson’s Budget took it away and brought in the community services card. It has taken from 1991 until 2007 for us to bring back that affordable primary health care and I am particularly proud of that. 
In this Budget we have invested in our crucial infrastructure and I will talk a little more about that in a moment. 
I heard Bill English being interviewed on Television One’s  
Agenda 
 programme last Sunday. He was asked not once but twice what he would have done had he been the Minister of Finance presenting Budget 2007. I would like people to get the transcript and read it because he refused to tell the people of New Zealand a single thing that National would have done. He said: “Well we would have done things differently. We would have done things differently years before this.” He would not give any indication. How can an Opposition be credible when it changes what it says it will do from one day to the next and when there is deep division between its leader and its finance spokesperson about the real agenda for New Zealand? I can tell the National Party members that over the next 18 months we will be drilling into what they say they would do for New Zealanders. We have a pretty good idea that they will say one thing today and something different tomorrow. 
I am proud of this Budget when it comes to transport and I thank the Minister of Finance for his commitment to the transport infrastructure of this country. We have seen the biggest investment in transport in this country’s history with over $13 billion going into our transport system over the next 5 years. We are seeing the electrification of the rail network in Auckland—$1 billion of investment—we are seeing the upgrading of rail in Wellington and we are seeing investment into public transport. Let me just remind people that in 1999 the National Government was investing $18 million into public transport in Auckland. The second figure I want members to hear is $266 million. That sum is forecast to go into public transport in 2006-07 and it does not even include the money we are putting in in this Budget. Members should look at that in terms of investment not only in roads and rail but also in public transport. 
I think it is important that New Zealanders look at where the real commitment to building a strong and vibrant country is. It rests with a Government that is prepared to invest for our future to think about our kids and our grandkids to give away short-term expediency—which we see from the National Party and its history is littered with it—and to say that we want our kids and our grandkids to have a strong future. One does that only by investment in the sort of Budget we see here today. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 That was the Minister of Transport Annette King spouting on like so many of the other members on the other side of the House and blaming National for all these problems of the past when that Minister has failed even to mention the problems in her portfolio to do with the Resource Management Act. Her acting chair told the select committee the other day that one of the difficulties of gaining consent under the Resource Management Act was the costly process of going to the Environment Court which adds huge cost to each project. Project after project has to go through the roadblocks and the hurdles of the Resource Management Act. Not once did we hear from the Minister of Transport about how less asphalt is being laid per dollar spent because of the problems of the Resource Management Act. 
So we are now seeing a minority Budget in front of us today that is not supported by the majority of New Zealanders. We have a Government that is not thinking about the rest of New Zealand. It wants to talk about KiwiSaver when only half of the people of New Zealand are going to sign up for it. They will be the people who can afford to do so not the hard-working New Zealanders who are on the minimum wage. Those people will be sitting there wondering where they should put their $18 and whether they should put it into paying off their mortgage or into KiwiSaver. I look forward to seeing the Government roll around the country trying to sell this policy to hard-working New Zealanders. 
What this Budget does not do is talk about how we need to have a balanced approach to savings. It does not talk about how we need to get the economy moving. We need a decent education system whose standards can actually be understood by parents. We need infrastructure that can deliver for our country not be hurdled by the Resource Management Act. We do not need more taxes which we have not heard about from Annette King today and which will slap on another tax of 10c a litre for Auckland and for Wellington. I look forward to the proprietors of the Levin petrol stations grinning with glee in the knowledge that they will be able to sell petrol more cheaply than those in the Wellington region. We need an economy that encourages young New Zealanders so that they will not leave these shores to head over to Australia—700 are leaving each week. 
We have seen Dr Cullen deliver his eighth Budget without a vision for our country going forward. The National Party leader and future Prime Minister John Key will deliver that vision for New Zealand. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have one question for that member Nathan Guy: will he support a regional fuel tax to fund the Transmission Gully road? There we go. There is the National MP who runs around the Horowhenua saying the Transmission Gully road has got to be built but he does not want to pay for it; he wants somebody else to pay for it but he cannot find out who it is. 
Over the last week we have seen 48 headless chooks running around this Chamber trying to find out where the axe came from. An unkind person would suggest that when National Party members lose their heads it has absolutely no effect on their intellectual capacity. But the reality is that they sat there during the Budget saying: “This isn’t what we thought was going to happen. What do we do now?”. They turned to John Key and asked: “Where is plan B maestro?”. John Key came up with this answer: “Don’t worry we’ll just have to borrow some more if we become the Government.” I will come back to that a little bit later on. 
The National Party has demonstrated three things in this Budget debate. The first is that it has no new ideas at all. The only thing it has said is that there should be a personal tax cut. It is either a little one according to Mr English or a very big one according to Mr Key and it is either to be borrowed according to Mr Key or to be paid for from overseas according to Jacqui Dean. 
The second thing is that it has failed to paper over its internal cracks. Every speech differed from the other speech. There were members who thought they could do everything in terms of tax cuts and everything in terms of State spending in the core areas without any impact whereas Mr Key and his supporters believe that one borrows money to pay for tax cuts which is about the most stupid thing I have ever heard in my life. 
What we had indeed was a leader who was fiscally reckless. National is simply not fit to govern. What did Mr Key say in this House yesterday in question time? When I provoked him by asking a question about his view that the Government should be geared more highly—that is borrow more—he popped up to ask a question because he thought as he always does that he had to top that. He asked whether it was true that the Government was building up assets in the Superannuation Fund so that in fact we could carry more debt. In other words because we have a superannuation fund to pay for New Zealand superannuation in the long term the rest of the Government can borrow a lot more money! I ask what the purpose of having a superannuation fund is if we then go and borrow the money somewhere else and build up more debt. 
That is particularly so if we do not invest that money even in direct productive capacity but simply hand it out to people to spend largely on consumer goods. We were told by Mr English in a brilliant piece of stupidity that the real problem with the Budget was that if we saved more we might have to reduce the growth in our consumption. Well someone who says that a country with a current account deficit of 9 percent of GDP should not be reducing the growth in its consumption simply has not got it simply has not understood. The National Party simply has not understood the challenges facing this country. It actually believes we can borrow and then spend our way to prosperity. 
That is because Mr Key is a financial market trader. He thinks in minutes. He thinks in seconds. He thinks in minutes and hours and maybe weeks. How to make a quick buck? How to turn the paper money over—shuffle it around—to make some money in the short term? He does not think in years and decades and beyond. He does not think about the long-term future. He thinks about some smart-alecky private sector company of the sort he tends to be associated with that can engage in great plans to borrow and spend to try to expand and if it all fails the company is just restructured. One lays off half the workers cuts half the business tries to restructure and moves on from there. 
Well a private sector company can do that but a Government cannot. A Government cannot say to “New Zealand Incorporated”—the people of this country—“Sorry we got it wrong. That whole programme didn’t work. We’re going to put half of you out of business we’re going to flog off everything we own and we’re going to completely change the entire arrangement of our education health and superannuation.” Well it could! That is indeed what Ruth Richardson did between 1990 and 1993 but it did not actually work. And it will not work again if it is tried. 
The notion from Mr Key that because of the Superannuation Fund we can borrow and we can borrow to fund tax cuts so that we can spend is just the most stupid thing— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’re borrowing $4 billion. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Ah! He says we have borrowed $4 billion and therefore we should borrow more. That is like saying that because people have borrowed money to buy a house they can borrow everything they need to buy a car a fridge a washing machine and everything else they want and then they can borrow even more and they can spend it all in the next year and somehow or other they will pay something back at some point. That is National Party economics. Even Ronald Reagan at his strangest did not engage in that kind of voodoo economics which is what the National Party is engaged in. 
What we saw also is that Opposition members do not know what to say about KiwiSaver. They secretly think it is a good idea but they do not have the oomph to support it and they cannot make up their minds whether they should oppose it. All they said was that people on low incomes cannot save. I do not know where they found any to talk to because National Party MPs do not talk to people on low incomes. If somebody on a low income signs up to a job and is compulsorily enrolled in KiwiSaver that person will treble his or her savings because the Government will match them and the employer will match them. 
We will actually pay for the employer’s contribution. It costs the employer nothing. Members opposite are trying to say it will cost employers $2 billion a year. Well that was a rubbish number; it was probably invented by that man from the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) who has a bee in his bonnet about this even though he takes 70 percent of his own salary by way of superannuation. That kind of silly nonsense misses the entire point. It is the people on the street who think KiwiSaver is a good idea and it is responsible business that believes that KiwiSaver is a good idea. Air New Zealand today announced that it will match the full 4 percent right from the beginning of KiwiSaver. National members have nothing to say about that. 
Then they voted against the corporate tax rate cuts. That is utterly consistent because National has never voted for a corporate tax rate cut in the last 40 years. For the last 40 years National has never voted for a corporate tax rate cut. It is at the very least consistent in that measure. No doubt National members will vote against a research and development tax incentive and will say it is all right if New Zealand’s research and development is carried out in Australia. They will ask why we should be interested in that because we know it will not work. Well it will work and let us wait and see how it works to lift New Zealand’s research and development. 
I went to a small company today that will benefit from this package in the Budget both in terms of the corporate tax rate cut and in terms of the research and development tax incentive. That company is not worried about compulsory employer contributions to KiwiSaver. It supports those contributions because it wants high-quality loyal staff. That company is taking a longer-term view about its own self-interest not the short-term money-market trader view that we heard from Mr Key. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What were you before? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is what he is. He is a short-term money-market trader. If he had been in the Temple when Jesus arrived Jesus would have overturned his table. That is who Mr Key actually is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did you do before? Ever filled out a tax return? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yes of course I have filled out a tax return—silly man! For God’s sake—silly man! At the same time we have also provided a changed international tax regime which will encourage our businesses to expand offshore. National brought in a regime that has seen a flood of New Zealand businesses leave New Zealand entirely because once they are active offshore they are penalised by the current taxation system. Labour is changing that. I bet National will vote against that change as well when we get— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Against the Budget; it’s a bad Budget. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Dr Nick Smith said National will vote against that one as well. 
Finally this Government put major investment into our social priorities: into health education and superannuation; into overseas aid; into electrification of the railway system; into energy; into efficiency initiatives; and into a whole range of matters that this Government supports. What did National say? There is only one thing in life that matters to the tiny teeny little National Party mind: “When am I going to get my tax cut?”. That is it. That is all Dr Nick Smith could say: “When am I going to get my tax cut? I’ve been sitting here for 7½ years doing nothing and I deserve a tax cut.” Well Dr Smith does not deserve a tax cut. He has a subsidised superannuation scheme from the State and it is high time he allowed the ordinary workers in New Zealand to have a decent superannuation scheme as well. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The amendment is in the name of John Key. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “That” be omitted and the following words inserted: “this House has no confidence in the Government led by Helen Clark because it has presided over a decline in New Zealand’s competitiveness and has failed after eight Budgets to deliver a meaningful reduction in taxes for New Zealand workers.” 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a second time. 
Appointments 
Ombudsman 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Melwyn Purefoy Smith of Wellington as an additional Ombudsman for a period of 6 months commencing on 8 June 2007.  
This matter has been considered by the Officers of Parliament Committee which has unanimously recommended that his appointment be extended by a further 6 months which will complete the maximum amount of time that Mel Smith is allowed to be an additional Ombudsman. This will enable him to complete an inquiry that he is engaged in at the present time. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 Speaking on behalf of the National Party I say we agree with this Government motion and the extension of Mel Smith’s term for another 6 months. The office of Ombudsman is a very important role and Mr Smith does a particularly good job. National has no problem with supporting his appointment for another 6 months. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Speaking on behalf of New Zealand First I say we support the extended appointment of Mr Smith. Mr Smith is well known in public service circles. As the Leader of the House Dr Cullen has alluded he is in the middle of a very important task and it is important that he has the necessary warrant to complete it. On behalf of New Zealand First we will be supporting this Government motion. 
Motion agreed to. 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 5 to Minister—Correction 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I rise to correct something that I said earlier on today in question time when I made a statement that the information was fresh out of the Minister’s office. I should have said that it was fresh out of the Minister for Courts’ office. 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services(Remedies) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 After the bill has been read a first time I intend to move that it be considered by the Social Services Committee. I also intend to move that the Social Services Committee be instructed to report back to the House by 18 June 2007 rather than within the default period of 6 months and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). This is because the legislation needs to be enacted as swiftly as possible so that certainty can be restored to claimants that their Weathertight Homes Resolution Service claims can be resolved in one specialist jurisdiction as intended by Parliament. 
This bill amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 to make it clear that the remedies that may be claimed under the Act and ordered under the Weathertight Homes Tribunal have one purpose—that being to place it beyond doubt that the tribunal is able to award general damages including those for mental stress or anxiety. The process set down by the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 acts as a one-stop shop dispute resolution process and as a specialist alternative to the courts.  
 General damages have been awarded in 21 percent of the settlements to date. In two District Court appeals under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 the relevant section section 42(1) has been interpreted to include the ability to award general damages including those for mental stress and anxiety. However a recent High Court decision—the Hartley decision issued on 29 March 2007—held that general damages could not be awarded under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service legislation as compensation for any mental anxiety or stress. The judgment sets a precedent that affects existing adjudications started but not yet finished under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 and decisions made from now on by the Weathertight Homes Tribunal under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. Existing settlements are not affected. 
The decision is likely to deter people from using the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service process and force them to pursue their leaky building claim in the general courts if they wish to claim for general damages. The precedent the High Court has now set for Weathertight Homes Resolution Service claims has caused concern among claimants who have found themselves faced with either having to abandon the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service process and go to court for the entirety of their claim or having to go to court for general damages relating to mental anxiety or stress. Being able to claim compensation for mental anxiety or stress is an important principle of justice for Weathertight Homes Resolution Service claimants. Even though such damages are not always awarded and the amounts awarded are just under $10000 on average claimants have valued the fact that their claims for such damages could be considered in adjudication. 
This Parliament unanimously supported the new Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act late last year. The new Act simply carried over the provisions of the old Act which were understood to provide the ability to award general damages for mental anxiety and stress—a view that had been confirmed by two District Court appeal decisions in 2005. The process was working well in this regard. Without further legislative clarification however the High Court’s decision is the authoritative interpretation. 
This amendment bill puts the intentions of Parliament and the Government beyond doubt and asserts the supremacy of Parliament so that leaky home claimants can get on with settling their claims. The amendment bill specifically confirms and clarifies that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal can make any order that a court of competent jurisdiction could make in relation to a claim in accordance with the principles of law but it does not give the tribunal any wider powers than the court in relation to remedies. This change will reinforce claimants’ confidence that their Weathertight Homes Resolution Service claims can be resolved in one specialist jurisdiction without the need also to go through mainstream courts to seek general damages. 
I want to thank John Gray of the Leaky Homes Action Group for the helpful focus he has provided on this matter as the leader of the major homeowner interest group. I also wish to acknowledge the individual homeowners not all of whom are current claimants who have written to me with well-reasoned pleas for an amendment such as this to be made. I also want to thank the Government support parties who in recognising the distress the High Court decision has caused to claimants are supporting this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill is another sad chapter in the ongoing bungles of this Government in dealing with the awful plight faced by thousands of New Zealanders who have leaky homes. This is the third attempt by the Government to try to get the law right in this area but every time it is rushed and every time the Government gets it wrong. Each time National has expressed concern about this mad rush the Government has ignored us. The end result is that we have had one problem after another and now we have found out again that the law is broken. 
The first attempt was back in November 2002. At that time the Government rushed the legislation through in just 3 weeks to address the leaky home issue. Then the current Minister Clayton Cosgrove came to the House last year to rush a bill through. On that occasion he said after the third reading speech: “I’ve got it right; it’s all fixed; homeowners can have confidence.” 
Well what is the story today? The Minister is back in the House saying that we have to have another crack at it. He says it relates to a decision that was made by the court. Let me reflect on the date. The decision was given on 29 March. I say to the Minister that that was 2 months ago. How long will the Minister give the select committee to check whether this third time is right? Just 3 weeks! What has the Minister been doing if this is so urgent? If there is such anxiety for those homeowners how come the Minister has been sitting on his butt for 2 months but will give Parliament only a mere 3 weeks to address this issue? 
I say further to the Minister that on the very specific issue of being able to make claims for general damages I remind him of what he said in December. He said that homeowners would be able “to claim for a similar range of damages as that they would be able to claim in a court process”. Does the Minister stand by that statement now? He has just told Parliament that he got it wrong—that he stuffed it up. What is worse is that he keeps doing that. We even had submitters I tell the Minister who came to the select committee during consideration of his previous bill saying—and I will quote specifically from Mr Fuller—“This bill does not provide for general damages and if the Minister had done his job properly he would have made changes to that bill so we would not be back in the situation when the ink is barely dry on your old Act back patching it up.” 
National members pointed out then and we point out again today that this bill is not adequate for dealing with this problem. We argued then that homeowners should be able to claim reasonable legal costs associated with their claim. The Minister refuses to allow that. My question for the Minister is how he expects the average homeowner typically in a tribunal hearing—faced with as many as a dozen lawyers on behalf of builders architects developers councils and insurance companies—to be able to do that without legal representation. Yet he continues with this bill to refuse the reasonable requests of the Leaky Homes Action Group to ensure that those provisions can be— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Ask David Moore. He settled a couple of days ago; got 100 percent of what he wanted—no lawyers. John Gray settled—no lawyer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us look at the Minister’s record of settlement; let us look at the overexcited Minister’s record of settlements. The Government has allocated $100 million to the bureaucracy around leaky homes. That is how much money is to be spent. Of the 4000 claims how many have been settled? It is a mere 700. What is worse is that since Mr Cosgrove has held this portfolio the number of assessments being done each month has dropped by one-third. The madness is that the cost to the taxpayer of the bureaucracy of running the leaky homes tribunal is $108000 a case and the average level of settlement is a mere $70000. The taxpayer would have been better off just to write the cheque out for the poor homeowner than to run this overheated bureaucracy that has failed so badly for New Zealanders. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I ask this question of the new member of the House Lesley Soper. She may not have been here for the previous debate. What we had earlier was the decision that this problem should be dealt with by the Department of Internal Affairs. That is what George Hawkins and the Government had said. Then they said: “Oops stop; we do not want the Department of Internal Affairs. We want to give this job to the Department of Building and Housing.” Then last year the Minister said: “Oops we got that wrong too. Sorry we are now going to give it to the Ministry of Justice.” So we can look at the game of pass the parcel that has been going on within the Government. How many Ministers have we had? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: In the nick of time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well in the nick of time we might have a decent Minister. We started with Mark Burton. He was the first Minister responsible for this area then responsibility for the tribunal went to George Hawkins. Then it went to Margaret Wilson then it went to John Tamihere then it went to Chris Carter then it went to Clayton Cosgrove and now it has gone—guess what—all the way back to Mark Burton. So we have had a game of pass the parcel where this problem has gone from Minister to Minister and the poor old homeowner is yet to see any justice for what needs to be dealt with in respect of this important issue. 
Lesley Soper 
: It is funny that John Gray of the Leaky Homes Action Group has praised this. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says that the Leaky Homes Action Group has praised this bill. It says this bill is needed. Yes it is needed—it is needed because Clayton Cosgrove stuffed it up. 
Lesley Soper 
: It’s needed because the National Government— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Actually no. In fact let us look at the reasons for the bill. They are to amend the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006—to amend that Act. Who was the Government in 2006 I ask the member who is just piping up? 
Lesley Soper 
: Go back a bit further. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She says that but it is this Act that we are amending. We are amending the 2006 Act an Act that was passed through Parliament only in December. [ 
Interruption 
] Clayton Cosgrove says we should blame the High Court. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No I said you don’t understand—you really don’t understand about court proceedings. You are a clot-head. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is now resorting to personal abuse; that is the standard Labour Party technique. The truth is that he told Parliament last year that people could claim general damages. He said that that is what his Act would enable. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: And two District Court precedents agreed with me. But the High Court— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What has happened? The High Court has said he is wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] I say that in relation to the High Court if the Minister believes the law is OK he could appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. He has not; instead he has decided that his law was wrong and thus he has introduced this bill. 
The last point I wish to make is that here we have this bill that is to be rushed through Parliament and reported back within 3 weeks. The next 2 weeks is an adjournment break. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I say to the Minister that he has known about this court decision for 8 weeks so how is it fair to this Parliament for it to have only 3 weeks to try to address the issue? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: They try to work. We’ll be there; you don’t have to turn up. We’ll be at the select committee— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I simply make the point that the Minister rushed the first legislation through on this issue and he got it wrong. He rushed it through the first time and because of that rush he got it wrong. That is why we are here again. He rushed it through again last year and he got it wrong again and he now wonders why members of the National Opposition say to him: “Slow down. Let us get this law right. Do not rush this process. There is not the need.” 
Leaky homeowners deserve better law than we are getting. They certainly deserve better than the mess where only 10 percent of the claims have been resolved after $100 million and after 5 years. That is failure in anybody’s eyes. Sadly leaky homeowners are not going to get a solution until this rotten Government is kicked down the tracks. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The last time that man appeared before a High Court he was found guilty of contempt—contempt of court. What is more the High Court did not believe his evidence which is even worse. If a person is not believed in court it means that he or she has given wrong evidence on oath. When it is evidence about one’s own actions one cannot be mistaken one must be deliberately misleading the court. That was the finding on that man the last time he was before the High Court. 
His lack of knowledge on this legislation is abysmal and that should be taken into account when we consider the argument. He said to the Minister: “If you do not like the decision of Justice Stevens in the Hartley case you can appeal it.” Hang on whereabouts in the Hartley case is the Minister a party? Whereabouts in the Hartley case has the Minister a standing to appeal? He has no standing to appeal. The only ability the Minister has is to bring the matter to Parliament to amend the legislation. Of course Nick Smith would not know that. His role in the High Court was as a defendant—an unfortunate hapless defendant. 
That last speaker criticised this Government for what was a failure of the Opposition to do its lawful duty. This House has an Opposition the Queen’s loyal Opposition. The role of the Opposition is to examine Government initiatives and point out defects. Yet what did this Opposition do in respect of the original bill that went through in December? It voted for it. Did the loyal Opposition say it could not vote for it because there was a defect in it? No; it voted for it. 
Well what is the defect? It is not the case that claimants cannot currently claim general damages. The Hartley decision says that claimants who bring a claim before the Weathertight Homes Tribunal cannot claim general damages. Claimants have to start a fresh action in the general jurisdiction of the court to claim general damages. Nick Smith is arguing that claimants should have to run the gauntlet of two courts; they should have to get their facts established at the Weathertight Homes Tribunal then go back to the District Court or the High Court to claim their general damages. That is an argument for running up the costs both to the Government—which he has so savagely and erroneously criticised—and to the parties. Nick Smith does not want these claims to be successful because his builder mates are telling him that. We know that because there is a bill before the Parliament right now whereby he protects those builder mates. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has asserted in his speech that I am being influenced by builder mates in the views I have expressed in this House. The Standing Orders are very clear; a member cannot assert an improper motive. I am proud to have a large number of mates in the building industry but the assertion that I am somehow improperly motivated by those friendships is quite against the Standing Orders. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Speaking to the point of order I said that his builder mates have told him that. One would hope he would listen to his lobby group. One would hope he would at least listen to somebody—at least to his lobby group. 
Eric Roy 
: Mr Deputy Speaker I quite clearly heard the member say that Dr Smith has been influenced by his builder mates and that is asserting an improper motive. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That being the case just a withdrawal will suffice please. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I withdraw but I want to say that if this member had listened to the lobby groups he would know that the best course he could take on this legislation is to say that his party will help the Minister to get it reported back by 18 June because this is nothing but a good amendment. 
It is a good amendment because it merely clarifies the rights of claimants who have been put in the invidious position of owning a house that was purchased or built in good faith then later on the defects show up and the ability to claim damages is now an issue. It has not been an issue for long I have to say. The District Court has consistently found that general damages can be awarded. The problem started when a retired High Court judge the honourable Sir Robert Smellie postulated in an article in the second-rate legal journal  
New Zealand Lawyer 
 that there may be the chance that general damages are not claimable in an action before the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. That argument was taken apart by Judge McElrea in the Waitakere City Council case; he carefully disassembled the argument advanced by Sir Robert Smellie by saying it was not consistent with the Act. He pointed out that many jurisdictions not the courts award general damages. 
And what are general damages? This point was totally omitted by the last speaker. General damages are the automatic right to compensation and they do not need to be pleaded in a case. The High Court has said that one can claim for special damages only and the general right to be returned to the position one was in by way of monetary compensation is limited. It is limited by an article written by a retired High Court judge in a second-class journal the  
New Zealand Lawyer 
; the article has influenced Justice Stevens by the strength of its reasoning. Justice Stevens has set a precedent in the High Court that remains until another High Court judge chooses to deviate from it or a poor litigant a house owner takes it by way of appeal. 
The most appropriate action for a responsible Minister to take is to consult quickly with the groups affected—principally the Leaky Homes Action Group—and to bring in a simple bill that has five operative clauses. It is not a lengthy bill and it merely restores what that party opposite believed was the case in December when it voted to support the original bill. It is not a case for National members to grandstand in a rhetorical abusive way at the expense of the struggling anxious and stressed homeowners who even if they get a full hearing before the Weathertight Homes Tribunal will always end up as losers because there is no adequate monetary compensation for the stress of having one’s dream home start to crumble around one. 
This bill is urgent and should be passed with alacrity and in good conscience by both parties. National supported the legislation passed in December when it failed to see the defect; no reasonable reading of the bill in December revealed this defect. We now have one High Court decision which stands until it is challenged. The cost of challenging is very expensive. The High Court decision says that if one wants general damages one has to commence a separate proceeding in another court. That is ludicrously onerous and adds to the cost to the Government because the Government pays for court costs as it pays for the resolution service. So the running of the High Court or the District Court becomes clogged up if the court has to consider general damages separately. 
General damages are a longstanding remedy in law a longstanding right and every claimant should be entitled to them. Every claimant under the speedy service of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal should be able to expect them. This judgment tells us that we need practical people hearing these disputes not black-letter lawyers. We have practical people in the Weathertight Homes Tribunal who give good and prompt decisions and assist those people who are troubled by the defects of the Building Act. It is lamentable that the Opposition chooses to make politics out of this issue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The member said in his contribution that National had not drawn the defects of the Minister’s Weathertight Homes resolution Services Amendment Bill to his attention. For the purposes of assisting the debate I seek leave to table the National minority view that was included in the Social Services Committee report on the bill and that points out its defects. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Why is the previous speaker Mr Fairbrother such an angry man? Why is he so angry and why were Government members so upset when Dr Nick Smith said that the defects were pointed out to the Government last year? Two Government members have stood up here and said that National did not tell them. Well actually we did. And there is this other little issue: we are the Opposition. Government members do not consult us about this legislation. They do not want to discuss it with us first but they go to their support parties. 
All Government members do—and they have shown it this afternoon—is insult and abuse members of the Opposition whose support they will now seek for the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to go back to the Social Services Committee to try to fix up the very mess that we warned them about last year. That shows why Labour’s poll ratings are going further and further down. I think last time Labour was 13 points below National. Labour’s ratings are down because its way to win friends and influence people is to attack the very people whose help it needs. 
We will not take it out on the poor old owners of leaky homes that that Minister and that party do not have the good grace to say to the National Party: “Thank you. You told us about it we did not listen. Thank you for coming in and making sure that this matter gets resolved as quickly as possible.” They do not have the grace that anyone else is born with. 
Shane Jones 
: Thank you. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: But Shane Jones actually does say: “Thank you.” which is very kind of him. Mr Jones wants to be the next Minister of Finance after Dr Cullen will finally get his marching orders very very soon and he is looking forward to that role. Suddenly we keep hearing that Mr Jones is to be promoted. We are all told this Mr Jones does not deny it and what happens? Nothing—we still have the same tired old Ministers. 
We have just seen how seriously this Government has taken the leaky homes issue. We need to consider who it puts in charge of this problem. First off the Government put that very quiet Minister the almost invisible Minister of Justice Mark Burton in charge. 
Anne Tolley 
: Who? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well Mrs Tolley might well ask. Mr Mark Burton was put in charge of the weathertight homes issue. After that when Mr Burton did not seem to be cutting the mustard the Government put one of its stunning members—one of its best members—in charge of the weathertight homes issue. That was Mr George Hawkins. That was when we knew that this Government was really really serious about leaky homes. I think every homeowner in the country who had a leaky home thought: “Well goodness gracious! Now we have George Hawkins on to it. George will fix it.” But unfortunately he did not. So we have now had three bills in 5 years from this Government— 
Anne Tolley 
: Three Ministers? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: No I tell Mrs Tolley that it is not three Ministers; I think it is actually more like about six or seven Ministers so far. In fact I lost count when Dr Smith was running off those names for us. So we have had all those Ministers and still they cannot get it right. 
I think it is quite interesting that Mr Cosgrove mentioned before that the bill would be rushed through and we will have the select committee report back by 18 June. He castigated the National Party for saying that that is not enough time. I will say why time is so important. It is not just so that the select committee can consider the bill—after all we will probably do our usual minority report and point out the faults—it is so that submitters will get a chance to submit on the bill. One of the things we find is that a lot of very sensible advice comes from very sensible people during the select committee process. 
This Minister is very lucky that we have on the select committee my colleague Bob Clarkson who knows more about leaky homes than that Minister would know about anything else. Bob Clarkson knows about leaky homes and he knows how to fix them. I have seen him deal with a constituent who had a leaky home problem. The constituent had been told by all these action groups the experts at the weathertight leaky homes service and others that it would cost $140000 to have that place fixed. The owners simply could not afford it. Unfortunately the builder had gone into liquidation so they would not get any money there. What happened? Mr Clarkson got on to the job and is now having that property fixed for about $30000. 
That is the difference. It is a practical sensible solution from a man who has nothing to gain from it and who does it out of the goodness of his heart because he takes being an MP seriously. That is the sort of person we need in charge of this bill—not somebody who prances around incredibly self-important and gives everybody lectures because they happen to point out that it was absolutely obvious that there were defects in the earlier legislation. 
Another example I will give to the House is that the last time the select committee dealt with the leaky homes issue—which I must say is starting to be a bit of a déjà vu experience; I have been to the committee three times while it has been dealing with this issue with three different bills—we found out from the officials that it costs $8000 to have a property assessed as to whether it is leaking. It costs $8000. The assessors go around and bore all these holes in the property to try to seek out the water. 
Well Mr Clarkson being the practical sensible guy he is found out that a water-seeking camera is being used by a company in Auckland. I will not name the company because we do not do commercials but this is a sensible solution. Mr Clarkson brought this camera to the select committee so we could see it. This camera can be pointed at the wall and it can show exactly where the water is in the walls. The cost of this service is not $8000. It is not $6000. It is not even $2000. It is not even $1000. It is $800. That service can show exactly where the water is so we do not have to go around drilling holes all over the place hoping we will get lucky with the water. 
The camera actually shows it. It is just like having an X-ray of a body to show where the bone is broken rather than chopping up the arm to try to see where that bone might be broken. That is the difference. So Bob Clarkson is on to the technology—[ 
Interruption 
] No no! The Weathertight Homes Resolution Service does not want to know about this because it does not cost $8000. We know from this Government that if we spend more money it must be better; that is its answer. So these poor old people are having their houses ripped apart with holes being drilled everywhere when they could have had a camera to show exactly where the water is. 
One of these properties Mr Clarkson found had a great leak that the officials had been told about. Water was supposed to be running down walls and everywhere else but in fact it was coming from a hole in the roof. All that was needed was to show exactly where the water was coming from—that it was coming from the roof. It was not coming out of the windows but just happened to be running down inside the wall past the windows. So that saved those people a huge amount of money and a huge amount of angst. 
I would like to know whether the Minister will look at this camera. I would ask whether he knows about it because we are happy to arrange a demonstration I am sure. Mr Clarkson can arrange a demonstration. He has no shares in the company that uses it and he gets nothing from it but we just need a practical solution for a practical problem. I think that one of the things I would like to see from this Government is just a little bit of humility around this one. Those members could just come to us get the expertise that we have in the form of Bob Clarkson— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Bob the Builder”. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: As Mr Cosgrove says—“Bob the Builder”. Well that is what he actually is I tell Mr Cosgrove. 
The other thing I tell Mr Cosgrove is that Bob Clarkson has built a stadium so maybe Mr Mallard should have had a wee talk to him about that. Mr Clarkson built it paid for it and has now sold it and given almost half of the money away. A man like that is the sort of person we need in Parliament. We are happy to let the Government have some of that expertise—I see that Mr Mallard is saying that yes he would like some. I think we would be happy to look at that. Mr Clarkson will be on the select committee and I will ensure that he will make available to the Minister the camera that he knows about because clearly the Minister needs to know about this. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I signal right from the start that it does not take too long to stand up in this House and express support for a bill so I am indicating that I will not take too long. However I note that the previous speaker alluded to some polls and I want to remind that member that she and her party prior to the last election were putting their faith at that time in polls that indicated something quite different from the outcome. So all I say is that only one poll counts and that poll is coming up in 2008. 
New Zealand First is quite happy to support this bill because the problem requires immediate attention. Although some comment has been made about the expediency with which this bill has been dealt with as a result of the recommendation by the Minister I support the Minister in the attention he has given this bill. That is particularly so when we read in the  
New Zealand Herald— 
that wonderful publication that supports a particular party in this House—that reports from leaky building experts actually praise the Government for moving fast to close the legal loophole that might deprive victims of rotting homes from getting money for their mental distress and anxiety. That view was expressed by John Gray of the Leaky Homes Action Group. When we have an industry leader like Mr Gray extolling the virtues of the time and action that the Minister has taken to ensure that this issue is rectified then this House ought to support the Minister in his efforts. 
I note that Opposition parties on previous occasions when these issues were brought before the House supported the legislation. This bill recognises that yes the High Court made a decision that was contrary to the intent of those previous efforts by this House to rectify this issue and I think it is only proper that this House should now lend support to the efforts the Minister is making to remedy the issue. 
I will not take too long as I indicated but I will say that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill and the intent to have the select committee report back within the time limit the Minister has set. Kia ora. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will also be supporting the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill today even though it does seem somewhat ridiculous that we are debating it so soon after we passed the last Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill in December 2006. 
As the Minister has pointed out the need for this new legislation has arisen because of a judgment made on 29 March 2007 in the High Court by Justice Stevens. The judgment was to the effect that Weathertight Homes Resolution Service adjudicators could not award general damages for the mental distress caused by finding oneself the proud owner of a leaky home. Justice Stevens believed that the primary purpose of the original Act was to offer speedy flexible and cost-effective procedures to deal with leaky homes and that the awarding of general damages unnecessarily complicated and extended the stated purpose. He seemed to feel that having mental distress and anxiety included in damages not only lengthened hearings which were supposed to be happening at maximum speed but also highlighted the fact that adjudicators appointed under the Act were not necessarily lawyers and were not “appointed for this type of expertise.” 
Although the Green Party can understand the learned judge’s reasoning we are also well aware of the reality of the anguish that is caused when people see the value of their homes suddenly disappear due to poor building practices. I sat on the Social Services Committee that dealt with the earlier bill last year and sympathised hugely with submitters who had basically seen the value of their life-savings taken from them through no fault of their own at the same time that they were having to live with a huge sense of insecurity about every aspect of their future. 
I believe that if parties are able to establish that genuine stress and anxiety have arisen from their leaky homes situation then they should be compensated for it. I also think that was what we intended when we did the work on the earlier bill and voted for it. While removing “general damages” from the menu of available remedies will deliver faster more cost-effective resolutions I do not think that these are just resolutions. The removal of general damages from this jurisdiction leaves claimants no alternative but to run parallel proceedings in the District or High Court if they are to seek compensation for mental distress and anxiety. That is hardly an efficient use of their already depleted resources or the resources of those involved in the justice system. 
The Green Party therefore welcomes the Government’s decision to take action on the High Court ruling in the interests of fairness to leaky home claimants and we look forward to this bill going through the House in as short a time as practicable. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The legislation surrounding the leaky homes from which this bill originated was a knee-jerk poorly thought-out poorly written and rushed piece of legislation. This may be reflective of the fact that there have been eight Ministers responsible for the leaky homes issue in the term of this Government. 
In 2002 the original legislation the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act entered the House at the beginning of November and became law on 26 November that year—just a matter of 3 weeks. The Minister later accepted responsibility for the fact that this legislation had been a failure. In 2006 the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill was once again a rushed job. Obviously the Government had learnt absolutely nothing in terms of how to construct good legislation. Now 6 months later we are looking at another piece of legislation to amend this Act. 
Reading the  
Hansard 
 of 2006 I see that Nick Smith stated that the legislation had failed once again and that it would fail again—and he was right. In the same  
Hansard 
 Judy Turner stated that the legislation would have to be reviewed—and she was also right unfortunately. The explanatory note of the bill begins with a very bold statement: “This Bill amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 … to make clear the remedies that may be—claimed under the Act; and ordered by the Weathertight Homes Tribunal … in determining a claim adjudicated by it under the Act. In particular the amendments make it clear that those remedies include general damages for mental distress and anxiety.” 
This amendment has been introduced due to a recent decision in the High Court. These amendments in fact reverse the effects of the decision made on 29 March 2007 in  
Hartley v Balemi and Ors 
. This decision relates to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002. The High Court case highlighted that general damages could not be awarded as compensation for any mental anxiety or stress under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002. This judgment was made only 2 months ago. 
The story goes like this. The appellants David and Fleur Hartley were awarded $90000 in damages by the Weathertight Homes Tribunal in 2005. They had faced a repair bill of $284000 for their Manukau home. The High Court in Auckland doubled the amount of compensation on appeal but also ruled that no basis existed under leaky home law to award general damages as compensation for mental anxiety or stress. Justice Stevens went on to say: “In my judgment general damages claims for mental stress do not fit comfortably within the overall scheme of the legislation and its underlying policy considerations.” This judgment sets a precedent that impacts on existing adjudications under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 and the administration of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. 
Following the High Court decision the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said that the ability to award a range of general damages was simply carried over from the old Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act and that that had been working fine in this regard until the recent High Court decision. In other words the Minister was saying that the problem with this legislation was caused by the High Court. In reality the problem was the lax wording of the previous legislation. And what will the 2007 amendment do? It will clarify that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal can “make any order that a court of competent jurisdiction could make in relation to a claim in accordance with the principles of law.” and the order may include an award of general damages including those for mental anxiety or distress. The previous amendment was incorrectly thought to do this. In fact the Minister said during the first reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill in 2006 that the amendments allow homeowners to claim for a range of damages similar to those they would be able to claim in a court process. 
So now there are some questions that need to be asked. Firstly was the question of general damages considered during deliberations on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill in 2006? The answer is yes. But no change was considered necessary for several reasons. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 did not expressly exclude the power to award general damages for anxiety and stress. Two District Court appeal decisions made in 2005 had interpreted the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 as including such powers. Adjudicators had been making modest awards in some determinations and their ability to do so had been upheld in the District Court appeals. 
The second question is what the difference is between provisions in the Weathertight Homes Resolutions Services Act 2002 and the Weathertight Homes Resolutions Services Act 2006 regarding general damages. The answer is none. Both Acts claim the same provision—that an adjudicator may make an order that a court of competent jurisdiction could make in relation to a claim in accordance with principles of law. The new bill clarifies that the adjudicator’s order may include an award of general damages for mental anxiety or stress. 
The third question is how claimants have reacted to the Hartley judgment. Individual claimants have expressed their concern to the Minister and the Department of Building and Housing about the impact of the judgment on their claims. Some people suggested that an amendment be made to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act. Informal feedback from the Leaky Homes Action Group indicates that it supports the proposed change in legislation to clarify the situation regarding awarding of general damages. However it should not have to do that. We should have got it right the first time. The legislation should have been right the first time. 
The fourth question is what the implications are and for whom. There are 15000 leaky home owners identified. After 4 years only 10 percent of claims have been resolved. Things are so bad for the service that over the last year the number of claims it received was over three times the number it settled; over the last year it settled over 200 claims yet picked up 584 others. In fact here I could talk about Mrs Dicks and why she went through the courts to get resolution and closure. 
Finally should the homeowners have confidence in this legislation? When the original Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was set up the Government said that the problem would be resolved within 2 years. Four years later only 7 percent of claims have been resolved. If I were a leaky home owner I would want to see better statistics than that—in fact not just statistics; I would like to see action. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act has been a failure and this bill like the last one highlights Labour’s incompetence. Far from sorting through its backlog of cases the service’s active claims have increased by 330 over the last year. The average number of assessments completed each fortnight has dropped by 33 percent to 27 percent. The average number of resolved claims each fortnight has dropped by nearly half over the time to fewer than five per fortnight. 
It is no wonder the level of frustration amongst homeowners is extreme. As with the 2006 amendment the changes in this legislation are tinkering and will not solve the problem. But the legislation represents an opportunity to debate the issue—a debate we would like to enter. The Government is being incredibly optimistic that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service should substantively cease around 2021. At this rate it will take 7 years to clear just existing claims. A recent Cabinet paper quoted 15000 affected homes which would take 32 years at least to clear. The Weathertight Homes Tribunal will not be able to recapture claimants’ trust given this latest failure and given previous embarrassing remarks like “the seriousness of the situation appears to be a fraction of what the beat-up in the  
New Zealand Herald  
implies.” 
In that same month Jim Anderton said: “I am aware that while ‘leaky building syndrome’ or ‘weathertightness’ is a serious issue for those affected the numbers involved are not great.” The numbers may not be great but it is an important issue to those 15000 homeowners who deserve better. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this Weathertight Homes Resolution Service (Remedies) Amendment Bill to support the Minister who has brought it to our attention and to point out three key things. That man Mr Nick Smith stood in this House and poured some form of political hemlock upon the anguished souls who have been stood up and disappointed by the High Court. Our colleague has come here with a solution to reverse a decision of the High Court and to amplify the original intention in the legislation but Nick Smith refuses to support it. He goes one step further. He refers to a minority report that he sought to table on his understanding that it refers to some sort of prescient observation he made but I can tell members because I have it in front of me that it says nothing of the sort. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Table it. 
SHANE JONES 
: I seek leave to table that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: What is it? 
SHANE JONES 
: In the absence of any dissension I will table the National minority report in relation to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill that I have in front of me. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
The truth carries great weight. 
However I must turn my attention to Miss Judith Collins. In the context of fraternal relations at the Finance and Expenditure Committee I want to say that Bill English is absolutely right. Her ambitions and her pretensions are inversely related to talent. She has become lunar. She is trying to climb to the moon on a spider web to enjoy her ambitions. Not even Tobey Maguire would be capable of coping with her— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s a broomstick not a spider web. 
SHANE JONES 
: I stand corrected. 
However I come back to the bill. This bill goes over territory that was already addressed in the first attempt. Two lower courts upheld the purpose and the intention of the legislation. The High Court in a fit of enthusiasm wandered off into territory inversely related to the actual intention of this court—the highest court in the land—and it falls to the sovereignty of Parliament to correct some of the wayward ways of that particular part of the judiciary in the context of this bill which now remedies that situation. So there should not be a single person possessed of any thoughts of charity concern or compassion for the people who have suffered from this dreadful problem who would stand and oppose it. On the question of mental anxiety and other forms of distress listeners may very well need to make a claim based on what that man Mr Nick Smith said. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee 
referred to Social Services Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 18 June 2007 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of the House 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I put it to the House that Jill Pettis be the temporary Chair. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited andAsure New Zealand Limited) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 It is important that we focus just for a short time on Part 1 because I think members will want to know that the interpretation clause is very standard around animal material and animal products as with the Animal Products Act 1999. The board is not the board of Asure but that of AgriQuality Ltd and the official assurances are again those as given in the Animal Products Act. 
The shareholding Ministers will be the shareholding Ministers of AgriQuality Ltd as opposed to those of Asure although in the current circumstances they are the same Ministers—the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Crown who is from time to time responsible for AgriQuality Ltd. It has been the practice of previous Governments to have the Minister for State Owned Enterprises as the responsible Minister though I think it is fair to say that on occasions there have been debates around whether it is appropriate to have as with the Animal Health Board or with Learning Media different responsible Ministers and whether that Minister should be the Minister of Agriculture. The previous Government and this Government have taken decisions that having the State-owned enterprises as far as is practicable put together for these purposes is the right approach. 
Clause 4 provides that the Act will bind the Crown—it is the clause that causes the Act to bind the Crown. Clearly that is an important provision for this bill. There are important Crown powers and Crown responsibilities within this Act of Parliament and it is therefore important for the Act to bind the Crown. 
Without getting on to too much of the substance of the bill I say that the bill has been pretty fiercely contested and I am absolutely certain that the National Party will vote against even the interpretation clause—with not much point in doing so. But I think that section has gone through a thorough but intensive— 
Nathan Guy 
: Quick. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes but— 
Nathan Guy 
: It was a bit quick though Trevor. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I was going to say there is nothing wrong with being a bit quick. In this circumstance working pretty hard getting some work done doing a little bit of overtime getting up before half past 8 in the morning hearing some submissions balancing them out and coming out with an opinion on Part 1 is something that does not harm select committees. For select committees to work a little bit more than maybe some National Party members are used to doing—working in the mornings as well as in the afternoons—is something that I know is foreign to Mr Guy and some of his colleagues especially some of his colleagues who have been involved in this select committee. But that is something they have to— 
Nathan Guy 
: That’s a bit unfair. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think it is true. Mr Brownlee is hardly a bundle of energy in the morning is he? However I did notice—and excuse the diversion Mr Chairperson—that he seemed to be enjoying his work in the Commerce Committee a little bit more recently than he has done in the past. 
Darren Hughes 
: With the Major Events Management Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: With the Major Events Management Bill. I do not think I have ever seen a photo of a chair of a select committee in the  
Dominion Post  
with his tongue hung further out than Mr Brownlee’s was— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Except at breakfast. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think Bellamy’s and the  
Dominion Post  
are kind; they do not entertain us with photos of Mr Brownlee eating but they did entertain us with a photo of Mr Brownlee as chair of the Commerce Committee drooling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Come back to the bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In moving back to the bill I say that I do not think anyone could possibly drool over the interpretation section of this bill. It is a relatively standard run-of-the-mill animal products - type interpretation. Again I would find it hard if the National Party chose to vote against the fact that the bill binds the Crown. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. The National Party has some concerns about the bill. It was interesting to hear the Minister try to wind into us and say it was great to work hard on select committees. He said the Opposition members are a bit of a lazy lot on the Commerce Committee. I do not think that is fair. National has a concern that there has been a bit of a mad rush with this bill and I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why the Commerce Committee had to rush it through. 
In terms of clause 3 “Interpretation” it is important to realise that New Zealand’s processing plants have very very high-quality standards particularly with regard to animal products and animal material which are defined in this clause. Mr Locke will know that from being I think a former meat inspector. 
The National Party has a concern that if this bill goes through it will reduce competition and that will drive up the cost at the farm gate—it will drive up the cost for the purchaser at supermarkets and butchers shops. That is why National has concerns overall. I look forward to the Minister taking a call and letting us know why the bill was rushed through in this fashion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s in clause 2. We will get to that. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is right. I am just shadowing that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Foreshadowing. 
NATHAN GUY 
:—under Part 2 which is really the meat of this bill I know—[ 
Interruption 
] I hope Mr Mallard can take a call and let us know why we had to rush this bill through the select committee. 
The main thing under Part 1 is that this bill will raise some big concerns for people who are producing the animal material and the animal products. I am talking about farmers because they are up in arms about this legislation and particularly about how it will affect their costs which will go up. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 It is very strange to hear the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard filibustering on Part 1 of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill which is entitled “Preliminary provisions”. I was looking forward to his passionately explaining to us the significance of the definition “ ‘animal material’ has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Animal products Act 1999.” Was there some secret agenda to change that definition in the legislation? 
I think the definitions in the interpretation clause are very important. I particularly want to talk about the definition of “Board”. The bill states in clause 3 that “ ‘Board’ means the board of directors of AgriQuality Limited”. Speaking as one from a commercial background I know that usually when a board of directors is set up the shareholders give the board a lot of discretion to administer the affairs of the company. In an AGM situation shareholders indicate whether they are happy with the board emailing a range of strategic directions and a forecast. Usually shareholders expect a dividend rate and if they are not happy it is quite obvious and they sell their shares. 
But when the Government owns a company the authority of the board takes on a slightly different shape. Usually when a competent Government sets up a company it will give quite clear directions and expectations about what it wants the board to achieve. Then the directors will be left to chart their own course as long as they can deliver those directions and expectations which generally are set right out before the beginning of each year. 
That is what I think is really important. I am not too sure how the directors of the board of AgriQuality Ltd will feel after the passage of this legislation because Part 2 which we will be voting on shortly consists of many clauses that state what the shareholding Ministers can dictate to the directors. They can write to them and give them instructions. In effect when we get to the crux of it—and National members cannot wait to get to Part 2—it seems that the task of these directors will indeed be very difficult. The directions from the shareholding Ministers may sometimes put the directors almost in a position beyond where their standards of professional conduct might want to take them. Therefore I have a lot of sympathy for the position that existing and potential directors of AgriQuality Ltd may find themselves in. They will realise that their independence and professional expertise may be compromised by the passage of this legislation because Part 2 provides for the shareholding Ministers to have a lot of power to give directions to them. 
I was told by my caucus colleagues who are familiar with the rural sector like our very hard-working excellent junior whip Nathan Guy—the future member for Otakiand one of our very good members—that the existing directors of AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd are doing a good job. Mr Guy told me that they are doing a great job. They are competing with each other. They have broad directions given to them from the shareholding Ministers and they have the independence to do their best to serve these companies. Why are we doing this to them? 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am absolutely delighted to rise to take a call on this bill— 
Jill Pettis 
: You want to get out more Kate if this delights you. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I am actually grateful I say to Mrs Pettis that it has a long title which is the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no—we’re doing Part 1 not clause 1. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes I appreciate that we are doing Part 1. 
In relation to Part 1 I particularly want to talk about clause 4 because I think clause 4 is quite a telling clause. I know that it is simple and that it states: “This Act binds the Crown.” but as any student of law would know one of the first sections one goes to when attempting to read legislation that has been passed by this House is the section stating whether the Crown is bound by the legislation. So that clause is very important. 
The second most important section is usually the interpretation clause because again one needs to know whether the Act is applicable. 
In relation to the Act binding the Crown we have to go back to what the purpose of this legislation is—that is to reduce competition. The explanatory note of the bill states that the Government wishes to prevent this competition from occurring. So we can understand why this particular Government wants the Crown to be bound by this legislation. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.